Ultra vs Ultramel . . .

[SODERBERGD]

I'm finding that the visual distinction between ultra and ultramel is not always clear. Here is a brood of snakes from what I thought were ultramel motley X ultramel motley. Obviously, one of the parents is actually an ultra since there were no amels in the lot. It is very hard to distinguish between the adults of this 'morph' sometimes. The two parents are remarkably alike. I would have sworn they were both ultramel motlies. I'll post images of the parents later.

If color intensity is the most reliable way to tell an ultra hatchling from an ultramel hatchling, I obviously have some ultras and many ultramels. If these babies are an indication of how subtly different ultras and ultramels are as neonates, we're in for a bumpy ride. I say this because when you see the parents, you'll swear they're both ultramels. Hence, I suspect that some of the lighter ones in this bunch are actually ultras, even though they are light colored like ultramels. I'll get some close-ups of their eyes to see if we can see differences there.

Don
www.cornsnake.NET

 

[Kat]

Hey Don,

I've personally hatched light and dark ultramels (and light and dark golddusts) from an ultramel motley X butter motley pairing. I don't think we can depend on color intensity in the least to determine ultra vs. ultramel, though eye-color at hatch time/first shed might be a clue.

-Kat

 

[SODERBERGD]

Agreed, but . . .

Hey Don,

I've personally hatched light and dark ultramels (and light and dark golddusts) from an ultramel motley X butter motley pairing. I don't think we can depend on color intensity in the least to determine ultra vs. ultramel, though eye-color at hatch time/first shed might be a clue.

-Kat

Those really dark ones must be ultras. I know the "debaters" out there will protest such a definitive statement, but I'm sticking with it for now. It's just that the 'tweeners' will need to be sold as ultramels. As you say, hopefully "the eyes have it". A closer look may help. :shrugs: It's pretty scary to think we'll have to sell all such progeny as ultramels because they can't be visually identified at hatch.

 

[Arcanefate]

I had a clutch in March with no Amels produced from an Ultramel Motley x Ultramel Motley. I was hoping for some Ultras, but it appeared they were all Ultramels. Their eye color seems to all be the same, but there are some hatchlings with a "deeper" red coloration and others that are just "brighter".

Now that they have had several months to shed I notice the brighter ones have lost their grey/tan background color completely and even their saddles have reduced in color.
I am guessing that the ones with the darker red saddles and grey background are the Ultras, but they still don't appear to be much different from the Ultramels. Is it possible to have a whole clutch hatch without Amels and Ultras?

 

[stephen]

ultras & ultramels

I dont think we will be able to tell the difference,I have a ultramel adult and she has black eyes, also have a adult with ruby pupils so from the breedings I have done shows they vary alot! Here is 3 pics of ultramel lavenders my camera dont pick up there color very well but the are all three different shades

 

[Serpwidgets]

Thanks for starting this thread Don! This has been brought up in questions, such as "does golddust mean ultramel or ultra? Or is it both?" I have been telling people it's likely that we will simply have to use it for both because we won't necessarily be able to tell. It's good to see some real life examples of that to back up the idea.

IMO unless/until we can find an accurate way to positively ID ultras versus ultramels at hatching, it is going to be necessary to do exactly as Don suggests, and put the "ultramel" (or a similar) tag onto anything that could be either genotype. The "Ultra" tag would then mean specifically that the snake is positively homozygous for ultra.

Given this information, I think the relationship between ultra and amel would be better described by saying that ultra is dominant to amel, instead of describing them as codominant to each other... after all, two codominant alleles allow for three phenotypes and we are only really finding two, which is indicative of a dominant/recessive relationship. :cheers:

 

[Arcanefate]

Given this information, I think the relationship between ultra and amel would be better described by saying that ultra is dominant to amel, instead of describing them as codominant to each other... after all, two codominant alleles allow for three phenotypes and we are only really finding two, which is indicative of a dominant/recessive relationship. :cheers:

But does this mean we are getting both Ultra and Ultramel from these breedings even though it can be nearly impossible to identify the two different phenotypes?

