Ultramel

[Rich Z]

Naw, man. The reason you take things to a show is to SELL them there. I'll just tell them I am too busy right now to go into the details, but email me and I'll give them the full scoop. Then I'll give them YOUR email address.... :roflmao:

 

[Serpwidgets]

I'm retarded...

First cross = Ultramel X Blizzard.

This produces half a clutch of ultramels het charcoal.

Instead of crossing these to each other, cross them to blizzards again. (duh)

The results: (in a clutch of 16)
4 amels het charcoal
4 ultramels het charcoal
4 blizzards
4 ultramel charcoals

Compare this to the usual "double het" cross:
9 normals (only poss het for ultra/charcoal)
3 charcoals (only poss het for ultra)
3 ultras(only poss het for charcoal)
1 ultra charcoal

So basically you get 8/16 "good" (ultramel) hatchlings versus 1/16 "good" hatchlings. You've quadrupled your production of the "goal" and your byproducts are phenotypically and genotypically a LOT better and all are of known genotypes.

 

[Joejr14]

Naw, man. The reason you take things to a show is to SELL them there. I'll just tell them I am too busy right now to go into the details, but email me and I'll give them the full scoop. Then I'll give them YOUR email address.... :roflmao:

Go for it! I'll straighten them right out so fast they'll never think about corns again!

I'll be there, give my cell a call and I'll come running over to yell at someone. That's always so much fun.

 

[Rich Z]

I'm retarded...

First cross = Ultramel X Blizzard.

This produces half a clutch of ultramels het charcoal.

Instead of crossing these to each other, cross them to blizzards again. (duh)

The results: (in a clutch of 16)
4 amels het charcoal
4 ultramels het charcoal
4 blizzards
4 ultramel charcoals

Compare this to the usual "double het" cross:
9 normals (only poss het for ultra/charcoal)
3 charcoals (only poss het for ultra)
3 ultras(only poss het for charcoal)
1 ultra charcoal

So basically you get 8/16 "good" (ultramel) hatchlings versus 1/16 "good" hatchlings. You've quadrupled your production of the "goal" and your byproducts are phenotypically and genotypically a LOT better and all are of known genotypes.

Yeah. See what I mean about explaining that over a table at a show? The typical question I am expecting will be something like this: "If I breed a GoldDust to an Opal Stripe, what will I get in the first and second generations breeding the first generations together?" :blowhead:

 

[Drizzt80]

I think I'm following the Ultra conversation here, but a couple things come to mind . . .
1. An Ultra phenotypically looks like a normal hypo, correct?

2. Any indication of how much the ultra allele is mixed in with the Hypo gene?

3. I don't have any hypo lavs, but seem to notice a distinct difference in the amounts of orange some can have. Based on question 2, could ultra already be mixed in with some of these other morphs and be causing any of these differences?

D80

 

[E. g. guttata]

Go for it! I'll straighten them right out so fast they'll never think about corns again!

I'll be there, give my cell a call and I'll come running over to yell at someone. That's always so much fun.

I'm thinking maybe that isn't such a good idea. MY e-mail will be better. IF they ever figure out I'm not Rich, then maybe I'll give them your e-mail. That way, we can have a muli-level filtering system. LOL Find out who is ready to own an ultramel. Every time one sells, I think we should have a pizza day. Hehehehehehe. :grin01:

 

[Rich Z]

I think I'm following the Ultra conversation here, but a couple things come to mind . . .
1. An Ultra phenotypically looks like a normal hypo, correct?

What does a "normal" hypo look like? I have a few Ultras and they all look different from each other. Then again, a Hypo from Okeetee stock looks different from a Hypo from Miami Phase stock.

2. Any indication of how much the ultra allele is mixed in with the Hypo gene?

Not sure what this question means. Will Ultra combined with other Hypo lines produce a cumulative effect? I may know more this season. I am expecting babies from adults that are het for Ultra and Sunkissed.

3. I don't have any hypo lavs, but seem to notice a distinct difference in the amounts of orange some can have. Based on question 2, could ultra already be mixed in with some of these other morphs and be causing any of these differences?

Not that I am aware of. I can't recall ever breeding Ultra Hypos into my Lavender lines. Probably just as well, because many of my Lavenders are also het for Amelanism and those few UltraAmels hatching out might have been yet another hair puller for me.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that we have a similar mechanism going on that involves something more subtle. One scenario that worries me is one or more genetic influences that are not visible alone, but only make themselves known when combined with some other genetic trait. Or even if it only affects a specific sex in combination with itself.

I think it is rather fortunate that the UltraAmel produced such a strikingly interesting looking combination when combined with the Caramel gene, otherwise this might have gone unnoticed and a puzzler for a very long time. We may have been seeing more subtle results for quite a while but they weren't different enough to raise the warning flag.

Along those same lines, suppose, for instance, that this Ultra gene had been codominant with another line of Hypo instead of Amelanism, but the difference in the results was noticeable but rather slight. That could conceivably be happening in the Crimsons and Hypo Lavenders right now.

