Fire pair, het Charcoal, Cayenne

Yes, Don says red factor is what makes cayennes and sunglow red, I agree totally, but I was just speculating on whether animals that are homozygous for red factor will be even more red than het animals carrying a single copy. People do cayenne fire x cayenne fire breeding so plenty of red factor homozygotes should be out there. You'd expect one of those to produce all red factor offspring when mated to anything else. Has that ever been observed?

The whole salmon/coral thing is confusing for me since there isn't universal agreement. From what I've gathered from his website in the past, my understanding is that Don now labels his red factor (he calls it red mask) snows as coral snows and considers salmon to be a member of the "coral snow family." And then there was this post which I guess answers my question about homozygotes. https://www.cornsnake.net/index.php?...id=252&lang=en

But then I think at other points he has labeled his salmon snows as being the result of strawberry? I wouldn't necessarily say I agree with that characterization, but I guess I'm reserving judgment until someone does a lot of controlled breeding experiments. But if you have some messages where he's clarified, that would be cool!

Here's a link to his facebook where he mentions coral blizzards produced by a red factor amel het anery charcoal, who was produced by a coral snow x blizzard pairing.
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php...55600521147773

I really wanna know what those coral blizzards look like!

So my fire pair actually could be het red-factor, then? They show as much red, or more, than the adult female shown in the last link there. This pair was originally bred by John Finsterwald of Pikes Peak Reptiles (Colorado Corns). He has acquired many of his animals from Don, and they seem to talk a lot, so I trust what he says about the parents. He used to have pics of the parents pairing up on his website, but has updated the site. I remember the fire was truly intensely red. I appreciate all the discussion on the genetics, though. Very interesting!

I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to red factor, but I guess they could be? But if the cayenne fire parent was heterozygous for red factor then she wouldn't make all cayenne fires when bred to a whiteout, only half of them would be. They look a lot more orange than I would expect from a cayenne fire, and even compared to Don's red factor amel to my eyes, but maybe it is just the lighting?

Originally Posted by DuxorW

Yes, Don says red factor is what makes cayennes and sunglow red, I agree totally, but I was just speculating on whether animals that are homozygous for red factor will be even more red than het animals carrying a single copy. People do cayenne fire x cayenne fire breeding so plenty of red factor homozygotes should be out there. You'd expect one of those to produce all red factor offspring when mated to anything else. Has that ever been observed?

The whole salmon/coral thing is confusing for me since there isn't universal agreement. From what I've gathered from his website in the past, my understanding is that Don now labels his red factor (he calls it red mask) snows as coral snows and considers salmon to be a member of the "coral snow family." And then there was this post which I guess answers my question about homozygotes. https://www.cornsnake.net/index.php?...id=252&lang=en

But then I think at other points he has labeled his salmon snows as being the result of strawberry? I wouldn't necessarily say I agree with that characterization, but I guess I'm reserving judgment until someone does a lot of controlled breeding experiments. But if you have some messages where he's clarified, that would be cool!

Here's a link to his facebook where he mentions coral blizzards produced by a red factor amel het anery charcoal, who was produced by a coral snow x blizzard pairing.
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php...55600521147773

I really wanna know what those coral blizzards look like!

There's been a lot of different statements about Red Factor and Red Coat, etc, over the past 5 years or so that I have been trying to figure it all out. Initially, it was thought that RC and RF were the same thing, just called different names. (Joe Pierce was using RC, I'm not sure, but I think at the time, Don was using RF terms.)
I started using RF. Then a member here, Bob did some test breeding with RC and RF and found them to be different, RF being dominant, and RC being recessive.
In talking with Donovan, he said that RF and Salmon had been proven to be the same thing.

It is my understanding, that with the dominant gene, an animal cannot be het, in the fact it cannot produce a homo animal. Am I wrong in that? I have never seen it. Has anyone produced any RF babies from to non visual animals?
That's where I am saying they are not het, because I do not believe they do.
If someone has proven that, I'd like to see it, because I do not want to be making the wrong conclusions.

I have equated the dominant (or incomplete dominant rather) gene such as Tessera to be the same as the Jag gene in Carpet Pythons. The Jag gene is an incomplete dominant, and acts the same as the Tessera gene. Only visuals can produce visuals, and when pairing a Jag to a non Jag, about half of the babies are visual, and the normals do not carry any of the Jag gene.

Super Tessera has been proven, but I do not know about in the RF situation. It would be worth a try, for sure.

The biggest problem with this whole RF/Salmon and now Red Mask thing (which I didn't realize he had started using that term until fairly recently), is that there has been no consistency in the name. That is why I stuck to using RF, because back when I started talking to Don about it, and Bob was doing the RF and RC test breeding, RF was used for the dominant gene. One reason I opted to stick with RF instead of "Salmon" after talking to Donovan, is also because of the Salmon/Coral confusion. RF is more definitive, IMHO.

Strawberry is visually different from RF, from what I have seen (only a couple animals in person), but that is another red gene that adds to the confusion.

I did not come up with the "RF" label, but will continue to use "RF" for the dominant gene, as it was the first term Don used, and then Bob used it for the dominant version.