If Ultra is dominant to Amel, but combining the two creates 100% offspring that have a discreet appearance that would suggest a 50/50 medley of the two, why can we not then separate the Ultras from Ultramels from a breeding of two Ultramels?

Would the Amelanism that is now mixed into the genotype be creating a difference in the appearance in the Ultras coming from such a breeding? Such as when Caramel has been mixed into the breedings of some other morphs and creating an identifiable yellow coloration even though the animal is only heterozygous. Would the fact that Amel is now present in those Ultras be causing a phenotype difference from a "pure" (so to speak :grin01: ) Ultra?

 

[panda]

On topic, I hope

Is there anyway to determine if the off spring of an ultramel to a normal got the amel gene or the Ultra gene? I think the answer is no, but I read a post about genes bleeding over to nearby genes in some reptiles. Here are two ultrmaels, both with ruby eyes. One is from a Okettee line and the other from a Serpenco caramel het amel. The difference is remarkable, considering the Ultramel from the caramel line is only het for caramel.

 

[CornCrazy]

panda...that's the same snake

 

[panda]

The Caramel Line

Opps Here it is.

 

[Joejr14]

If Ultra is dominant to Amel, but combining the two creates 100% offspring that have a discreet appearance that would suggest a 50/50 medley of the two, why can we not then separate the Ultras from Ultramels from a breeding of two Ultramels?

Would the Amelanism that is now mixed into the genotype be creating a difference in the appearance in the Ultras coming from such a breeding? Such as when Caramel has been mixed into the breedings of some other morphs and creating an identifiable yellow coloration even though the animal is only heterozygous. Would the fact that Amel is now present in those Ultras be causing a phenotype difference from a "pure" (so to speak :grin01: ) Ultra?

Ultra is not dominant to amel, it's codominant. You can seperate them by breeding a pair of ultramels together and getting 3 different phenotypes. They might look similar, but when you have pairings of suspecting ultramels x ultramels and you don't get any amels time after time, you have an ultra genotype.

Ultras do not have amel in the genotype, so no, nothing from that gene is affecting the snake. It's totally different than snakes that are het caramel.

The only two phenotypes are ultra and ultramel. Nothing more.

 

[Joejr14]

Okay, I skipped a lot of the thread. Reading back, if you wanted to say that ultra is dominant to amel, that's fine. However, you can't say that 'ultras look different because amel is involved', because that just makes no sense.

You can't have 'ultras' if the snake is het for amel.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Is there anyway to determine if the off spring of an ultramel to a normal got the amel gene or the Ultra gene? I think the answer is no, but I read a post about genes bleeding over to nearby genes in some reptiles. Here are two ultrmaels, both with ruby eyes. One is from a Okettee line and the other from a Serpenco caramel het amel. The difference is remarkable, considering the Ultramel from the caramel line is only het for caramel.

Keep in mind, if you breed an anery to an Okeetee and the same anery to a SerpenCo caramel het amel, the normal offspring from the two clutches are likely going to look very different. I think that's what you're seeing in that case.

As far as determining whether the amel or ultra gene was inherited form an ultramel X normal cross, the only way is through breeding trials.

Ultra is not dominant to amel, it's codominant.

That's what seems to have been revealed in this thread, they are not codominant to each other, Ultra is dominant to amel. :nyah:

 

[carol]

That would make a lot more sense. I have been curious why Ultramel Anerys don't quite look the way I would imagine them. I guess with no other morphs involved, it's hard to tell. However, if they were co-dominant, I would expect an Ultramel Anery to look like something between an Ultra Anery and a Snow. Likewise, I would expect an Ultramel Lav to look like a cross between an Ultra Lav and an Opal. In all the pics I've seen as well as animals in person, this hasn't been the case. I was scratching my head over it, but your explanation makes perfect sense. :cheers:

 

[Joejr14]

That's what seems to have been revealed in this thread, they are not codominant to each other, Ultra is dominant to amel. :nyah:

I missed that the first time around.

However, this statement makes no sense:

Would the Amelanism that is now mixed into the genotype be creating a difference in the appearance in the Ultras coming from such a breeding?

