new to bloodred..

Well,
Okeetee and Miami are definately not describing how they look but almost everyone knows what they look like. There's Kisatchie and all of the Keys corns. So then the place of origin would be more in line then the founders name.

True.....and look at the confusion still involved with that. Look at the debates just on the Okeetee look alone, let alone locality vs. appearance. I'm not asking the world to rename Okeetee, Miami, or whatever, but why add another to the list, especially when they won't be breeding for a "look", more likely they will become more and more variable. An Okeetee phased corn has a (more-or-less) accepted list of parameters to strive for. Plus, those "locality" morphs are not simple recessive traits.

The pattern trait from the bloodred lines is its own entity. Perhaps not recognized or focused on at first, but becoming more and more evident as time goes on. The argument of "but not all 'bloodreds' have wiped clean sides, not all of them have totally grey heads, some have more peppering on the belly than others" is similar to saying that a motley isn't a motley because it doesn't have circles all the way down its back or the saddles aren't stretched enough. If it is homozygous for motley, then it's a motley. If it breeds to another motley and produces all motleys, it's a motley. If you breed it to a non-motley carrier, and the f1's when bred together produce all motleys, then it's a motley. Patterns vary, that's the beauty of them, but if the pattern acts like a simple recessive or codominant single genetic trait, then shouldn't the pattern be named?

Calling a pattern morph a color name just doesn't make sense to me.

BTW, Darin....nice analogy:

I imagine that the very first motley that was produced by Dr. Bechtel was a normally colored motley. However, because of the unique brightening effect of the motley gene, there are many normally colored motlies that are a very bright copper color.

What if Dr. Bechtel had ignored the pattern mutation and, focusing on the color improvement, called the morph "copper corns." That would have been fine in the beginning, but then we would have amel copper corns, snow copper corns, charcoal copper corns, and anery copper corns. The pattern would have been the common denominator in all of these, but because of their original name, we would be having to explain how an animal named for its bright red/orange coloration could also be anerythristic (no red/orange) at the SAME time.

Click to expand...

And now imagine if that had happened, someone else came along and suggested the name "motley" since the pattern was so variable. The entire corn community blew up in discussion on the subject, some hating the name (motley....how more "blah" a name can you get....always reminds me of a motley, ragtag group or a ratty looking mongrel...but anyway, on with the analogy), some loving it, some undecided either way. Those snakes were already known as copper corns.....so where would we be today that would be so different? The only change I can see is that normal motleys would be named coppers and the rest would be the same. *Whatever color morph* motleys. That's how I'd see the changing the name to isolate the pattern from the bloodred coloration. Bloods will still be bloods...but we'd have a more descriptive name for the pattern, especially since it's been proven we can isolate the blood-rediness from the dissolution/diffusion/fading/spreading/schpedoinkaling effect of the pattern mutation.

I think the biggest problem we're having now is defining the 'look' of the genetic pattern anomoly.

I don't think we can lay down rules for naming morphs. There will always be things that just sound good and stick.

How about CONfuse?

CON-fuse. LOL. Honestly, I don't care, go with it. Just don't force me to call something that isn't blood red, blood red.

I don't think anyone is going to force you to call them anything. But, right now, Bloodred is the name they are refered to by most everyone, blood colored red or not.

Time will tell.

Heck, I've been trying to dump that name "Milk Snake Phase" for years and it still pops up here and there. I would say that the chances of the name "Blood Red" being completely supplanted with something new is highly improbable.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised no one has come up with the name "Hyper-erythristic". :rofl:

WOW! I missed out on the whole first 7 pages of fun!

Where do I start - such a complicated and long discussion!

First, from Hurley.

The term "bloodred butter" doesn't bring to mind the same snake that "diffused butter" does.

Exactly! I like and will continue to use the name bloodred for traditional bloodreds (even if they are more orange than they used to be), but when trying to get that diffused, faded, smeared, blurry, etc. pattern look into other morphs without the accompanying red/orange color, then one of the above adjectives would describe the result much better. (As far as the deep red color denoting a bloodred, that is just a selectively bred trait that we may hopefully produce more of in the future, especially if customers are asking for it. But whether they are deep red or red/orange, they are still bloodreds to me, especially if they are fairly patternless, and of course, free of belly checkers.)

