• 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.

BUF gene

So wouldn't it then be prudent to find out what method was used to prove out the ultra gene and try that method to see if the results would be the same? Man, right this second I'd give anything for four of these bufs to work with. That is if they were all buf het caramel from the original lines.
 
I'm glad all the name calling and nastiness has been left behind, I now like where this thread is going.
 
wstphal said:
I keep typing replies & then not posting them. There sure is a lot of heat over this one. Could somebody explain why that is to this newbie?
Click to expand...

It all boils down to many people believe the buf gene isn't proved out until it is tested with a caramel-only snake.

Now Charles Pritzel has apparently stated in the 2010 Cornsnake Morph Guide that buf _was_ tested with caramel. I haven't read the book yet, but that was stated here.

I think people would like documentation of that.
 
carnivorouszoo said:
So wouldn't it then be prudent to find out what method was used to prove out the ultra gene and try that method to see if the results would be the same? Man, right this second I'd give anything for four of these bufs to work with. That is if they were all buf het caramel from the original lines.
Click to expand...

LOL! you and a lot of other people! But unfortunately they are in a different country.
 
Russell said:
the problem is I don't own the Buf gene, nor have I worked with it, nor have I followed that project. Chuck just tried to include as much as he could into his book with the limited space he has to spend. He probably could have filled the whole book on the different crosses done with Buf and it's results. But he didn't do that. He touches on it briefly that there is this morph, out there, that someone has done some work with. It's still being worked on...
Click to expand...

If you don't have and don't work with it all I don't understand why you are getting so heated and saying that everyone expect the ultra thoery is wrong. . . .Man I am so lost. :crying:
 
Nanci said:
It all boils down to many people believe the buf gene isn't proved out until it is tested with a caramel-only snake.

Now Charles Pritzel has apparently stated in the 2010 Cornsnake Morph Guide that buf _was_ tested with caramel. I haven't read the book yet, but that was stated here.

I think people would like documentation of that.
Click to expand...

but what kind of documentation? Ones say so, or a signed by a lawer kinda paper? LOL! Chuck's not available for me to harass just now. But if he said it in the book, he probably meant it as fact.
 
Nanci said:
It all boils down to many people believe the buf gene isn't proved out until it is tested with a caramel-only snake.

Now Charles Pritzel has apparently stated in the 2010 Cornsnake Morph Guide that buf _was_ tested with caramel. I haven't read the book yet, but that was stated here.

I think people would like documentation of that.
Click to expand...

I should have my copy in the next week or so from Kathy so I will happily post what it says when I get it, that is if it has not before then.
 
carnivorouszoo said:
If you don't have and don't work with it all I don't understand why you are getting so heated and saying that everyone expect the ultra thoery is wrong. . . .Man I am so lost. :crying:
Click to expand...

I never said the Ultra theory is wrong. I only said that a suspected caramel or het caramel CAN be proven by breeding to a Butter.
 
this is what I have from someone more familiar with the project than I am. Bug came out of normals.

Buf bred to caramels gave caramels AND Bufs.

proving Buf was HET caramel, but not caramel. And I guess crosses were made that shows they are not alleles but seperate genes. Because there was no intermediate when the Buf to Caramel breeding was done.

I wish I knew more, but I do not. This is all word of mouth information, but then, hasn't most of the information we have done that way?
 
Russell said:
I never said the Ultra theory is wrong. I only said that a suspected caramel or het caramel CAN be proven by breeding to a Butter.
Click to expand...

I meant except not expect, sorry for my typo. Ah but the results would be tainted with the Amel. Here we go in circles because you will say the amel is irrelivent, however how can you say amel plays no part if you can not prove that by not allowing amel to be present?

Basically I mean if you breed amel into it you can not say it is not the amel causing the issues. By breeding amel free you can rule out amel as an issue. In that way I think you could also rule out ultra could you not? I think people are mostly looking for it to be proven out that the buf animals are JUST buf with NO other colors causing oddities in the animals. I mean oddities like my Amel Mot het Caramel stripe being higher yellow than my not het caramel amels. The only way I can see to prove the amel is not having any affect whatsoever is to breed it out. I believe it was already intro'd wasn't one of the first pair butter? Thus the buf het amels already known? Breed out the amel to prove the amel is not in play that is what everyone is asking for. I know, not from you but in general.
 
Russell said:
probably best to just ignore the hostility and not worry about it. You can enjoy the hobby just fine without knowing all the hostilities involved. Trust me, you'd be happier not knowing.
Click to expand...

Maybeso but I admit to curiosity about the color/morph/gene provoking the hostility. I like biology & know something about the genetic control of colors in cats & mice, so I figure I can understand this too.
 
sorry again I misunderstood. By breeding to a butter when they are het amel won't honestly prove a whole lot if the gene is similar to ultra because well, wouldn't they be het caramel anyway?
 
wstphal said:
Maybeso but I admit to curiosity about the color/morph/gene provoking the hostility. I like biology & know something about the genetic control of colors in cats & mice, so I figure I can understand this too.
Click to expand...

the hostility comes from waaay back. And I see even something I did and even admitted my mistake about was still thrown in my face six years after it happened like it's legitimate to the discussion at hand. Some people in this thread were merely out for blood for reasons OTHER than this discussion at hand. It's a long drawn out mess. Anyhow, back to your regular sheduled program...
 
Drizzt80 said:
From what I've seen discussed, and I'm by no means a genetic """expert""", the gene has never been conclusively tested to rule out an effect from Caramel. There's plenty of subjective evidence that slagenbroad shared, but where's the buf vs Caramel conclusive pairing?? Haven't seen it.

