• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Ultra vs Ultramel . . .

Arcanefate said:
I do not see how it is a contradiction.
Click to expand...
It was formerly believed that there were three phenotypes, until this thread. What has been said here is that there are only two consistently identifiable phenotypes.

Maybe I'm totally reading your posts wrong, but the question you are now asking is "what if there are three phenotypes?" and wording it as if this is some new unexplored possibility. :shrugs:
 
Serpwidgets said:
It was formerly believed that there were three phenotypes, until this thread. What has been said here is that there are only two consistently identifiable phenotypes.

Maybe I'm totally reading your posts wrong, but the question you are now asking is "what if there are three phenotypes?" and wording it as if this is some new unexplored possibility. :shrugs:
Click to expand...
You almost had it correct.
I am asking what if there are only the two not the three phenotypes? Then, that would make sense to say that Ultra is in some manner dominant to Amel. But JoeJr worded it that I was contradicting the known fact that Ultras ARE co-dominant to Amel.

So... with the possibility that Ultra is dominant to Amel, my question is...
can amelanism affect the appearance of Ultras extracted from an Ultramel breeding without the snake being homozygous for amel (Ultramel)?
 
To further complicate this mess, please note that it appears that all of the original "Ultra Hypo" stock animals I got from Mike Falcon are at least het for 'A' Hypomelanism as well. I do not have all of that stock remaining, but from past breeding trials I did, and recalling the results I got, some of them were most certainly homozygous for 'A' Hypomelanism as well as "Ultra". This is what threw me for a loop originally because I KNOW at some point I bred Ultra to a Hypo (I believe an Amber, if I remember correctly), and got ALL Hypomelanistics as a result. So my assumption was that they were ALL just an interesting forum of regular Hypomelanism and didn't think much more about it. Until later developments involving the GoldDusts changed the playing field. :rolleyes:

So, it would not surprise me in the least if many of the GoldDusts wind up in the same situation with regular 'A' Hypomelanism floating around in that gene pool as well.
 
Arcanefate said:
So... with the possibility that Ultra is dominant to Amel, my question is...
can amelanism affect the appearance of Ultras extracted from an Ultramel breeding without the snake being homozygous for amel (Ultramel)?
Click to expand...

How can a gene that is not being expressed and not there AT ALL have any affect on the appearance of a snake? The question just makes no sense at all. Amelanism can't effect recovered ultras from ultramel breeding because the gene is not there at all.

If you're asking whether or not outcrossing and then breeding offspring back to recover ultra can have an effect, then sure, but amel doesn't play into that.
 
Joejr14 said:
How can a gene that is not being expressed and not there AT ALL have any affect on the appearance of a snake? The question just makes no sense at all. Amelanism can't effect recovered ultras from ultramel breeding because the gene is not there at all.

If you're asking whether or not outcrossing and then breeding offspring back to recover ultra can have an effect, then sure, but amel doesn't play into that.
Click to expand...
I only ask about recovering Ultras from a breeding of two Ultramels. If the only gene you are adding to the mix is Amel, then why DO those Ultras look significantly different to the original Ultra and almost identical to the Ultramels? They DO NOT express Amel, but have a different appearance. What else, other than Amel, are you genetically adding that would have changed their appearance to the point that you can no longer identify which are the Ultras?
 
I 100% admit to having skimmed as I just got back in town from a long weekend of hunting (didn't get anything) . . . I saw no mention of sexual influence on the lightness of the expressed ultra's (similar to M/F ghosts and hypo lavs) . . . anything there?

D80
 
Drizzt80 said:
I 100% admit to having skimmed as I just got back in town from a long weekend of hunting (didn't get anything) . . . I saw no mention of sexual influence on the lightness of the expressed ultra's (similar to M/F ghosts and hypo lavs) . . . anything there?

D80
Click to expand...
Not that I have noticed on any of my clutches.
 
It occurred to me that I ought to repost these photos in this thread...

The snakes pictured are ALL 100% siblings, ALL females, and ALL Ultramels (cannot be ultras due to amel motley siblings).