If we're now saying that ultras and ultramels have the same phenotype, then it contradicts the above.

Either way, codominant or dominant, you can't have 'ultras' if the amel gene is present, so amelanism would have ZERO effect in ultras since that's not possible.

 

[El Jefe]

I think the ultra vs ultramel thing is going to be a lot like the boa world and the salmon (hypo) and super salmons. When you have that litter you KNOW some are super salmons...but which ones? So, people start selling them as probable super salmon but most won't guarantee it. I think with the ultramel and ultra people will have to do the same. Unless it is a proven ultra, I think it will be at best a good educated guess. May take a few years to pick the ultras out, breed them, and then see if the indicators as hatchlings prove out correct.

 

[Arcanefate]

If we're now saying that ultras and ultramels have the same phenotype, then it contradicts the above.

Either way, codominant or dominant, you can't have 'ultras' if the amel gene is present, so amelanism would have ZERO effect in ultras since that's not possible.

I do not see how it is a contradiction.

If you start with an Ultra and you mix it with Amel and you get a complete combination of the two, Ultramel, that look definitively different from the original Ultra and Amel, then separating an Ultra back out of this breeding should create Ultras that look like the original parent.
So, by default, you must agree that the Ultras that cannot be separated from the Ultramels out of the F2 have some gene that is now changing their phenotype so that they are nearly (if at all) indistinguishable from their siblings. Otherwise why don't those F2 Ultras look anything like the original Ultra used to create the line? Or, why do they at least not look different from the Ultramels also being created.

There must be something there creating this new change in the Ultras, but the only addition (that we know of) is the Amel gene.

Where then does that leave us? Do we now have, out of the F2, Ultramels and Ultras? Do we have Ultramels and Ultramels? Do we have Ultramels and an Unknown? Or do we have Ultramels and Ultras that have a new appearance that has somehow been altered by the addition of Amel to the line?

 

[ecreipeoj]

I do not believe that Ultra is dominant over Amel, but I would go with variable co-dominant like Bloods are to Normals, which would also make the identifcation of Ultras and Ultramel siblings difficult.

I bred an Ultramel Motley het Caramel (Kat’s Deathy) X Caramel het Ultra this year. Two good sized clutches hatched with no Amels in either one, so the Caramel het Ultra proved out. I was able to pick out some “obvious” Ultramels, but I did have trouble telling some of them apart. Some did have black eyes, while others had ruby eyes. The ones with black eyes, also had more dark pigment, especially when you compare their belly checkers side by side. I have only seen these two clutches that contained both Ultras and Ultramels, so that is not much to go on, but I am not convinced yet, that Ultra is dominant over Amel, but I do agree that it can me very difficult to tell them apart, so I would vote for variable co-dominant.

I do not think it is a good idea to use the same name for two Corns that are different genetically, even if they look extremely similar. Accepted Trade Names, also have an accepted genetic make up as well. I have adult Ultra Caramel Motley and Goldust Motleys (Ultramel Caramel Motley) that look different. I can see that some could look very similar, but genetically they are different and when bred to Amels one will produce Ultramels and Ultras, while the other will produce Ultramels and Amels.

I guess if it does prove out that Ultras are dominant over Amel it would be better go go with Goldust as Ultra Caramels and then use Goldust het amel for known Ultramel based morphs.

 

[gwb8568]

i just wish i knew how to understand any post in this thread. :headbang:

 

[Serpwidgets]

I do not think it is a good idea to use the same name for two Corns that are different genetically, even if they look extremely similar.

If ultra is dominant (or sufficiently dominant) over amel then there are only two phenotypes and the name "Ultramel" for a phenotype becomes obsolete. Since there is no distinct phenotype for ultramel, the trade name of golddust being applied to ultra caramels and ultramel caramels, is the same thing as applying the same trade name for butter motley and butter motley het stripe. Or the same thing as calling a normal and a normal het amel "normals" even though they are different genotypes.

If you wanted to specify, you could use "golddust het amel" or "golddust (ultramel)" or "golddust het butter" or that type of thing.