Ultramel

[TBurkeIII]

i would like to know if anyone has any input on why i have seen such variance within the ultramels, there are some that resemble others but i have also seen a very wide variety as well. normally this would not raise questions in my head, but being that i have not been exposed to that many to begin with i would like to know what everyone else says about it. here is a thread i started a while back with a picture of my ultramel, then i look at hurleys new little one, then i see what joe has just posted and i see quite a difference. ???

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15536&highlight=ultra

 

[Hurley]

These ultramels are coming from very different lines. Since it's so easy to outcross to something totally different but het or homo amel, variation happens more rapidly, IMO.

Also, ultra doesn't seem to alter the pattern like hypo A does. It doesn't seem to thin the borders, just purely reduces melanin (as you would expect, since it's acting on the TYR locus for tyrosinase, an important enzyme in melanin production). It doesn't seem to have any effect on pattern formation/pigment cell migration.

I personally think Ultramels are the best chance we've ever had to produce a true "hypo Okeetee" with thick borders. Wouldn't that be a hoot?


Joe's ultramel to me looks very much like it has lavender heritage. The background color does, anyway. My little guys came out of a mom with high contrast and distinct black borders. That may have something to do with the look. The adult ultramel is het for caramel and motley, which may affect his overall ground color as well.

I'd love to see more pictures of straight ultramels and ultras for comparison (vs. golddusts, ultra caramels, etc.).

 

[DdotSpot]

Correct.

What people tend to forget is that an animal is NOT genetically "mom's genes mixed with dad's genes." Not exactly anyway... for every gene inherited from mom, there was also a gene that was NOT inherited from mom. Same for dad. An animal is "only half of mom's genes, mixed with only half of dad's genes."

If mom has one ultra gene and one amel gene, then junior inherits ONE of these from mom, and it is either the ultra gene OR the amel gene. The same is true of dad. Junior then has two genes at his own albino locus: the one he got from mom, and the one he got from dad.

Mom and dad are both ultramels, genotype a^aa^u. As always, you can use FOIL to determine the four outcomes at this locus.

There are exceptions to these rules where one can inherit an entire extra chromosome. These cases are generally called "polyploidy." The case that causes Down's Syndrome in humans is about 1 in 1,000 live births. The case where a cat has an extra X chromosome is something like 1 in 10,000. I think when having the extra chromosome is not fatal, its likelihood is probably going to be something in this ballpark. So it can happen, but it is the exception and not the rule.

FWIW, I would think that having two functioning ultra genes and two non-functioning amel genes, a polyploidal "aauu" genotype would look like a regular ultra.

ahh...so if you breed Ultramel X Ultramel, you're not going to get all Ultramels, right? Inevitably dad and mom will throw the same gene at junior at some point? Sheesh...these codominant traits(if that is what it really is) sure put a kink in things.

 

[TBurkeIII]

even when i picked up a pair in oct. of 04 i decided on two with very different looks in my opinion. when i get the chance i will take updated pics, but the male had/has a much lighter coloration to him, where the female has a much brighter red to her look. i don't know when i will be able to get some shots of them (and of better quality than my previous pic) but i will start a new thread if this one has slowed down by then.

 

[Serpwidgets]

ahh...so if you breed Ultramel X Ultramel, you're not going to get all Ultramels, right? Inevitably dad and mom will throw the same gene at junior at some point?

Yep, ultramel is "au" so when you cross au X au just do FOIL on them and you get aa, au, ua, uu which is 1 amel, 2 ultramels, 1 ultra.

 

[ecreipeoj]

i would like to know if anyone has any input on why i have seen such variance within the ultramels, there are some that resemble others but i have also seen a very wide variety as well.

Tom,
I think Hurley nailed it. Just look at how much Amels can vary. They are one part of the equation. Some have no borders, like Sunglows and some have extremely white borders like an Amel Okeetee. The photo of Hurley’s new baby on this thread looks like an Ultramel Okeetee to me and may have some het Caramel influence as well, if my theory on Caramel holds true.