Color in Ultra/Ultramels does not appear to be sex-linked, and I've yet to see evidence that you can really depend on color darkness to differentiate ultras and ultramels. Eye color at hatching? Maybe. Pattern color? No.

-Kat
 

Attachments

  • umhstr1.jpg
    umhstr1.jpg
    93.1 KB · Views: 141
  • umhstr2.jpg
    umhstr2.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 140
  • umhstr3.jpg
    umhstr3.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 140
Since we are showing pics now ;) I thought I would add mine.

Parents were 2 Ultramel Motleys.
I was told they were F1 from a Hypo Ultra het Motley/Stripe x Amel Motley possible het stripe. The breeder said 2 kinds of Hypomelanism were involved potentially (hence why he stilled called them Hypo Ultra instead of just Ultra). I have not proven the unknown Hypo portion yet, but some of these hatchlings are very bright and excessively red with little to no borders.

These are all siblings, 5 males and 3 females. No Amels were produced and I am completely unable to tell by the eyes or color which are Ultra, which is why I asked so many questions in this thread about Ultra being dominant to Amel.

Two Females
c5ea1c6d.jpg


Pic w/ 2 Females, 1 Male, and a Charcoal Female for contrast. (Female #2 didn't want to stay in the shot)
bf41f05a.jpg

8a079439.jpg


Female
d1d1610e.jpg


Male
568f7e39.jpg


Female
d1dabd78.jpg


Female
UM01063M.jpg


Male
UM10064M.jpg
 
ultra hypo

Just to let you know I bought a ultra/hypo at a show last year bred it to a couple different amel females and didnt get no ultramels,so it wasnt a ultra,have you bred your ultramel motley to a amel to see for sure it is a ultramel? You know, they dont have any certain look and the only way to tell is through breeding trials.How are you certain they are ultramel and not just hypo? :shrugs:
 
stephen said:
Just to let you know I bought a ultra/hypo at a show last year bred it to a couple different amel females and didnt get no ultramels,so it wasnt a ultra,have you bred your ultramel motley to a amel to see for sure it is a ultramel? You know, they dont have any certain look and the only way to tell is through breeding trials.How are you certain they are ultramel and not just hypo? :shrugs:
Click to expand...
No, Not yet.
This is their first year breeding and I was hoping to create a few Ultra Motleys from the clutch. I have only one female Amel Motley het Caramel, but she is not old enough yet to breed. I do have a Hypo that I can test them on next year though.
I do not believe they have the eye color of a Hypo however. I could be wrong, as I only have the Hypo A, but aren't all Hypo eyes dark?
 
Those pictures don't scream 'ultra' or 'ultramel' to me, in fact, I think they look like hypo A mots myself.

I'd be very careful about selling those hatchlings as ultramel mots until you prove them out, especially since your breeding resulted in NO amels. While it's possible to not get any amels from that breeding, I'd say the chances are higher that both your adults are simply hypo A mots.
 
Ok, I'm still trying to get a handle on the genetics, so I might be wrong, but I think I know what Joe was trying to say in this post.

Joejr14 said:
Quote:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The contradiction is that the amel gene can not have any possible influence on a snake that is homo ultra because both the ultra gene and the amel gene reside on the same allele. So, an animal homo for ultra couldn't be het amel do to the fact that in order to be het amel there would have to be at least one amel gene on the same allele that is already occupied by 2 ultra genes. Once you pair one ultra gene with one amel gene the animal is then defined as an ultramel as opposed to being an ultra.

There are only 3 possible combinations for the ultra x amel gene AA, AB, or BB.

I think that is how those two genes work. Please do correct me if I am wrong because I'd really like to expand the little knowlegde of snake genetics that I've been trying to learn.

Jenn

*Sinking back into the shadows now*
 
Mrs InsaneOne said:
Ok, I'm still trying to get a handle on the genetics, so I might be wrong, but I think I know what Joe was trying to say in this post.