Where's the buf animal proven NOT het Caramel crossed with a pure Normal and buf recovered?? That's """confirmed""".

D80
Click to expand...

Drizzt80 said:
I don't know the answer to that Nanci. What I do know is that slangenbroad was asked several times, from the beginning, to do conclusive tests to rule out Caramel. Nothing he ever presented showed that. That's not necessarily confirmed in my book. :shrugs:

buf may very well be a new gene, I've never necessarily said it wasn't, but what I have asked to see is removal of the Caramel influence? Again, that hasn't happened that's ever been publicly shared and considering the time frame from the last time he shared information, I doubt it's been done so far.

It is what it is.
D80
Click to expand...

Drizzt80 said:
I'll decline the opportunity to answer that question as I'm sure I'll be accused of holding some sort of grudge, or chip on my shoulder, regarding mr. pritzel. :shrugs:

The facts regarding the buf gene, that I have read, include no evidence that excludes the Caramel gene. And I have given a more than honest effort in trying to wrap my head around 'buf'.

D80
Click to expand...

Drizzt80 said:
And that particular orange female is proven NOT het Caramel? No, it's not. The buf animals he represents are proven NOT het Caramel? No, they're not. You should know as well as anyone that one breeding with 9 eggs is not any kind of statistical confirmation.

What's so difficult about doing a breeding to Caramel to rule it out? What's so horrible about asking for that breeding? Why is it such a problem for that breeding to be done? . . . after 5 years of asking . . . In scientific circles it's called peer review.

I guess if off-colors that show up statistically in a single clutch or two is a now considered a gene, then I have about 5 different new genes showing up in my collection. And I don't need to prove a single one of them to you, I can just start coming up with new names to describe them. Sounds good.

D80

PS. FYI, your 'smoking gun' chart was also posted here.
Click to expand...

ALL of my responses, BEFORE you showed up with . . .

Russell said:
The links were given in posts above. And yet people still want to sit around and make it a bashing party. Have fun. It's your site.
Click to expand...
Show me bashing until you showed up. Show me pointing a finger at your idol. Show me. I VERY specifically didn't answer the question about charles because I knew you would be the first in line with fire and brimstone. As usual, you bring your baggage here as you see fit once every few months to defend your perceived attacks on your protoge'. Fine, but don't put words in my mouth.

I have followed this from the beginning. I have questioned. I have poked and prodded. I have privately pm'ed slangenbroad. I have attempted to wrap my head around things. The one, logical, common sense pairing that was suggested 5 years ago was to breed a buf to a homo Caramel animal. It has NOT been done by slangenbroad and he made it very clear he had no intention of doing it. At this point, just because charles prints it in his book doesn't make it so. I'm not calling charles a liar. I'm pointing out that every buf discussion that has been had at this site and others does not include a conclusive breeding between a buf and homo caramel animal in order to rule out that the buf is het (or even homo) caramel. Period.

D80
 
Just answered myself. I was not fully aware the ultra gene could stand alone as a fully single gene. I was under the impression it needed amel to kind of carry it and express it. Ack not sure that made sense.

But still, I would think the best way to prove it out would be to breed to themselves. Two buf from the caramel lines. They would be het caramel, somewhere amel came into play, by breeding them together should one not them get caramel, buf and orange? That is IF the gene is similar to Ultra? Oh and possibly butters because of that odball amel, but that would leave the door open for a buf butter??? What do we call that, cream? Not trying to be funny, honest.
 
Does anyone have a pic of a buf? Or are they just in Europe? I hear a lot about that they are Carmel looking in appearance but Carmel has so many tones of yellow and browns...
 
carnivorouszoo said:
sorry again I misunderstood. By breeding to a butter when they are het amel won't honestly prove a whole lot if the gene is similar to ultra because well, wouldn't they be het caramel anyway?
Click to expand...

If the gene works like the Ultra gene does, you would see animals that are half way between Caramel and Buff. The amel gene would just make some butters and amels in the mix IF Buf were het caramel.
 
Drizzt80 said:
ALL of my responses, BEFORE you showed up with . . .


Show me bashing until you showed up. Show me pointing a finger at your idol. Show me. I VERY specifically didn't answer the question about charles because I knew you would be the first in line with fire and brimstone. As usual, you bring your baggage here as you see fit once every few months to defend your perceived attacks on your protoge'. Fine, but don't put words in my mouth.

I have followed this from the beginning. I have questioned. I have poked and prodded. I have privately pm'ed slangenbroad. I have attempted to wrap my head around things. The one, logical, common sense pairing that was suggested 5 years ago was to breed a buf to a homo Caramel animal. It has NOT been done by slangenbroad and he made it very clear he had no intention of doing it. At this point, just because charles prints it in his book doesn't make it so. I'm not calling charles a liar. I'm pointing out that every buf discussion that has been had at this site and others does not include a conclusive breeding between a buf and homo caramel animal in order to rule out that the buf is het (or even homo) caramel. Period.

D80
Click to expand...

you just don't know when to shut up do you? It was YOU who brought up something that happened over six years ago on a totally different forum! Grow up Brent! you can't see the forest for the trees! Don't act like you didn't say anything nasty in your replies to this thread, and don't even try to pretend your all innocent! Knock it off!
 
Alright I am going to go now but let me just say, let he who is without wrong cast the first stone. Jiminey, can't get this thread to stay away from those two bickering at each other. Sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top