Mine looks much closer to a Sunglow Ultramel. The males that I picked up from Jason Swartz, looks very much like they have the run of the mill Amel influence. They have light background color with darker blotches, and some borders. (Photo attached)

The border of Amels can vary a great deal, but the color of Amels can also vary from very yellow/orange to fire engine red. I have always liked very red Amels, so most of my Amels look like the red you see on a tri-color. My line of amels that come from my Striped Lav project are orange. I bred a Striped Lav het Amel this year to a Rich Z Crimson, to produced hets for the two and out popped an Amel that looks like a Tangerine. The Crimson is also het for Amel and this Amel looks suspiciously like it has Caramels influence as well. With all of the pattern and color variation of the Amel influence in Ultramels, you should expect extreme variation. We will even see Candy Cane Ultramels. That will be an interesting combo.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Here are some photos of the “Tangerine” Amel mentioned above and an Amel from my “Fire” Amel male that I have. Some of the offspring from the Fire Amel may be turning out like dad. There mother was the grandmother to this Male and the line I expected the influence came from. “Fire” Amel is just an in house name. Another guy is using that name for a line of Amels that he is producing and has ask me not to use that name. I wish I could get a photo out of him. The Bearded Dragon World has about every ingenious name for red that you could come up with, so in time, I may use one of them. (Red Flame, Solar Flare and on and on.)

The comparison of these two extremes ranges in color, is a very good reason why Ultramels will vary a great deal. Add in some border influence and the variation will be even more.

I said above that I suspect this “Tangerine” Amel may have some het Caramel influence, only because he has the same look as some Butter Motley X Snow Motley offspring that I produced last year. Each and everyone of them looked very different than the run of the mill orange Amel. As they grew, the yellow really came out in them. I don’t know what type of snake that is in Rich’s avatar, but I think I saw something about it being a Snow, and possibly het for Caramel. The possibility of Caramel being co-dominant instead of recessive really jumps out at you in the Amel line.

 

[TBurkeIII]

i see what you guys are saying ( connie & joe ) thanks for the info and the photos. i guess the reason it was so strange to see such variance already is because of how new these are to me. normal amels have been around for so much longer, so in a way i would expect to see such variation as in "normals". thanks again.

:dancer:

 

[Rich Z]

I've been putting off updating my SerpenCo price list because I expect to be producing some animals based on Ultra, Ultramel, and "GoldDust". I am thinking about having these things setting on my tables at Daytona Beach and having people asking me to explain the genetics behind them, as well as "If I breed THIS to THIS, what will I get?" kinds of questions. Heck, it's tough enough getting across the concept of double and triple recessives, much less this wrinkle with codominance. So no, I am not looking forward to it at all.

So let me take some recent quotes from Chuck and try to put this together in my head to make sure I am seeing this correctly.

There would be no such thing as an ultra opal. Ultra is homozygous ultra, Opal is amelanistic. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

Amel X ultra = ultramel.

Ultramel X ultramel = 25% ultra, 50% ultramel, 25% amel.

The lavender part of this equation is independent of what is happening at the albino locus. The above applies regardless of the genotypes at any other loci, including lavender, caramel, anery, hypo, motley, etc.

If mom has one ultra gene and one amel gene, then junior inherits ONE of these from mom, and it is either the ultra gene OR the amel gene. The same is true of dad. Junior then has two genes at his own albino locus: the one he got from mom, and the one he got from dad.

• Amel X ultra = ultramel
• Ultramel X ultramel = 25% ultra, 50% ultramel, 25% amel
• Ultramel X Ultra = 50% Ultra, 50% Ultramel
• Ultra X Normal = 100% normal het Ultra

Now the one obvious combo I excluded above is the one where you breed Ultramel X Normal (or any other non-Amel gene). This is the one that is choking me up with trying to come up with an explanation that I can tell someone standing in front of my table in 25 words or less and get the point across without getting the deadly "glazed eye" look from them. If I understand this all correctly, you will get the following:

• Ultramel X Normal - 50% Normal het Ultra, 50% Normal het Amel.

So in effect, there can be no such thing as an animal "het for Ultramel". It is the explanation of "why" this is the case that will be the brain bender for many people, I think.

I think there is going to have to be some real thought put into breeding plans involving getting Ultramel combined with other genetic types if you expect to get satisfactory results. I know I am still hazy about it and have to really THINK about it and not have this come to me intuitively. That's assuming, of course, that my above scenario is correct. It would not surprise me in the least to find out I am overlooking something or not seeing it correctly.

But as I am doing the breeding right now with these types, just thinking about the outcome two or four steps down the road leads me to believe that results are not going to be as easy as I would hope, for what I am targeting for. In reality, it appears, the best course would be parallel lines with Ultra/*genetic type* on one side, and Amel/*genetic type* on the other, then combining them in a following generation with Ultra/*genetic type* X Amel/*genetic type* to produce Ultramel/*genetic type*. But of course, there will NEVER be a case where Ultramel/*genetic type* X Ultramel/*genetic type* breeds "true", which is a question I get all of the time in reference to breeding certain cultivars together.