The contradiction is that the amel gene can not have any possible influence on a snake that is homo ultra because both the ultra gene and the amel gene reside on the same allele. So, an animal homo for ultra couldn't be het amel do to the fact that in order to be het amel there would have to be at least one amel gene on the same allele that is already occupied by 2 ultra genes. Once you pair one ultra gene with one amel gene the animal is then defined as an ultramel as opposed to being an ultra.

There are only 3 possible combinations for the ultra x amel gene AA, AB, or BB.

I think that is how those two genes work. Please do correct me if I am wrong because I'd really like to expand the little knowlegde of snake genetics that I've been trying to learn.

Jenn

*Sinking back into the shadows now*
Click to expand...


Exactly. The amel 'gene' cannot be affecting a snake that is homozygous for ultra because of the definition of 'ultra'. If amel was affecting it, it would be an ultramel.

That's why the question made no sense.

AA= ultra
AB= ultramel
BB= amel
 
Joejr14 said:
Exactly. The amel 'gene' cannot be affecting a snake that is homozygous for ultra because of the definition of 'ultra'. If amel was affecting it, it would be an ultramel.

That's why the question made no sense.

AA= ultra
AB= ultramel
BB= amel
Click to expand...
Ok, that's what I thought. In a since it is the same type of interaction between amel and anery A then:

AA = Anery
AB = Snow
BB = Amel

And between ultra and anery A

AA = ultra
AB = Ultra Anery
BB = Anery

There can be no ultramel anerys because all three genes can not reside on the allele at the same time. At least logically that is how it should be. So that when A= Ultra, B= anery, and C= amel the results would be as follows:

AA= Ultra
AB= Ultra Anery
Ac= Ultramel
BB= Anery
BA= Ultra Anery
BC= Snow
CC= Amel
CA= Ultramel
CB= Snow

Throwing in other genes only makes it even more complicated... *has headache now*

Jenn
 
Mrs InsaneOne said:
There can be no ultramel anerys because all three genes can not reside on the allele at the same time. At least logically that is how it should be. So that when A= Ultra, B= anery, and C= amel the results would be as follows
Click to expand...

Anery is not at the amel locus, so you can have an ultramel anery. Using the same leters as you did in the above quote, An ultramel anery would look like this:

AA=Ultra
BA=Anery
CC=Amel

AC BB= Ultramel Anery
 
Mrs InsaneOne said:
Ok, that's what I thought. In a since it is the same type of interaction between amel and anery A then:

AA = Anery
AB = Snow
BB = Amel

And between ultra and anery A

AA = ultra
AB = Ultra Anery
BB = Anery

There can be no ultramel anerys because all three genes can not reside on the allele at the same time. At least logically that is how it should be. So that when A= Ultra, B= anery, and C= amel the results would be as follows:

AA= Ultra
AB= Ultra Anery
Ac= Ultramel
BB= Anery
BA= Ultra Anery
BC= Snow
CC= Amel
CA= Ultramel
CB= Snow

Throwing in other genes only makes it even more complicated... *has headache now*

Jenn
Click to expand...


Not the same type of interaction. Amel and ultra are codom/dom and reside at the same locus. That is not true of any other gene pairs except for motley and stripe.

Anery= bb
Amel= aa
Snow aabb

Ultra = uu
amel= aa
Ultramel = ua

So you can have other 'ultra' or ultramel morphs since nothing else resides at the amel locus. That's why we have ultramel anerys and ultramel caramels.

Those would be:

uabb

uacc
 
Billybobob said:
Anery is not at the amel locus, so you can have an ultramel anery. Using the same leters as you did in the above quote, An ultramel anery would look like this:

AA=Ultra
BA=Anery
CC=Amel

AC BB= Ultramel Anery
Click to expand...
D'oh! I should have quite while I was ahead. I knew this, I just didn't process it in my brain when I typed it out. My brain is fried. Snows would actually be AABB because you can have anerys het amel and amels het anery.

So just disregard my last post before this one! :headbang: I need more sleep!


Jenn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top