-
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.
Ultramel
- Thread starter Hurley
- Start date
breedingcolors
Freaky!
WOW!!!!!!!
I never saw a snake as beautifull!!! INCREDIBLE!
All I can do is: :bowdown: :bowdown:
Hey You could made a contest with that one! LOL
I never saw a snake as beautifull!!! INCREDIBLE!
All I can do is: :bowdown: :bowdown:
Hey You could made a contest with that one! LOL
TBurkeIII
TBurkeIII
hurley that is one hell of a hatchling you have there. i wanted to know if you hatched anymore or have anymore to compare that one too? i was wondering if you knew what made those borders so light and if that is a result of the breeding or you think it is just an exceptionally nice specimen. let me know :crazy02:
Thanks
Thanks
Yes, the borders have that translucent "purplish" look about them. This guy is an ultramel which is the het form combining amel and the ultra gene (a type of hypo). Ultra and amel are alleles, meaning they work at the same tyrosinase locus on the DNA strand. Amel stops melanin production altogether. Ultra reduces it. When you have an ultra gene and an amel gene, you get a third phenotype that is somewhere between ultra (which resembles standard hypo in darkness) and amel. These guys are darn near amel, but have rudy pupils (instead of red) and you can see the areas of melanin production, but it is tremendously reduced from normal.
(Back to the other thread, these two genes are codominant to each other, but each of them are recessive to normal.)
So far in the clutch, there are 2 amels, 2 ultramels, and 3 normals...pretty much what you'd expect breeding a het amel to an ultramel. Half should be normal (het either amel or ultra), 1/4th should be ultra, 1/4th should be amel.
Here is a photo of the little one with its father (also an ultramel). Dad has much thinner saddle outlines, obviously, but there is melanin present. He also has the ruby pupils (vs. red or black). Incidentally, this male is the snake on the Corn Morph Guide cover that you see in the banner time to time.
(Back to the other thread, these two genes are codominant to each other, but each of them are recessive to normal.)
So far in the clutch, there are 2 amels, 2 ultramels, and 3 normals...pretty much what you'd expect breeding a het amel to an ultramel. Half should be normal (het either amel or ultra), 1/4th should be ultra, 1/4th should be amel.
Here is a photo of the little one with its father (also an ultramel). Dad has much thinner saddle outlines, obviously, but there is melanin present. He also has the ruby pupils (vs. red or black). Incidentally, this male is the snake on the Corn Morph Guide cover that you see in the banner time to time.
ecreipeoj
Striped Topaz SK SG Free
I have to say very nice as well!
I almost wanted to say that this is one more bit of evidence that Ultra and Amels are alleles, but does anybody really challenge this any more?
There are a lot of people out there that don’t know anything about this, but this is certainly one area that forums such as this have proved to be extremely helpful in discovering new information about the genetics of our Corns through cooperation and discussion. The Hypo Test Breeding Project is another cooperative effort that has been very enlightening to all of us.
I have to say that the involvement of Connie and Chuck in our forums has helped a great deal in discovering that the Ultra Hypo and Amel are alleles. We certainly can not forget about Kat that first brought up the question and the many other people that were involved in the Ultra Mystery and Rich for bringing us all together.
I almost wanted to say that this is one more bit of evidence that Ultra and Amels are alleles, but does anybody really challenge this any more?
There are a lot of people out there that don’t know anything about this, but this is certainly one area that forums such as this have proved to be extremely helpful in discovering new information about the genetics of our Corns through cooperation and discussion. The Hypo Test Breeding Project is another cooperative effort that has been very enlightening to all of us.
I have to say that the involvement of Connie and Chuck in our forums has helped a great deal in discovering that the Ultra Hypo and Amel are alleles. We certainly can not forget about Kat that first brought up the question and the many other people that were involved in the Ultra Mystery and Rich for bringing us all together.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty impressive for Kat to make that leap in logic about what was taking place with this genetic hodge-podge. It looks pretty obvious now in retrospect, but it was down right puzzling looking at the results without a roadmap. Sure explained a few things I had seen around here that just didn't make sense at the time. One of the forms of Hypomelanism I had been puzzling over were actually Ultramels. I just couldn't figure out how that one line of Hypo was turning up in animals that it was. It was acting more like an airborne virus instead of genetically transmitted traits. :crazy02:
Of course, I sure wish I had known a few years ago what was going on! Might have saved me from having some of the gray hairs (and lack thereof from hair pulling) that I have now!
Of course, I sure wish I had known a few years ago what was going on! Might have saved me from having some of the gray hairs (and lack thereof from hair pulling) that I have now!
Serpwidgets
New member
Kat's suggestion was that it was codominant.
Joe was the one who first mentioned the possibility of alleles, and a couple of us who knew what that meant applied it to Ultra and it fit like a glove.
There have been a few people who kept insisting it is "just a theory" and calling people's results from breeding trials "anecdotal evidence."