Think about a pewter - what is the difference in the appearance between it and a typical charcoal? Primarily the diffused, faded, blurry, etc. pattern - the color is still a charcoal. I am NOT suggesting renaming pewters, since the name is established and descriptive enough. But suppose we were just now producing the first pewter and it hasn't been named yet. Everyone already knows what a charcoal looks like, as well as a bloodred. Wouldn't faded charcoal or diffused charcoal be quite descriptive of the new combo? I think the adjective applies to the fading of the black pattern outline. Whether there is just less black or whether it becomes suffused with more color, the effect is still less black pattern outline. I discussed the pewter because it is already so familiar. But the same should be true of butters, lavs, etc. If the new combo became known as diffused lav, diffused butter, etc, after a while people will know that it means an animal that is a butter or lav that has a faded pattern and lack of belly pattern that derived from bloodreds. (kind of like we will probably end up with ultimate ghost, lavs, etc, and people will come to know it stands for ultimate hypo in the combo)

The reason I wouldn't want to use patternless or vanishing has already been stated. First, few would ever match that description. Second, others have already produced animals with those names derived from striped/motley stock and it would be too confusing. Both faded and diffused have a wider variabliltiy and can describe animals from both ends of the pattern spectrum.

I already sell high end and low end bloods. The difference is not generally the redness vs. orange - it is how well diffused or faded the lateral pattern is. I never really put those words to it before, just always chose for that. From now on, I will probably sell high end bloods as those with a well diffused pattern compared to the more boldly patterned low end ones. As far as decisions about choosing whether it is a high end or low end one (or Grade A, B, etc), it is always the breeder who decides initially, and the customers who verify the choices by either purchasing, or not.

Anyway, I would not sell a red/orange bloodred as just a "diffuse" - as Don said, it sounds incomplete and is not descriptive of both the pattern and color. But I would sell a well-diffused bloodred - . And I would sell a diffused butter or diffused lav (if I had any, that is!) The only reason I would choose diffused over the others I mentioned is that faded sounds old and ugly, like faded clothes or furniture, etc. Not marketable, but descriptive. And blurry sounds like a hangover! I will probably use it (diffused) in a limited fashion on my '04 list and see how the public reacts. Afterall, when we produced the first charcoals ( a long time ago), we called them 'muted', because the colors seemed more muted and less contrasty than the regular anerys. What an awful name! When we heard charcoal, we jumped on it in a hurry! So just because we choose a name now, doesn't mean it will stick! Eddie Leach first tried to call the bloods "Corn Gold". I hated that! We came up with the name bloodred, and Ernie Wagner, I think, tried tomato corns. Ours stuck. You just don't know until you try it and see what catches the public fancy.

I probably didn't catch all of the points I wanted to answer, will think about it more tomorrow.

Thanks everyone, for the great discussion! It is invigorating to participate in such a complicated debate with so many viewpoints, yet with everyone respecting the opinions of those holding opposing ideas.

Kathy isn't that the reason we are all here, I have learnt so much over the genetic side of things since being on here I actually do group chats on msn with uk members explaining genetics! We have quite a few forums over here in the UK such as www.livefood.co.uk, www.reptilecrazy.co.uk and www.jaysreptiles.co.uk but it is refreshing to have a purely corn one even though Tanya aka Cornfan has just set one up, on here we have people from every walk of life and country and we have a common bond!

Keep it up all!

Peter

Just one thought - especially in europa, people are very very fast in classifying snakes by their look. Every Amel that is a bit lighter than their brothers and sisters is sold as a Candy, every with a little bit of white borders as a Reverse Okeetee and every Motley that has nice circles is sold as a hurricane.
This is really terrible!

Now, what comes to my mind with the "bloodred" or diffused pattern - it seems to act some kind of co-dominant. I've seen a picture of a charcoal x pewter and there where only a few specles on the belly - as a hatchling it really looked typicall "diffused". The snake was clearly not homo for "diffused" - but how can we clearly distingush between PURE diffused animals and between the offspring that just has a little bit of the white belly and so on???

I think that it is important that make clear, that bloodred in combination with other morphs like Caramel, Lav, Butter, Charcoal etc. is meant as the pattern morph what we now seem to call "diffused". But on the other hand - we will have a whole bunch of animals with partly white bellies or even white bellies sold as diffused that are NOT homo for diffused... we all know, that Babys Charcoal het. Bloodred will sell less than Diffused Charcoal...

I don't know if it's better to sell animals with a better descriptive name and on the other hand have a huge problem with selling "diffused animals" where you always have the risk not the get what you've been told to get.
If all breeders where honest in saying from which pairings the diffused animals come, this wouldn't be a real problem... but we live in realitiy - don't we?

