• 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.

Testing for Stargazing

chris68 said:
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I'm kind of surprised no one's been seen selling "Dancing" morph corns. ....
Click to expand...

I was going to put this in an earlier post but thought better of it at the time. Of course since you brought it up.... A couple of years ago a vendor at the Tinley NARBC was selling "Spinner" Corns. You guessed it, they were Star Gazers being sold as the newest corn snake morph. Everybody who knew what was going on was appalled and said something to him. He didn't care and told us to PO. He sold quite a few.

Terri
 
Not sure how this thread ended up down in the test area (used for members to do test posts using various functions), but it's back where it belongs now.
 
stephen said:
If Stargazing acts as a simple recessive trait ,how are the breedings from a Homo Stargazer x Possible Het breeding and no stargazing babys hatch, no matter the size of the clutch prove that Possible animal still isnt het for the Stargazing trait?
Click to expand...

Stephen, statistically if you breed a homo gazer and get no gazers in a seven egg clutch then there is a greater than 99% chance that the snake bred with the gazer is not het for the gene. That is the study or science of statistics. I don't know how to explain it but I trust Chuck's explanation. You never reach 100% because there is always the chance of the freak clutch. You either believe in the study of statistics or not.

I am happy to say that my male was tested and out of 16 eggs there were no gazers. I feel comfortable saying that I am over 99% sure he is not carrying the gazer gene. That may not be good enough for you but there is no other way.

I also find it incredibly sad that most of the people in this thread are in agreement (finally about 3 years after I was skewered for offering hets up for anyone who wants to test.) and yet you are bickering about how well someone expresses themselves or types.
 
Well

If Stargazing does in fact act as a recessive trait,then I totally disagree with the percentages that the science of statistics state should be. I have bred a 100% Het for Amel male to several Homo Amel females that layed 100s of eggs for a period of 4 years on the 4th year I finally hatched some Amels! The 3 prior years resulted in no (0) Amels.So any ideas how this could be?
 
That would be one of those freak things and why it can never reach 100% certainty. I would also suspect that there may be something about this particular male that causes him to not make Amels.

You might feel comfortable saying that many mathematicians are wrong but I am not. I am more likely to believe that their is something unique about your male. Did you breed him yourself and is that how you are sure upheld is het?
 
Ummm

How many mathematicians are actually breeding cornsnakes. I didnt hatch the male out, I bought it many years ago as 100% Het Amel and actually was pretty upset when no Amel babys hatched out .Then the 4th year of breeding him after excepting I did get burned Amels did hatch out, much to my surprise.There was no freak things happening there,it was a high dollar animal at the time
 
Well to be honest Steohen, I would expect your male is not het and the 4th year Amels were from retained sperm from other breedings..

Statistics has more to do with odds. It has nothing to do with what you are breeding. It is just numbers. It is how they calculate the odds of winning a lottery, how they determine if the findings of a scientific study are not due to chance alone.

I'm afraid I don't know how to explain it any better.
 
JoannaD said:
Stephen, statistically if you breed a homo gazer and get no gazers in a seven egg clutch then there is a greater than 99% chance that the snake bred with the gazer is not het for the gene. That is the study or science of statistics. I don't know how to explain it but I trust Chuck's explanation. You never reach 100% because there is always the chance of the freak clutch. You either believe in the study of statistics or not.

I am happy to say that my male was tested and out of 16 eggs there were no gazers. I feel comfortable saying that I am over 99% sure he is not carrying the gazer gene. That may not be good enough for you but there is no other way.

I also find it incredibly sad that most of the people in this thread are in agreement (finally about 3 years after I was skewered for offering hets up for anyone who wants to test.) and yet you are bickering about how well someone expresses themselves or types.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but most people who have actually done any even moderate scale breeding could not honestly accept those statements after observing actual results from their clutches using ANY recessive gene. Not trying to be caustic, just realistic. IT JUST DOES NOT WORK OUT TO BE THAT WAY IN THE REAL WORLD.

16 eggs is NOT a sample large enough to be even remotely considered a statistical judgment call of the probability of the genetic makeup of the parents. In my humble opinion, that would be just downright foolish to do.
 
