BUF gene

Originally Posted by Drizzt80

The facts regarding the buf gene, that I have read, include no evidence that excludes the Caramel gene.

There is a chart that has been posted elsewhere from the originator of the Buf line that objectively details just some of the many breedings that have been performed related to figuring the whole thing out. However, most if not all of the same information is available from the breeder's website.

Total there are at least three crosses that have been performed that logically exclude the caramel gene:

Originally Posted by slangenbroed's site

In 2007... I took a lavender male and bred it with the F1 orange female. 7 eggs: 2 classic, 2 amel, 1 buf and 2 orange animals... This male came from Marc vervest, I bought it as a young animal in 2004, with two sisters, a lavender and a classic het lavender (from these last two I’ve had several clutches and I always only had lavenders and classic het lavenders).

Also that year I bred F1 orange male x lavender female (sister of the lav male from above). 9 eggs: 6 classic, 3 buf.

The above-mentioned lavenders were produced in 2004, meaning their parents were likely hatched around 2001. That far back, there were probably not many crosses done that could have produced F2s carrying both lavender and caramel, and the likelihood of those lavenders being het caramel is low. He also mentions crossing one of the lavenders to an amel het caramel and hatching no caramels, further decreasing the chance that they are caramel carriers.

Originally Posted by slangenbroed's site

Also that year (2008) a Phantom was brought in the game, mated with the F1 orange femal and an F1 buf het amel female. Result in total 26 eggs: 16 classic, 10 buf coloured animals.

Same concept as above... how many phantoms het caramel do you know of produced circa 2005?

In summary, these crosses are no less sufficient than those used to confirm the existence of other genes that have popped up in recent years, and probably have been performed many more times than said genes.

You are, however, reading that wrong.

The "orange" female was not het for lavender. However, if she was het for caramel, roughly 50% of her offspring would also be het for caramel, and lo! 3 out of 7 animals showed up.

The phantom was also an *unrelated* male. He did not carry the buff gene, and did not carry caramel. But the females used could be het caramel, resulting in approximately 50% of the offspring being het for caramel as well. The result of those clutches?

3 our of 9 from an "orange" male to a lavender. Normal chances for a het to pass on the het to offspring.
10 "het caramel looking creatures" compared to 16 normal "doesn't look het caramel creatures" out of the females mated to the phantom is also normal odds.

The ONLY way to check for it being a het caramel trait, is to breed it to a *caramel*. Not a butter. Not a lavender. Not a phantom, but a *caramel*.

Originally Posted by Shiari

The phantom was also an *unrelated* male. He did not carry the buff gene, and did not carry caramel. But the females used could be het caramel, resulting in approximately 50% of the offspring being het for caramel as well. The result of those clutches?

3 our of 9 from an "orange" male to a lavender. Normal chances for a het to pass on the het to offspring.
10 "het caramel looking creatures" compared to 16 normal "doesn't look het caramel creatures" out of the females mated to the phantom is also normal odds.

The ONLY way to check for it being a het caramel trait, is to breed it to a *caramel*. Not a butter. Not a lavender. Not a phantom, but a *caramel*.

You kind of proved the whole point that buf has to be a dominant trait. Sorry but no snake that is het. caramel will suddenly have drastically brown saddles when compared to a normal. There is a huge difference between the "normal het caramel look" that is well-known and the very obviously brown coloration of Buf. Normals het caramel get a slight yellow wash over their bodies but do not have saddles that are completely browned away from the normal red coloration. If anything the confusion between looks should exist between buf animals and those that are homozygous caramel.

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.

Originally Posted by Nanci

Don't you think Chuck would require some sort of documentation before publishing it? I would like to think so.

You would think so, but apparently not. Do you think this is the only example in the "morph guide" of this? Prolly not.

Originally Posted by Drizzt80

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.

I answered for ya buddy.

Originally Posted by Drizzt80

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

Slangenboard or what ever his name was never got that, most anybody with some common sense and a very basic Mendelian genetic background would. Oh well. You lie in the bed you make.

Originally Posted by CARattler40

You kind of proved the whole point that buf has to be a dominant trait. Sorry but no snake that is het. caramel will suddenly have drastically brown saddles when compared to a normal. There is a huge difference between the "normal het caramel look" that is well-known and the very obviously brown coloration of Buf. Normals het caramel get a slight yellow wash over their bodies but do not have saddles that are completely browned away from the normal red coloration. If anything the confusion between looks should exist between buf animals and those that are homozygous caramel.

Range of expression in the heterozygous genotype of many morphs is well known and documented. The fact is, a "buf" has not been breed to a caramel het for nothing. Until that happens conclusions cannot be made.

Originally Posted by Drizzt80

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.

Hey Brent, I got an idea, lets start calling our obviously het for blood animals something. Any ideas?

Originally Posted by mike17l

Hey Brent, I got an idea, lets start calling our obviously het for blood animals something. Any ideas?

Dif ?

Clotted? Who wouldn't want a clotted lavendar, a clotted butter, a clotted anery? Lol.

Originally Posted by Nanci

Dif ?

Originally Posted by Darcpixie

Clotted? Who wouldn't want a clotted lavendar, a clotted butter, a clotted anery? Lol.

I was thinking masque.

Originally Posted by Drizzt80

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.

Peer Reviewed? Statistical Confirmation? Scientific Circles? Slow down there buddy, you need to not use so many big words. You are assuming (you know what happens when you do that) that slangenboard and chuck know what all those words mean. Of course you can have statistical confirmation from only one offspring, that is why humans have made great genetic subjects for so many years. We humans can have so many babies so quickly that we were the first organism to be understood genetically. We were Gregor Mendel's model.

Oh wait, that's all wrong, Mendel studied pea plants, oh yeah, and he produced hundreds of offspring from one pairing, before he made conclusions. Then others reproduced and checked his work. That must have been what you were talking about with all this statistical conformation and peer reviewed garbage.

It really was not that much to ask of the guy. Rule out caramel. Has not been done.