Obviously, this complicates things a bit...... :eek1:

Anyway, someone please correct me if I am looking at this cockeyed. I think some of the results that are possible are interesting, but I do wish the path were easier to travel to get there......

 

[Kat]

Yeah, looks right to me, Rich. I wouldn't be surprised if breeders start getting complaints 3-4 years down the road where someone bred their golddusts together and only got about half golddusts from the clutch.

Ever get the feeling you're playing one of those puzzle games where they throw a new rule/twist at you every few levels?

-Kat

 

[Serpwidgets]

You've got the results right so far.

An easy way to illustrate it (as I've seen a lot of breeders do at shows) is to literally draw out a one-trait Punnett square as the person watches so that they can visualize the genes involved and how they inherit.

Normally you'd just use "A" for normal and "a" for amel. This is pretty easy to do since there is only one letter for each sperm, one letter for each egg. If you're not already an expert at one-trait Punnetts, they are easy enough that anyone can become the world's foremost expert in about 5 minutes just by doing a handful of practice problems.

The resulting genotypes are the familiar
"AA" (normal)
"Aa" (normal het amel)
"aa" (Amel)
which you already know like the back of your hand.

---

The only addition to this when working with ultramel is that you would use a "u" (or whatever you prefer) for the ultra gene where it is present, and then work out the Punnett square in exactly the same way. The additional genotypes you need to know (and probably already do, intuitively) are
"Au" (normal het ultra)
"uu" (ultra)
"ua" (ultramel, for ultra/amel)

With this in hand, you can quickly and easily show anybody who wants to know how any of the crosses will work out, and they can take the piece of paper with them as a reference. (You could even print up some sheets with the gene names and genotypes listed and then draw the Punnetts on those sheets.)

 

[Serpwidgets]

In reality, it appears, the best course would be parallel lines with Ultra/*genetic type* on one side, and Amel/*genetic type* on the other, then combining them in a following generation with Ultra/*genetic type* X Amel/*genetic type* to produce Ultramel/*genetic type*.

It can be easier. The first trick is that "pure ultras" are not as common.

For example, in order to make an ultramel charcoal, if you go the "pure ultra" route, you'd need to go ultra x charcoal, then take these double hets to make 1 in 16 ultra charcoals. (And you still haven't produced a single ultramel yet.)

Instead, you can go ultramel X blizzard and get ultramels het charcoal right off the bat. Crossing these together, you get the usual 1/4th charcoals. But instead of 1/4th ultramels, you get half a clutch of them. So you've doubled your production. Additionally, instead of the rest of the clutch being normals and hets, the whole rest of the clutch is ultras and amels.

You can then (hopefully) ID the "homozygous ultra" charcoals to come out of that same clutch, and keep those to breed directly to a blizzard for 100% ultramel production from then on.

Amel combos are everywhere and common nowadays, so all of these combos would be quicker to make by starting with ultramels. As a result, we should be seeing "ultramel everythings" in quite a hurry. (Which also means the price will drop more quickly and the race to produce them will be very fast-paced.)

 

[Rich Z]

Yeah, but the flip side to this is that the TOTAL numbers of the Ultramel/Anythings won't be as large as with other new cultivars when they begin to reach the saturation point. Since you will only get statistically 50 percent in a clutch when you breed them together, it will be tougher to produce larger numbers of them. Plus I strongly suspect that not everyone is going to grasp the concept at all and produce less then optimal results.

As for the punnett square explanation, sorry, but that just won't work at Daytona. You've seen how hectic that show can be. When a hurricane isn't passing through, that is. Let me have your cell phone number, Chuck, and I'll have people call you with their questions. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rich Z]

Ever get the feeling you're playing one of those puzzle games where they throw a new rule/twist at you every few levels?

-Kat

I get that feeling every year, Kat. Gotten to the point that I feel like I am crying "WOLF" all of the time. There are still some wolves out there that I haven't told anyone about yet...... :grin01:

 

[Hurley]

Since you will only get statistically 50 percent in a clutch when you breed them together, it will be tougher to produce larger numbers of them.

I don't know that it'll be all that tough to produce larger numbers of them. Amel + mutant are pretty darn common out there. You can still produce whole clutches of ultramels by crossing ultra x amel. It's just a different way of thinking about things.

On a happy note, you can get ultramels in one generation with just one ultra or ultramel snake, since amels are easy to come by. Even if you can't get your hands on an ultra to cross and make 100% ultramels in a clutch, you can cross two ultramels and make one (or if you just have one ultramel, cross it with an amel and save one of the resulting ultramels...)