I hope my english is understandable... I really do
Greetings from Old Europe

Very understandable probably better than mine!!!

I think that it is important that make clear, that bloodred in combination with other morphs like Caramel, Lav, Butter, Charcoal etc. is meant as the pattern morph what we now seem to call "diffused". But on the other hand - we will have a whole bunch of animals with partly white bellies or even white bellies sold as diffused that are NOT homo for diffused... we all know, that Babys Charcoal het. Bloodred will sell less than Diffused Charcoal...
I don't know if it's better to sell animals with a better descriptive name and on the other hand have a huge problem with selling "diffused animals" where you always have the risk not the get what you've been told to get.
If all breeders where honest in saying from which pairings the diffused animals come, this wouldn't be a real problem... but we live in reality - don't we?

That's always a problem, unfortunately it's one that is a problem no matter what name is applied to a morph or what morph you are talking about. There will always be unscrupulous people just as there will always be ignorant people (not in the derogatory sense, just by definition - not knowing) with no ill intent that will misrepresent animals. You should see all the "Okeetees" that aren't, "candy canes" that are closer to sunglows, and "hypos" that aren't hypo at all (and who can tell for sure in an adult, anyway?) You're still left with your level of trust in the seller (their quality and their knowledge of their stock), your willingness or need to crossbreed to test to your satisfaction, and your interpretation of what is a good bloodred or diffused butter or whatever.

As Rich said earlier, he still has to explain what a lavender is...I'll take a step even further back and say I have to explain over and over and over again what an anerythristic vs. amel vs. snow is. (I do have to admit I love to see the light bulb come on in someone's face during that conversation, though, lol.) If someone has no concept of corn genetics, they have to start somewhere, God knows I did.

Hopefully over the next year or so, this name change (or not) will go through the market test and we'll end up with a general consensus. Should be a fun year.



:cheers:

I think the problem will be the same whether we all sell them as bloodred butters, lavs, etc. or diffused butters, etc. You will have people saying that is what they have because their animals have some of that bloodline or look a little like that, etc. It is not easy to say where "diffused lateral pattern" begins and ends, but luckily it is easy to see that it either has ventral checks, or doesn't. So that has to be the benchmark. Some will be more boldly patterned than others that lack the checks, but that will just go to high-end, low-end, well-diffused or not. I don't really see it being more of a problem than we already have. It is just a matter of people getting used to the term. If a few breeders just use it on their list/website, people will get used to it. But even so, if somebody comes up with a catchier, more descriptive term in a year or wo, this one will get dumped for it.

I wish that had happened to motley (really ugly name, I think), but naming was too new back then. Nobody started thinking about it until the name was way too well established, but that takes a few years of use from a number of people before it seems irreplaceable.

Ahm - yes and no.
Yes, you're right with what you decribe hurley - but that's not the point I meant.
Perhaps I have to explain a bit more.
Another example would be Hurricane. There are some many people with Motleys called "Hurricane" without knowíng what Don originally named Hurricane. Most people I know and also many pictures I've seen declare every Motley with nice circles to Hurricanes - why? Cause people don't really know what a hurricane has to look like. They hear the name hurricane and when they see circles, it fit's the name "hurricane" - buy it.
When you now have diffused instead of bloodred - there will be many snakes with bellies that "look" diffused or even different than normal corns bellies.
What I mean is - I think Bloodred means to everyone knowing a little bit about corns NO VENTRAL PATTERN. But diffused - I can show you many pictures of F1 animals from Bloodred x XYZ where the bellie fits the name "deffused" - that's a problem with descriptive names (same thing hurricane...).

It's just my thought, cause I can give you plenty of links where I described that Hurricane means Donuts and nearly background color between these rings and NOT a motley with circles on it's back. And I see myself writing a lot of postings about what a diffused corn has to be and what is perhaps just het. and so on.

More clear what I meant? Don't know how I can better describe my thought - but I didn't meant the thing with Candy, ReverseOkeetee etc. which is a problem with every selectivly bred morph.

To say it again - I would be pleased if we could find a better thing to deal with the "diffused" pattern morph.. it was just a thing that came to my mind while reading this discussion... that's the thing with nice theories and what later happens outside of the "pro" forums.

Now, to take this on a tangent for a moment ...