Originally Posted by backafter30

So my fire pair actually could be het red-factor, then? They show as much red, or more, than the adult female shown in the last link there. This pair was originally bred by John Finsterwald of Pikes Peak Reptiles (Colorado Corns). He has acquired many of his animals from Don, and they seem to talk a lot, so I trust what he says about the parents. He used to have pics of the parents pairing up on his website, but has updated the site. I remember the fire was truly intensely red. I appreciate all the discussion on the genetics, though. Very interesting!

IMO, in my limited breeding experience with the RF gene, if they are visual RF they will produce more RF babies, but if they are not visual, they will not.

My RF Tessera het Fire Tessera male (Sire to my 2013 clutch is from John as well).

It looks like more testing needs to be done to prove some of these questions.

I am by no means an expert, I am only going on what I have seen.

Originally Posted by DuxorW

I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to red factor, but I guess they could be? But if the cayenne fire parent was heterozygous for red factor then she wouldn't make all cayenne fires when bred to a whiteout, only half of them would be. They look a lot more orange than I would expect from a cayenne fire, and even compared to Don's red factor amel to my eyes, but maybe it is just the lighting?

This is my RF Amel Tessera from my 2013 clutch.
First a baby pic, then a recent pic.

I do have a project going this year, with my RF Tessera het Fire male and one of John's Cayenne Fire females. I wasn't planning on keeping any of the babies, or continuing the RF project after this year, but I just might have to, and test some of these questions.

t is my understanding, that with the dominant gene, an animal cannot be het, in the fact it cannot produce a homo animal. Am I wrong in that? I have never seen it. Has anyone produced any RF babies from to non visual animals?
That's where I am saying they are not het, because I do not believe they do.
If someone has proven that, I'd like to see it, because I do not want to be making the wrong conclusions.

I have equated the dominant (or incomplete dominant rather) gene such as Tessera to be the same as the Jag gene in Carpet Pythons. The Jag gene is an incomplete dominant, and acts the same as the Tessera gene. Only visuals can produce visuals, and when pairing a Jag to a non Jag, about half of the babies are visual, and the normals do not carry any of the Jag gene.

I think we are in 95% agreement about red factor and the fact that it is what makes cayenne fires, coral/salmon snows, and sunglows red, and that it is dominant. I just think we are missing each other in the terminology, specifically the word het.

Het just means that at a specific locus the two alleles present are not the same. Ie, a tessera is Tt (het) and a super tessera is TT (homozygous instead of heterozygous) and a normal is tt (homozygous). The very definition of dominant is that a phenotype is shown when the animal is heterozygous (although they will also show it, to the same or greater extent, when they are homozygous for the dominant allele, assuming it doesn't kill them).

I am suggesting that, say, a cayenne fire could be homozygous or heterozygous for red factor (give it the symbol capital R since it is dominant). So Rr (het) and RR (homozygous red factor) fires would be cayenne fires. And maybe the homozygotes are redder than the hets. This seems to be the case for salmon snows in the link I posted to Don's "super" salmon snows. Pairing two Rr (visually red factor) animals should create roughly 1/4 RR red factor homozygotes. These homozygotes would produce ALL red factor (Rr) offspring when mated to a normal. That is assuming that red factor is truly dominant, not polygenic, and that it is what we call "fully penetrant." Sometimes, a mutation only gives you a probability of showing the phenotype, which can confound things.

IMO, in my limited breeding experience with the RF gene, if they are visual RF they will produce more RF babies, but if they are not visual, they will not.

Yes I'm agreeing with that, because the non visuals are homozygous recessive (rr) for red factor.

Strawberry is visually different from RF, from what I have seen (only a couple animals in person), but that is another red gene that adds to the confusion.

More agreement from me here.

Do you think the babies in this thread look red factor? If they are not then they cannot make red factor offspring as they would be homozygous wt at the red factor locus, which I think is what you meant when you said "RF cannot be a het." And if they are red factors they would be heterozygous.

Originally Posted by DuxorW

I think we are in 95% agreement about red factor and the fact that it is what makes cayenne fires, coral/salmon snows, and sunglows red, and that it is dominant. I just think we are missing each other in the terminology, specifically the word het.

Het just means that at a specific locus the two alleles present are not the same. Ie, a tessera is Tt (het) and a super tessera is TT (homozygous instead of heterozygous) and a normal is tt (homozygous). The very definition of dominant is that a phenotype is shown when the animal is heterozygous.

I am suggesting that, say, a cayenne fire could be homozygous or heterozygous for red factor (give it the symbol capital R since it is dominant). So Rr (het) and RR (homozygous red factor) fires would be cayenne fires. And maybe the homozygotes are redder than the hets. This seems to be the case for salmon snows in the link I posted to Don's "super" salmon snows.



Yes I'm agreeing with that, because the non visuals are homozygous recessive (rr) for red factor.



More agreement from me here.

Do you think the babies in this thread look red factor? If they are not then they cannot make red factor offspring as they would be homozygous wt at the red factor locus, which I think is what you meant when you said "RF cannot be a het." And if they are red factors they would be heterozygous.

I agree, and it is me, that is hung up on the "het" term.

As far as these babies go, based on the source (from John) they could very well be. But then again, I have normal Fires, that have no RF in the lineage, that have become very red.

Hopefully time will tell.
I hope the OP continues with progression pics of these babies.
That would be cool if they turned out to be RF (Cayenne)!

Yeah, I think diffusion (and all the things that might be tagging along with it in bloodreds) makes things tricky, as it seems to increase reds all by itself. What a headache!