The toughest part of getting this through people's heads is getting them to understand that the best way to make ultramels is not ultramel x ultramel, but rather amel x ultra. And yeah, at the table side, that is not an easy thing to explain. Maybe we need an "Ultramel FAQ" sheet to hand out with each ultra/ultramel sold.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Plus I strongly suspect that not everyone is going to grasp the concept at all and produce less then optimal results.

I think you're right about that.

As for the punnett square explanation, sorry, but that just won't work at Daytona. You've seen how hectic that show can be. When a hurricane isn't passing through, that is. Let me have your cell phone number, Chuck, and I'll have people call you with their questions. :laugh: :laugh:

LOL, yeah it is pretty crazy. You could always make a graphic for each possible cross, like below, put all on one page, and make a bunch of dittos to give as handouts. Or you could sell my book to everyone who asks. :grin01:

What do you tell someone when they ask you "if I cross a butter motley to a butter stripe, what will I get? And if I cross those offspring to each other, what will I get?" You must have run across something along these lines, right?

 

[Rich Z]

LOL, yeah it is pretty crazy. You could always make a graphic for each possible cross, like below, put all on one page, and make a bunch of dittos to give as handouts. Or you could sell my book to everyone who asks. :grin01:

Well when I call your cell phone number, have a couple books in hand when you come running....

 

[Joejr14]

Well when I call your cell phone number, have a couple books in hand when you come running....

For a nominal fee I will stand by your table and tell these people after explaining them the crosses 10 times what idiots they are, will that help?

Perhaps you should make up a sign that says, "If you don't understand the Ultra gene, it is too expensive for you anyway."

Maybe you should keep the ultras behind the table in a box and only bring them out when asked about them.

God forbid you sell an ultramels! I can see someone arguing with you that you're selling a $150 or whatever dollar regular amel. LMAO. I'd love to see that conversation!

 

[Rich Z]

For a nominal fee I will stand by your table and tell these people after explaining them the crosses 10 times what idiots they are, will that help?

Perhaps you should make up a sign that says, "If you don't understand the Ultra gene, it is too expensive for you anyway."

Maybe you should keep the ultras behind the table in a box and only bring them out when asked about them.

God forbid you sell an ultramels! I can see someone arguing with you that you're selling a $150 or whatever dollar regular amel. LMAO. I'd love to see that conversation!

Why do you think I've been putting off doing my price list and including these things? But I do like a derivative of the reply you thought of: "If you don't know the genetics of these things, then perhaps they are not the best ones for you to buy."

Of course, maybe it doesn't matter anyway. At one of those shows there was a guy a row over from me selling corn snakes he had labeled as "het for Rainwater". When I asked him what that meant, he didn't have a clue. So I can probably say that these Ultras and Ultramels were from the last surviving population caught on Atlantis before it sunk beneath the waves. Betcha I would sell at least three of them that way.....

Anyway, to change the subject here, I've looked at the photos Connie has taken of that Ultramel she has and I swear I have gotten some animals out of my Crimson line that are pretty similar to that look.

Now when they reached adulthood, the pretty much looked like every other Crimson I have raised up, barring individual differences, of course. And from some of the really odd results I have gotten from breeding Crimson to Crimson, all of which are completely unrelated to anything even remotely Ultra stock, I have to wonder exactly what sort of joker is in that particular deck. Since I don't normally breed anything Hypo into anything Amelanistic, this sort of thing with a codominant trait to Amelanism producing an Ultramel would probably baffle me for all eternity.

Heck, I have bred some Ultras into my other Hypo lines and noticed a few odd looking ones come out of each clutch that puzzled me. Now, I would bet money that those Hypos were simply het Amelanism and those oddballs are simply Ultramels. But it baffled the hell out of me wondering how that Ultra gene had gotten into those unrelated Hypos.

So now that we can expect to see more and more Ultramels popping up from a wide and diverse range of bloodlines, how many of these Ultramels are going to be completely indistinguishable, visually, from regular Ultras? The fact that some of the ways in which we will be breeding these things and producing both Ultras and Ultramels within the same clutches is going to throw a lot of curve balls into labelling the results.

 

[Joejr14]

Is that like the 'het for kickass' Connie always talks about? LMAO.

I know Daytona is so big and all, but I'd assume a ton of these people still dont have a clue. I dont think it'd be a bad idea at all to make a little sign up saying to ask about Ultras and varients. If someone has to ask you, "What is Ultra" just simply say sorry, we're sold out. If they dont know Ultra is a form of hypo, they dont need to be buying the thing.