It is my opinion, based on all of the evidence that I have seen, that the pattern mutation about which we are all talking is one that is co-dominant, rather than simple recessive. That is why, in my opinion, the F1s look the way they do in relation to the "clear stripe" on the belly which is, to one degree or another, free from the checkering found on normals, and the varying degrees of fading/diffusing/muting... of the lateral saddle markings.

I say that this is my opinion, but it IS based upon a great deal of first hand and secondary evidences. But, I fully realize that I am not anywhere nearly as experienced in the matter as are others of you. SO, I would really like to hear from those who have studied the matter on any level.

What do you think? Is the pattern (I'm not alking about "redness" here ... just the pattern mutation) the result of gene that is probably recessive in nature, or is it more likely co-dominant?

I look forward to your responses!

Perhaps as an actual example, also for Darin:
Look at the thread with the ButterBloods
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10983

You see a significant difference between the belly of the butterblood and the brother/sister of her that jelle owns - but also between jelles animal and normal butters. The belly is also nearly white with just little specles - which shouldn't be there if that pattern morph would be only dom/rec.
If it would be dom/rec - we should have NO ventral pattern and ventral pattern - but not the thing between.
Perhaps, we should outcross them more to be sure, that there aren't other genes involved etc. that give SOME of the animals a little bit different ventral pattern. Long way to prove this imho...

Interesting point. What will be the difference in describing a not so diffused Diffuse as to describing a not so red Bloodred.
Kathy makes the point that the determining factor is the clear ventral, not so much the diffusion. Maybe the attention should be directed towards the ventral?

I USED to think that at least the lack of ventral checks was a simple recessive. The first several years of outcrossing, then backbreeding bloods resulted in either clear bellies, or they had definite checks, reduced as they might be. But after a lot of generations, I began getting some that were VIRTUALLY (but not absolutely) clear of checks, but usually did not have well-diffused lateral patterns. When I bred one of those to a "pure" blood, I got some babies that had normally checkered bellies, an unwelcome surprise! So I came to realize that even a few half checks near the edge of the belly meant that it is not a "pure" blood, and might throw babies with normal bellies.

On a somewhat related (but maybe not very related) note, Don has mentioned that lately he has produced a few motleys that are not completely free of ventral pattern either. We know that breeding a clear ventral blood to a clear ventral motley produces normally checked babies, so it is not the same inheritance. But are the two 'virtually clear, but not quite" bellies of the two unrelated morphs indicative of how the genetics of belly pattern works? Don't know.

Another observation in my own breeding: I have seen plenty of bloods without ventral checks which do not have really well diffused patterns. But I don't remember EVER seeing a well diffused lateral patternd "blood" that DID have ventral checks. Have the rest of you noticed the same, or different results?

Menhir,

I'm sorry, but you've lost me in that last post. The belly shots I saw there were all of typical "bloodred" patterned snakes, it seemed to me. Do you have an animal of which you could post a ventral shot that is the typical "het" pattern sort for comparison? I don't have any butter bloods, so I don't see what you're saying.

However, in every other morph combination I know of, the bloods all exhibit the virtually clear belly (clear of the checks, I mean) with the usual "creeping in" of the ground color (red, orange, yellow, etc.) seen most heavily toward the tail to one degree or another. Those animals which are het for the pattern though have the same "creeping" effect, but there are also checks (mostly black for the non-amel morphs and mostly clear/pink for the amel varieties) along the sides of the ventral, with a clear stripe (again, clear of checks) down the middle to one degree or another.

I know that this is a bit convoluted, but that is what I have seen in every example of the "bloodred" pattern to one degree or another in EVERY animal that was either homozygous or heterozygous for the pattern mutation. It's a shame that a possible language barrier is keeping me from understanding what you mean as fully as possible, but I think we are basically saying the same thing in two different ways.

I haven't worked with the Bloods long enough to see that.

I do have projects (MilkMotley and Okeetee Motley) that show signs of ventral checkering in homo Molteys. This is also evident in a completely unrelated line I ran across in The Lazy Slither Ranch stock. I should have some VERY interesting hatchlings this year.

P.S. My Okeetee Motley line is a Classic that came from your stock Kathy. We discussed this before and there is some Bloodred in it's heritage also!

"Maybe the attention should be directed towards the ventral?"

It is true that is where the absolute measurement can be made. But the lack of checks is not the reason people will be making the new combos - it is for the more elusive diffusion effect. By focusing on that effect, even if it is more difficult to objectively measure, attention will be focused on what matters, and will encourage breeders to further exaggerate that characteristic.