Ultramel "theory" was great at post-dicting last years results once we finally started looking at ultra and amel as alleles. The hatchling you see here was predicted in August of last year when we bought the father and applied our "just a theory" to "what would we get if we crossed him to Mary?" We knew 7 months in advance what we'd hatch. It has been every bit as useful in predicting clutch outcomes as any other morph's genetic "theory" and this year is really going to be fun. I really hope I don't have to continue to hear "just a theory" or "anecdotal evidence" being applied to this situation any longer.
TBurkeIII
TBurkeIII
hey great "theory" on that serp...LOL
so now is it something that is a definate? hurley was speaking in the chat room about clutch results last night and i was just wondering if they are now something we can assume is carved in stone in a sense of what once was an "ultra mystery?"
such as - Ultramel X Ultramel = 1/2 ultramel , 1/4 ultra, 1/4 amel
so now is it something that is a definate? hurley was speaking in the chat room about clutch results last night and i was just wondering if they are now something we can assume is carved in stone in a sense of what once was an "ultra mystery?"
such as - Ultramel X Ultramel = 1/2 ultramel , 1/4 ultra, 1/4 amel
Serpwidgets
New member
There are always alternatives... it's possible that lava is a dominant gene and all the results we've seen are just a big coincidence. Or that anerythrism is caused by two linked traits and a tiny percentage of their offspring don't follow the model of simple recessive.
If it turns out that some alternative is true, I think the differences between predictions made by Ultramel and predictions made by the "true" answer will be so insignificant that you're more likely to get "wrong" outcomes because of sperm retention or misidentification, etc.
So yeah, IMO it's as proven as any other morph.
If it turns out that some alternative is true, I think the differences between predictions made by Ultramel and predictions made by the "true" answer will be so insignificant that you're more likely to get "wrong" outcomes because of sperm retention or misidentification, etc.
So yeah, IMO it's as proven as any other morph.
dionythicus
Kiss My Hearse
I assume you're keeping this one? LOL
dionythicus
Kiss My Hearse
Rats, but I understand. I wouldn't let females like that go, either!
Serpwidgets said:
I resemble that remark.
As I recall the original ultramel discussion, allelism hadn't been disproven. But not disproven is not the same as proven. How many crosses of ultrahypo x albino and of ultramel x ultramel have been done since then? And what were the results? Beat me into submission with numbers!
Serpwidgets
New member
If you are trying to determine the area of a circle to within 2 siginificant digits and your measurement might be off by up to 10%, it is pointless to calculate pi to 200 digits. :shrugs:
I stopped tracking results back in August of last year. The only result I care to look for now is one that contradicts ultramel. No takers yet.
We are now at the point where I believe misidentification, sperm retention, or a spontaneous mutation are each much more likely to cause a "false result" than anything else. That is, I believe you are as likely to get normals from an amel to amel breeding as you are to get normals from an ultra to amel breeding.
I don't think that lack of disproof in itself is proof. However, if ultramel were inaccurate, there should be inconsistent results coming from every direction. I have yet to hear a single one.
Without actual sequencing you can't "prove" anything. But who cares? We are breeding these animals to acheive certain genotypes and want to be able to "predict" what we'll get.
Nobody has ever proven that amel is a simple recessive... it could be two linked genes. But the fact is that even if it is, how does it totally screw up your breeding plans when you rely on a simple Punnett square to predict the results? It doesn't. Other screwups, or just plain bad luck, are much more likely to cause your results to be different than the prediction.
Same goes for every other known trait. At some point you just have to decide to go with what is a practical and workable description and just go with it until/unless something better can displace it.
The alternative is to pretend for the next 6-10 years that we don't know, and just breed stuff randomly and act surprised at the results. Who is actually going to waste their time trying to "prove" ultramel? For what? To what end? What is to be gained by being "really really superduper even more sure that they really are alleles and not just something that acts like alleles all the time?"
I stopped tracking results back in August of last year. The only result I care to look for now is one that contradicts ultramel. No takers yet.
We are now at the point where I believe misidentification, sperm retention, or a spontaneous mutation are each much more likely to cause a "false result" than anything else. That is, I believe you are as likely to get normals from an amel to amel breeding as you are to get normals from an ultra to amel breeding.
I don't think that lack of disproof in itself is proof. However, if ultramel were inaccurate, there should be inconsistent results coming from every direction. I have yet to hear a single one.
Without actual sequencing you can't "prove" anything. But who cares? We are breeding these animals to acheive certain genotypes and want to be able to "predict" what we'll get.
Nobody has ever proven that amel is a simple recessive... it could be two linked genes. But the fact is that even if it is, how does it totally screw up your breeding plans when you rely on a simple Punnett square to predict the results? It doesn't. Other screwups, or just plain bad luck, are much more likely to cause your results to be different than the prediction.
Same goes for every other known trait. At some point you just have to decide to go with what is a practical and workable description and just go with it until/unless something better can displace it.
The alternative is to pretend for the next 6-10 years that we don't know, and just breed stuff randomly and act surprised at the results. Who is actually going to waste their time trying to "prove" ultramel? For what? To what end? What is to be gained by being "really really superduper even more sure that they really are alleles and not just something that acts like alleles all the time?"