Ultra Mystery...

[Hurley]

18 aaccHHNNmm x AACChhnnmm = AaCcHhNnmm (motleys het amel, caramel, hypo, anery)

19

aCCmm x aaccMM = aaCcMm,

aCcMm (amels het butter motley, ultramels het butter motley)

20

BBmm x AAbbMM = A

BbMm (normals het ultra, bloodred, motley)

21 aall x

LL =

aLl (Ultramels het lavender)

22

amm x

aMm = aaccMm, aaccMM,

aMm,

aMM,

Mm,

MM(Ultra, Ultra mot, Ultra caramel, Amel mot, Butter mot)

23

aNN x Aann = A

Nn, AaNn, aaNn,

aNn (Normals het anery and ultra or amel, amels, ultras)

 

[Serpwidgets]

If you get the chance to talk to Jim in person, see what you can find out about the Strawberry Hypo and Ultra connection.

Will try to remember that.

 

[Serpwidgets]

these sleepless nights are good for something... i guess.

here's a punnet square to go with the previous cross.

The results are good, but the parents in the caption should both have the same genotype.

I can't seem to figure out why we are throwing the Butter Motley out of the equation. Is it because he was possibly the result of an Ultramel X Ultramel? If this is the case, wouldn't his sister (the Ultra who was bred to the opal and produced all hypos) have produced some Amels?

Just to break it back down to the genes, if he came from:

a

X a

then the clutch (he and his siblings) should consist of:

aa = (true Amels)
a

= ("Ultramels")

= (true Ultrahypos)

In that case, you would expect some true butter motleys, and those individuals would not be able to produce true Ultra offspring no matter what you bred them to, because they don't carry the

gene.

 

[Hurley]

24

LL x aall =

aLl (Ultramels het lavender)

25 aaccmm x aaCcMM = aaCcMm, aaccMm (Amels het butter motley and Butters het motley)

26 aaccmm x AaCcMM = aaccMm, aaCcMm, AaccMm, [AaCcMm] (Amels het butter motley, caramels het butter motley, butters het motley, [and normals het butter motley?])


(Sorry, had to split it up for the gif of au.)

The numbers correspond to the spreadsheet numbers in blue.

 

[Rich Z]

Well, Kat you beat me to it, but I think that Rich is toying with us and setting us up for something.

No, not at all. I am trying to assimilate the terminology being discussed here with what I have seen in the animals I have bred to try to use that to bring order out of chaos. We are discussing theories. I am looking at facts that I have seen here coming out of eggs and trying to reconcile the two in my head. I want to make sure I am on solid footing before looking at other *problems* I have seen using what we are discussing here.

If I have an Ultra and an Ultramel laying side by side, what visual differences will there be between the two?

Yeah, maybe I sound like I'm braindead, but actually I am. Not at all unusual for this time of year...... My brain normally doesn't grow back until around mid October, so bear with me until then.

 

[Hurley]

I can't help out on the difference in look between an ultra and an ultramel, but I'm very interested in seeing some pics.

I was just thinking about something I'd said earlier about wanting to see snows out of my presumed ultra ghost and them being colorful. Then Joe added that Don's coral snows were from the same lines...

OK, now that my brain has kicked in I see a problem with my previous line of thinking.

Scenario 1 - The ultra ghost I have (and the strawberry hypos of Jim's that produce those awesome coral snows) isn't (aren't) an ultra at all since a snow from an ultra by the current theory wouldn't have ultra in it.

Scenario 2 - It isn't ultra at all leading to those coral snows, but either another hypo (God save us) or hypo A with the planets aligned towards outrageous color.

Scenario 3 - 1st chink in the ultra/amel allele theory.

Hopefully we can get a chat in with Jim tomorrow at Sewerfest.

I tried to go back and look again at the pics of the coral snow and coral ghost that Don posted but his server is currently down (at least to me). I'll try again later.

Hey Don, what's the history on those guys again?

 

[Serpwidgets]

If I have an Ultra and an Ultramel laying side by side, what visual differences will there be between the two?

My guess is that the Ultra will look pretty much like a hypo, maybe a bit more hypo than typical, and maybe with ruby-like eyes. It seems like the Ultramels should have an intermediate appearance, somewhere between a hypo and an amel.

IMO this could be the biggest hurdle for us... coming up with ID methods. I think a good start would be to compare phenotypes with what babies they threw (especially whether or not they threw amels.) I think we'll start finding connections that way.

 

[Menhir]

Perhaps it's time for a posting I already wanted to write some pages ago.

While studying, I've learned one important thing about theories, learning and understanding. When you can understand the simple pieces of a theorie, you can use this to handle complex theories and scenarios. This is e.g. one imortant aspect in the calssification of patterns - try to bring a complex pattern into simple and understandable patterns, solve the small problems and then conquer the big one.