I may not have as large a slice of pie in the pan as everyone else, but my SK stock have been tested to be SG free. Rest assured I will be labeling the offspring as such, and will take pride in offering them for sale, knowing that I'm putting clean stock into the pool. Should I ever acquire any SK from an unknown/untrusted source, they will be tested for a minimum of two seasons before any offspring will be sold. The offspring from those first two seasons (the 100% het gazers) will be sold or donated to a serpentarium that happens to have young king cobras or coral snakes that are in need of feeder snakes so I can be absolutely certain that I'm not putting any more SG into the CB gene pool.

diamondlil said:
I'm out of rep power Dave, I owe you one
Click to expand...

I got him covered for y'all.




And now, a note on manners and implied textual tone.
The wonderful, and horrible, thing about internet forums and text in general is that tone is always as the reader interprets it. It is up to the wordsmith/typist/poster to make their point and tone as clear as possible to avoid any confusion. A callous tone might not have been what the poster was intending, but through a poor choice of words, a misunderstanding is far easier than it would be were the two face to face.
 
Last year, breeding Torandre (ghost het amel) to Dier (amel het anery) gave me 15 eggs... and no normals. The odds of that were under 1%.

Yes, freaky things happen sometime. But if we're playing that card, why does *anyone* ever buy possible hets? After all, you could *never* get that het to show up even if it's there, right? So why pay more money for possible hets? Why pay more money even for 100% hets if they might not pop up. I will from now on demand to pay normal amel prices for amels het peppermint stripe, as I might never end up with a striped amel or a peppermint, much less a peppermint stripe.

Stargazing also doesn't act *like* a simple recessive trait. It *is* a simple recessive trait. And it is something that we should try to control as best we can. The horses may have left the barn, but we can fix the doors, fix the protocol of checking those doors, and catch some of those horses. Just because they eat, grow, and breed does not mean they should be ignored or not treated as a problem. My hydrocephalic puppy ate, grew, and could have bred. And had an increased chance of producing more hydrocephalic puppies.

Or look at it like merle aussies. Why is generally considered unethical for someone to breed two merle aussies together (1 in 4 chance homozygous, lethal-white) when the odds of producing a lethal white are so low, many lethal whites don't make it to birth anyway, and those that survive often do quite well despite being blind and/or deaf.... but not unethical for us to breed potential carriers of stargazing? Why is it perfectly ethical to not try to get that "yes" or "probably not" answer?
 
JoannaD said:
Stephen, statistically if you breed a homo gazer and get no gazers in a seven egg clutch then there is a greater than 99% chance that the snake bred with the gazer is not het for the gene. That is the study or science of statistics. I don't know how to explain it but I trust Chuck's explanation. You never reach 100% because there is always the chance of the freak clutch. You either believe in the study of statistics or not.

I am happy to say that my male was tested and out of 16 eggs there were no gazers. I feel comfortable saying that I am over 99% sure he is not carrying the gazer gene. That may not be good enough for you but there is no other way.

I also find it incredibly sad that most of the people in this thread are in agreement (finally about 3 years after I was skewered for offering hets up for anyone who wants to test.) and yet you are bickering about how well someone expresses themselves or types.
Click to expand...

You're right. The way we calculate this is using a binomial probability formula:

(n/k) = n!/k!(n-k)!

Breeding a homozygous recessive animal to a heterozygous animal would lead a 50% chance of the offspring being homozygous recessive, based on simple Mendelian genetics.

Take an n=7, and plug that into our formula and we get the probability that 1 or more offspring are homozygous recessive = .9922, or 99%. In statistics we generally consider anything "significant" at >95%, so it would be "safe" to say that the possible het is not actually a het.
 
"safe" to say that the possible het is not actually a het.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify before I get unnecessary backlash for this...

I'm saying that mathematically its "safe" to assume that in this case the het is not a het. However, in the case of the stargazer gene I would ALWAYS suggest refraining from breeding even a POSSIBLE het for stargazer, as its a deleterious allele.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top