Fire pair, het Charcoal, Cayenne

This 2013 pair is from a gorgeous Cayenne Fire X Whiteout pairing, producing Fires het for Charcoal and Cayenne. The idea was to see if one could produce a red-factor Whiteout (a Pinkout?) As far as I know, this question has not yet been answered. Whether it works or not, this pair can produce guaranteed Whiteouts. $140/pair, plus shipping. The male in the photo is in blue... or pink.

What do these weigh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool project!

It is! Thanks! Male 70g, Female 85g.

I replied in haste, and forgot to add:
It is my understanding, that Cayenne Fire is basically a Fire, with Red Factor (dominant), so the RF cannot be a het.

Do you have hatchling pics of these babies?

I did not breed these, so I don't have hatchling pics. I do have some poor fuzzy pics of them under a year old, and they really don't look any different than they do now. The Pinkout idea was not originally mine. I had not heard of the red-factor gene being dominant. I have read of some dispute as to if it even exists, and how it is transmitted if it does. If it is dominant, then this pair should be considered cayenne fires. Except that I have other cayenne fires, and this pair is not quite as red. Experienced opinions are welcome. I can guarantee that one parent was considered a cayenne fire, the other a proven whiteout.

Oh, I take that back! I guess they have gotten a lot redder since I acquired them!

There are (at least) two red genes, one is dominant (Red Factor), the other is recessive (Red Coat).
I have not worked with RC at all, only RF.
THIS CLUTCH is my RF clutch from 2013. The sire, was supposed to be a Tessera het Cayenne Fire, but as he grew up, it was apparent that something was off. He ended up being a Red Factor Tessera, het Fire.
About half of those babies ended up being RF.

I wonder if some cayenne fires are more red because they are homozygous for red factor. I'm confused by Heather's comment that something can't be het red factor, since any animal displaying a dominant phenotype is het for that dominant allele (unless they happen to be homozygous). But I guess it is redundant, as we don't call all our tesseras "het tessera" even though that's what they are

Don Soderberg made some red factor blizzards (he called them coral blizzards I think) but I never came across any pictures of them.

Originally Posted by DuxorW

I wonder if some cayenne fires are more red because they are homozygous for red factor. I'm confused by Heather's comment that something can't be het red factor, since any animal displaying a dominant phenotype is het for that dominant allele (unless they happen to be homozygous). But I guess it is redundant, as we don't call all our tesseras "het tessera" even though that's what they are

Don Soderberg made some red factor blizzards (he called them coral blizzards I think) but I never came across any pictures of them.

That is true, about Tessera's, and I should have clarified. Only visuals produce more. They either are, or they are not Tessera (or RF). The same goes for the Jag gene in Carpet Pythons. A non visual does not carry the gene.
I believe that RF is what gives Cayenne Fires that extra red. I also believe that also applies to Sunglow's. If you read Don's description of Sunglows, it's not just the lack of white border that makes them a Sunglow, but there is an added red wash that makes them Sunglows.

I've not personally seen what RF does to Snows or Anery's only Amels. I am looking forward to hopefully producing some this year.

I thought it was the Salmon that was the same as RF, not Coral. I'll have to double check my messages, but I'm pretty sure that's what Donovan said.

I have a local friend that works with Coral's (SMR lines too) and they don't have the dominant effect in coloring.