Where we are drifting now is the fact, and I hope no one feels offended, that everyone seems to show his genetic knowledge by solving complex problems, but not being shure about the fundamental pieces yet.

Imho, it doesn't bring us any further to think again and again about animals that came from XY where ZX could have also Hypo bred into it and so on. I also don't see some kind of sense in Hurleys huge collection of phenotypes. It's nice to read it, but the result is, what brings the bloodred thread back into my mind, a HUGE thread where in the end, nearly no one will understand what we are talking about.

SerpWidgets collection proofs, that until now, nothing speaks against Amel and Ultra beeing allels. I would vote for keeping it as simple as possible by breedig Ultra to homo Amel and proof whats hatching. And while doing this, we should also try to produce hatchlings, that are Ultras and Ultramels. With this animals we could test the "look" thing by breeding it back to an Amel (Ultras should produce Ultras, Ultramels should produce Amels and Ultramels).

These are imho the 2 fundamental things to solve the problem of a) allels b) phenotype. And after making clear what comes out of this, I would try making clear, what animals are on the way, what can be Ultras and Ultramels and how can that be tested.

If any of this 2 things have already been done, please post it and let's start there.

So, that's what I wanted to say - and please keep the language barrier in mind - so, think of an behind every sentence :wavey:

 

[elaphe4herps]

You seem to be doing great with your English Menhir All I wanted to say is I completely agree with Menhir!

We should get the ultra X amel crosses (without other hets) just to see what a true ultramel looks like. Then possibly breed that same ultra to a normal to get some visual ultras which aren't really true ultras in the fact that they aren't homozygous for the

gene.

And finally, if i were to do these breedings, I would breed ultra X ultramel (maybe Deathy:shrugs and expect to see half of the hatchlings ultamel and half true ultras.

I say without other hets and mutations because things like motley and stuff tend to skew the phenotype of the hatchlings, just making it harder for us to decide whether or not these creatures are half amel half hypo or just regular hypo. :cheers:

Oh PS - Hurley- good job translating the previous breeding trials. I thought about doing that, then I decided not to. It should help a bit because now we can see if what we expected actually hatched.

PPS - Serp - I fixed the genotype in the parent's caption on the punnet square .

 

[elaphe4herps]

Hurley, just wondering if the genotypes in the paranthesis by your allelic equations on the last page and above are the expected outcome or the acutal outcome. I am assuming that it is the expected outcome, and also hoping it is because going back through and looking at the acutal VS. expected, they all pretty much match.

But Jason's Opal X Ultra breeding makes me wonder just what does the ultramel look like? He says the hatchlings he got were darker than the normal ultra, but we were expecting a snake lighter and more amelanistic-like than the ultra, yet supposedly he was to get all ultramels as hatchlings. Could it be the lavender in the mix? But still, it should be like a mix between an Opal and a Hypo Lav.

There are a few instances where breeding an ultra to a morph of amel yeilded ultras, but they should actually be labelled as ultramels, like shiver's ultra het caramel X amel het motley breeding.
Also, Rich's breeding of Blood Red... hopefully the bloodred was actually het amel. Are there any other breedings that you have with that female blood Rich that would guarantee it NOT being het for amel? If not, then assuming the blood was het amel and the partner was a golddust (ultramel caramel?), the hatchlings in the pic are expected: Normals het blood het caramel het ultramel, Normals het blood het ultramel het caramel, Amels het blood and caramel , ultramels het blood and caramel. Or 50% normals, 25% amel and 25% ultramels (which you thought were hypos).

 

[Hurley]

It's a good plan, in fact a great one....but who is the one out there with a pure ultra, no hets? I think this upcoming year there should definitely be an attempt to cross ultra purely to amel, I know there are people out there with amels that have been tested not het hypo--good start. I'd love to see the testing of such a cross, it'll help prove/disprove the theory. That's where we are now. We have a working theory that seems to fit the data presented.

In the ideal world we wouldn't have the other genes mixed in, we'd all have pairs of pure one-gene corns sitting on the shelf waiting for a chance to be used as testers, we would have started with ultra popping up by itself and tested it out before it got all mixed in with caramel, motley, amel, hypo and the lot. Unfortunately, we've got to work with what we've got. Makes it more fun, I guess. Looking back at the spreadsheet, there are several crosses where ultra has been crossed with snakes that have no reason to ever have ultra in their backgrouds.

What do we need to cross? Well, I'd like:
Ultra x amel
Ultramel x amel
Ultra x normal
Ultra x het amel
Ultramel x het amel
And what I'd think would prove it: Breed an ultramel to a normal (no hets), get all normals, test cross the F1's to find they are all either carrying amel or ultra, but not both. Unfortunately this takes generations and a lot of back crossing of a lot of individuals...but it'd nail it. Preferably this cross would be started with proven non-hypo A carrying individuals.

