Quote:
Originally posted by ecreipeoj
A Bloodred X Caramel, or Bloodred X Lavender produced outcrosses, which when bred back together produced Carmel Bloodreds and Lavender Bloodreds. I am sure that Bloodreds were also produce in the same clutch. Perhaps not perfect Bloodreds, but from an outcross this is expected. So what is purposed is that the Lavender Bloodreds in the clutch be called Lavender Diffused Corns and the Bloodreds in the clutch remain Bloodreds, even though they are clutch mates and genetically very similar except for one is expressing a morph gene that removes the red pigment and the other one looks red.
|
This isn't an accurate portrayal. What is proposed is that normal corns expressing the diffused pattern that are not red are NOT called bloodreds, because they aren't. It's like saying "we only want white amels to be called candycanes, instead of all amels."
When you're working with anerythristics, you have no idea how much of the "selective breeding for red" was lost in the process. Say you are breeding pewter to pewter (or diffused lav to diffused lav) in order to create "more patternless" snakes. What can happen is that the "infusion of red" (which does not appear to be directly linked to the pattern aspect) can be lost in the process.
You can cross pewter X diffused lavender and get snakes that are brown and nothing at all like a "bloodred." Sure they will have the plain belly. Sure, many will have "the pattern." And some of them might grow up to be outstanding "bloodred" cornsnakes.
But this is like:
1- crossing candycanes het anery to make snows.
2- breeding other snows into those lines.
3- breeding back out to an amelanistic and expecting to call all of the offspring "candycanes."