A few years ago I bred two Crimsons together, using the best ones I had, and I got all normal looking Miami Phase corns as a result. Figuring that I might as well keep them and see if I am working with two distinct lines of Hypo in that line, I decided to keep most of that entire clutch. Well, I looked in on a few of them the other day, and they are becoming spectacular looking CRIMSONS! Getting brighter as they mature. Yeah there is probably a perfectly logical explanation for it that will become evident in hindsight years from now, but for now it just gets me scratching my head in puzzlement.

 

[Serpwidgets]

I think something like this as a handout would be a plus. (I know it will generate more questions, hehe. Will it take too long to explain how to use it?)

 

[paulh]

IMHO, using mouse/rat standard symbolism, with a = amelanistic, a⁺ = normal at the a locus, and a^u = ultra, would be superior to a, A, and u. There would be less for people to unlearn as they progress in genetics. And people who have learned genetics on other species would not have to adapt to a variant symbology.

 

[Drizzt80]

What does a "normal" hypo look like? I have a few Ultras and they all look different from each other. Then again, a Hypo from Okeetee stock looks different from a Hypo from Miami Phase stock.

By normal hypo I did mean how Hypo A expresses itself . . . orange/red background with red saddles and lightened saddle borders. And, yes, what does a normal normal even look like!!

Not sure what this question means. Will Ultra combined with other Hypo lines produce a cumulative effect? I may know more this season. I am expecting babies from adults that are het for Ultra and Sunkissed.

What I meant with that question was whether ultra is inadvertantly mixed in with the regular hypo's everyone's breeding, and causing problems or differences in the results that we just attribute to variability. Since there's no amel being expressed in many of these, we're not seeing that ultramel expression. I just used lavender as an example (for my third question) since I seem to see such dramatic difference in how some are so brightly colored with orange etc. (For that matter, could ultra be involved with the snows where there's so much variability AND amel is being expressed as well . . .)

Not that I am aware of. I can't recall ever breeding Ultra Hypos into my Lavender lines. Probably just as well, because many of my Lavenders are also het for Amelanism and those few UltraAmels hatching out might have been yet another hair puller for me.

Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that we have a similar mechanism going on that involves something more subtle. One scenario that worries me is one or more genetic influences that are not visible alone, but only make themselves known when combined with some other genetic trait. Or even if it only affects a specific sex in combination with itself.

Along those same lines, suppose, for instance, that this Ultra gene had been codominant with another line of Hypo instead of Amelanism, but the difference in the results was noticeable but rather slight. That could conceivably be happening in the Crimsons and Hypo Lavenders right now.

Now you're just making my head hurt!! :crazy02:

I know you can't really answer those directly with any certainty, especially since 'we're' just trying to sort out the ultra/ultramel/amel results. I was just wondering if anyone has some possible observations to put it in there for it to be an option with the variability we see in some of these other morphs (snow, butter, lav/hypolav, etc.).

I'm just starting to get a good handle on all this, and I'm NOT trying take this 'new' allele that's been found/identified and automatically attribute it to everything . . . just throwing in some thoughts! :shrugs:

D80

 

[Joejr14]

IMHO, using mouse/rat standard symbolism, with a = amelanistic, a⁺ = normal at the a locus, and a^u = ultra, would be superior to a, A, and u. There would be less for people to unlearn as they progress in genetics. And people who have learned genetics on other species would not have to adapt to a variant symbology.

I had never seen the + form used in punnett squares or to describe anything geneticall related until I saw Serp's website.

I've always done punnett squares using letters, and IMO it's much easier to learn and grasp. Explaining + and the link to noobs would confuse them too much, at least I think so.

 

[Serpwidgets]

I know you can't really answer those directly with any certainty, especially since 'we're' just trying to sort out the ultra/ultramel/amel results. I was just wondering if anyone has some possible observations to put it in there for it to be an option with the variability we see in some of these other morphs (snow, butter, lav/hypolav, etc.).

Amel and ultra displace one another because they both occupy the same exact physical location on the chromosome. If one is inherited from a parent, that excludes the other from being inherited from that parent.

Ultra is not being expressed (nor is the gene even present in any way) in any amels, snows, opals, butters, or blizzards, so it cannot have any influence on the variability of these morphs.

I'm sure that a lot of these cases of variability in lavenders and caramels and other morphs are just a matter of standard variation found in normals, which are finally reaching into the caramel/lavender lines as they become more and more unrelated to each other.

 

[paulh]

I had never seen the + form used in punnett squares or to describe anything geneticall related until I saw Serp's website.

I've always done punnett squares using letters, and IMO it's much easier to learn and grasp. Explaining + and the link to noobs would confuse them too much, at least I think so.

You are right about the genetics text books not using + for wild type. That is because most of the ones I've seen stop with Mendel's symbology. The pro fruit fly geneticists began using + for wild type in the 1920s. It has slowly been spreading because the more loci with mutant genes and the more loci with multiple mutant genes, the handier the + symbol is. And IMHO, using A, a, and u to explain ultramel is just as confusing to a noobie, because they would want to know what U stands for.