On the note of crossing to a pure amel...look at the opal cross (24). No lavs popped out on that one, so the ultra isn't het lav and ultra isn't allelic to lav. It becomes a non-player and seems to have no influence. That leaves this cross as a "pure" ultra x amel...the cross we're wanting to do (and still should). Ultra x amel = all ultramels. No amels, that individual isn't het amel...hey, the perfect male to cross on some plain hypo-less amel.

And ultra motley crossed to a bloodred gave no bloods and no motleys, so here's your ultra x normal crossing. Result = all normals. It's not dominant or codominant to normal. That leaves us with pure recessive and/or allelic to a known trait.

We need an ultra x normal het amel, I don't see one here. Expected results: Normals and ultras.

We need an ultramel x amel as well. I suspect there was that cross in shivers ultra x butters and caramels, but he didn't give full info.

ultramel x het amel - ultra caramel x caramel motley het amel (14). Drop the caramel, they both have it and it doesn't effect the gene (19). Motley has already had no effect in other crosses, so the result is an ultramel (since butters and amel mots were produced) x a het amel. Results were amels and ultras as well as non-amel/ultras.

It's not compatible with hypo A (13,16), sunkissed (2), or lava (3), bloodred (20), lavender (16,24), anery (23), caramel (19), motley (19, 20,23). Guess we need to cross it on charcoal to be sure, but most of the genes are represented in the body of evidence so far.

In every instance where an ultra has been bred to an amel or het amel, ultras have resulted (4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24).

I fully agree, we need to do the test crosses to prove we can get what we think we should...but if you look at the data and interpret it, most of the info is there.

 

[Hurley]

"Hurley, just wondering if the genotypes in the paranthesis by your allelic equations on the last page and above are the expected outcome or the acutal outcome. I am assuming that it is the expected outcome, and also hoping it is because going back through and looking at the acutal VS. expected, they all pretty much match. "

Gotta run, so I need to respond to the rest later. The parantheses include results that either weren't mentioned or weren't achieved, but would be expected.

Problem with the sheet as it stands is not everyone gave complete info. I don't have everything in every clutch, many just gave the important players and didn't add in the normals, amels, or whatever. I'll change the sheet as people correct it. If there were amels from that ultra x blood cross, than yeah, it's an ultramel x blood het amel cross. Anyone with complete info on the crosses PM me or post, I'll change the sheet as info is presented to me.

 

[huneymonkey]

Thanks Serp for helping me understand the Butter Motley situation. If you had asked me a week ago if I knew alot about cornsnakes, my reply would be "I know a great deal about them". Since this topic has come up I realize how little I know. In the meantime I am with Rich and I think I will wait for that idiots guide to come around so I can keep up while we travel down the rabbit hole.

The Opal X Ultra babies should shed in another day or two, and I will post pics of them as soon as they do.

 

[Clint Boyer]

I have a feeling there are others out there working with this very issue. I just wonder if they've come to some of these same conclusions?

Jim at SWR has some interesting projects that I had hoped to hear about by now.

There was a fella I met at the Puyallup Wa show that had what he called T+, I wonder how that is progressing?

I'm sure there is a lot more info out there, we just need to try to get them involved here!

 

[Clint Boyer]

Can someone break down the required genetics of Rich's Goldust X Bloodred?

This one has me baffled.

Rich's Goldust MUST be Ultramel, correct?

Would the Bloodred het for amel be enough to produce Ultramels (which would be the apparent hypos?)

I guess that makes sense, it seems to be coming to me SLOWLY!

Say Rich, you got a pic of that Goldust?

 

[Menhir]

I'm on your side Hurley, I also think that there are enough breedings in this sheet to proof what we are looking for. But to me it seams, that there are enough people left that want another proof. So that's why I mentioned keeping it simple...

Bringing new thoughts or infos to the people is easier when staying with simple, easy to handle examples than giving all the knowledge you have, but only a few people can understand it. And I bet, there are enough users that gave up the whole thing after 2 or 3 sites - although the co-dominant thing is pretty simple.

I don't have any problems with analizing all the results and pairings in the sheets or discuss all the phenotypes etc. but it would be more comfortable to somehow divide that from the general discussion about Ultra and Amel beeing Allels, don't you think?

@Clint Richs Golddust x Bloodred should genetically look like:
Ultramel X Bloodred het. Amel

...but again, under the thesis that they are allels and so on...

 

[Rich Z]

Say Rich, you got a pic of that Goldust?

Yup!:

BTW, that Blood Red used in the breeding with this male was a virgin. This was the first year she was bred to anything.

BTW, I hope no one was offended that I am trying to pull the speculation in this thread down to baby step levels. The house looks grand, but I'm worried about the foundation being weak.

 

[Menhir]

The house looks grand, but I'm worried about the foundation being weak.

Thats what I wanted to say - just that native speakers seem to be able to pack it into one tiny sentence ~hehehe~ :crazy02:

 

[ecreipeoj]

I can't seem to figure out why we are throwing the Butter Motley out of the equation.

Actually, it is very simple if the theory is true. It would be impossible to get a Double Homo Ultra and Amel because they are on the same allele. The only possible combination would be Het Ultra and Amel which is the visual Ultramel. Shivers, Panichi, yourself and everybody else would assume that a Butter from an Ultra X Ultra, breeding would be Homo Ultra by the old rules, but if this theory is correct it is just impossible.

If the Butter has pink eyes, then I would say that it is a plain old Butter and is not an Ultramel Caramel. It is very out crossed from other Butters and is very desirable, but the Ultra gene in not there. Your breedings with this Butter Motley produced the exact results that you would expect from a normal Butter.

It would seem like these extreme Ultras that we have been looking at for the last year are the Ultramels. They are very close to the appearance of an Amel, but do not have pink eyes. I have always wondered why some Ultras, like the ones that Falcon and Roylance have, did not look like the extreme Ultras. I thought that there were two different hypos being called “Ultras“. The current theory answers my question.

The added Caramel gene that Shivers added and created has everybody’s attention, because they are so much more yellow than Ambers. Which are Ultra Caramels, Ultramel Caramels, Homo Ultra and Hypo Caramels, Homo Ultramel and Hypo Caramels? The added Hypo gene makes the identification of this morphs much more difficult. I am sure that it will help confuse the issue without the Caramel gene in the mix as well.

The eyes are beginning to confuse me. The Adult Corns that I believe are Ultramels have fairly normal looking eyes and this is how we can tell them from an amel. They all happen to be Motleys too. Kats and Don’s seem to me to be Ultramel Motleys. At least they look like amels at first glance and not hypos. Where are the plain old Ultramel adults? Did they just get sold off as Space Garbage as hypos or Amels? Many of the hatchlings from the breedings that are being reported seem to have ruby eyes or blue eyes with a ruby pupils. Do they darken up when they become adults or is there a gene that is causing the eye color separate from the Ultra gene, like ruby eyed Lavenders.

I have emailed a few people to try to get more information. Roylance responded and only has one Ultra female and has never bred it to an Amel or Het Amel. The photos attached are of his Ultra Corn. It looks like other Ultras to me and is not the Amel impersonator Ultramel. I sent emails to Shivers and Falcon. Falcon read it, but has not responded yet.

 

[ecreipeoj]

I was just thinking about something I'd said earlier about wanting to see snows out of my presumed ultra ghost and them being colorful. Then Joe added that Don's coral snows were from the same lines...

OK, now that my brain has kicked in I see a problem with my previous line of thinking.

Scenario 1 - The ultra ghost I have (and the strawberry hypos of Jim's that produce those awesome coral snows) isn't (aren't) an ultra at all since a snow from an ultra by the current theory wouldn't have ultra in it.

Scenario 2 - It isn't ultra at all leading to those coral snows, but either another hypo (God save us) or hypo A with the planets aligned towards outrageous color.

Scenario 3 - 1st chink in the ultra/amel allele theory.

Hopefully we can get a chat in with Jim tomorrow at Sewerfest.

Don’s “Coral” Snows that are so awesome could be Ultramel Snows or from a different Hypo line altogether. They are from the same line as your Screamer Ghost that you posted though.

Just because Jim called his Strawberry Hypos, “Ultras” at one time does not mean that they are compatible with the Ultras we are talking about. I traded emails with Jim and talked to him on the phone about it. He was a little vague about some of my questions. The story behind the Strawberry Hypos is that he obtained them from a Zoo. I think it was the Cincinnati Zoo, but I am not sure. I would have to find my notes on the conversation.

The story behind the Strawberry Hypo and Ultra Hypos do not match at all and they could in fact be a new hypo that happen to be called the same thing for awhile. Does this scare some people? I think a year ago everybody thought that many of the Common Named Hypos would match up, but we are seeing that there are more hypo genes out there than we expected. I am beginning to lean on the side of most of these Common Named Hypos not being compatible at least the ones with a good story behind them.

There are still other hypo test breedings from the Hypo Test Breeding Project to come in. Some have already hatched and the breeder wants to report the results. He is waiting for them to shed. The one that has hatched are Lava X Christmas. There are still a lot of test breedings between Strawberry’s, Lavas, Ultras, Sunkissed and Standard Hypos that have not hatched yet that will be very interesting when they do.