CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLinks ads? Register and log in!

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > The Cultivars (morphs)/Genetics Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

The Cultivars (morphs)/Genetics Issues Discussions about genetics issues and/or the various cultivars for cornsnakes commercially available.

BUF gene
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2010, 12:38 PM   #51
Drizzt80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
Very nasty of you and totally expected of you.
Nasty how? Nasty in that you're claiming genetic expertise about the buf gene (which you thought were rootbeers and creamsicles) yet schooled me on the percentages of hatchlings produced that would be Candy Cane? That nasty? Okay, if you say so. Sorry I brought it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
This thread wasn't about finding out answers, it was only about trying to be mean spirited and pick at people.
Really? You started the pissing and moaning. All I have EVER been asking for since slangenbroad brought up buf 5 years ago is a (logical) breeding that shows buf isn't het Caramel. It has NOT been done. Period. Your magical chart, that has all the information out there, does not include a buf bred to a Butter to show that it's NOT het Caramel. Every breeding that matters on that magical little chart is either het Caramel or possibly het Caramel. "It's your site". Isn't that the attitude you brought to the table?

D80
 
Old 02-24-2010, 01:08 PM   #52
Caryl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
little wonder why Chuck and Connie refuse to come to this site with this antagonistic attitude of certain members. Wow...just wow...I knew you were all lurking and waiting to jump at the first opportunity. This thread wasn't about finding out answers, it was only about trying to be mean spirited and pick at people.

AND even try to pick at me for something I did so many years ago when I was still just passing on what had been sold to me as a Miami het candy cane. Wow, just wow. And you claim not to have a chip on your shoulders. Bologne! PURE BOLOGNE! You responses above totally blow that concept out of the water!
I take exception on my own behalf and on behalf of other members of the corn snake community. Yes, I said the community. This response is additionally unkind to the OP, whom I took to be a person who's newer to the hobby (or at least to the genetics/breeding aspects of it) asking an honest question. It was honestly and respectfully answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
And so, your unable to bridge that gap that a caramel has been tested?
Again, I have a serious interest in genetics in general and in caramel-based corn snake morphs in particular. I have always tried to dissect the information about the proposed buf gene logically, using scientific thinking. That's what I do and who I am.

No, Russell, I'm sorry but the issue here is not my/our being unable to "bridge that gap that a caramel has been tested." The issue is that, to the best of my knowledge at this point no cross has been done with an animal that was a caramel and nothing else.

Perhaps the test has been made, but I haven't seen it published. In science, publication and peer review is part of the process. I'm a peer and I'm reviewing in an unbiased fashion. There's no proof in the evidence publicly offered thus far that buf is a new gene. Name-calling, disrespect and distractions don't change this.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 01:18 PM   #53
ArpeggioAngel
Russell - I love Chuck and Connie. I think they are good people. I respect their decision not to visit this forum as yes, things do get very heated around here at times. There have also never been any issues between you and I.

That being said....

I have no vested interest in the Buf discussion one way or the other although I have followed it. And I do agree that the basic pairing to a straight Caramel - with no hets, no combo homo morph, has not been done. Or at least not done and shared with the rest of the cornsnake community. That is all that has been asked from the beginning and there is no reason why it should not/could not have been done to silence the doubters if this is indeed a new gene. Breeding with a butter - which is also homo amel - is not the same as breeding with a straight caramel. What is to say with that amel added in to the mix that there wasn't something else at play there? It needs to be tested out against just a regular old caramel to prove once and for all what exactly Buf is or is not. This should just be common sense and if slangenbroed really wanted to prove what he had, you would think he would've been able to do this and make his point.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 01:42 PM   #54
kathylove
WOW! A lot of hostility here!

I did not follow the Buf threads too closely. I had no real interest in that color / gene, and it was a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, so I chose to concentrate on other things. So I have no real opinion about it one way or the other.

But I am really sorry to see a genetics discussion devolve in this way. The thing that I usually enjoy so much about this forum is that we USUALLY are able to discuss so many subjects so well, and OFTEN, (but not always!) manage to have very civil debates about many touchy subjects.

That said, since I have nothing more to add to the discussion unless Chuck sends me new info, (or unless somebody addresses me in particular) I will try to stay out of the melee. I consider Chuck and Connie to be good friends, although I would not hesitate to disagree on a point in which I felt he was wrong. If I researched Buf thoroughly, maybe I would disagree - but I don't really plan to put any more time or effort into it than I already have. So I will have to reserve judgment for now, and see what new info comes out in the future.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 02:51 PM   #55
Russell
So may I ask then, why an animal that is homozygous for caramel not good enough?

Why must he breed to a straight Caramel het for nothing? Is that really as easy to find as you think? And why would the results be different? How could they be different, it is still 100 percent CARAMEL gene, wether is a an Amber, or Golddust, or Butter.

I'm arguing the point about it doesn't matter what Caramel something you use. When something is homo for Caramel, you can use that animal to test for the Caramel gene!

A butter corn would have a TWO caramel genes the exact same as a straight Caramel would at that locus. As would a Golddust, or Amber, or Topaz... As long as the animal you are using is homozygous Caramel, it can be used to test for Caramel.

If I have an animal that is suspected to even just CARRY the Caramel gene, and all I had was a BUTTER corn, I'd still get all normal babies if he didn't carry the Caramel gene. And if he did carry, half the babies would be caramel since the butter is 100 percent Caramel.

So I ask you, why are you insisting it must be only Caramel and nothing else to be able to test for Caramel?
 
Old 02-24-2010, 02:51 PM   #56
Russell
And I want you to PROVE using genetic wording that a butter corn can not test another corn for Caramel any less than using a straight Caramel.

Good luck with that.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 03:03 PM   #57
carnivorouszoo
I think what they are saying is that a caramel with no amel should be tested to prove the amel is not affecting the colors. Um, I understood that.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 03:04 PM   #58
Russell
but why would amel cause the caramel to be affected? two different genes! And if Buf was caramel, or het caramel, the butter being all caramel would throw caramel babies.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 03:11 PM   #59
Shiari
part of the problem with using a butter is that pretty much all of the 'buffs' out there are het for amel as well.

A simple pairing to a straight caramel should result in a very obvious mix of true 'normals' and 'buffs' if it in indeed a unique trait. By adding amel into the mix, with a potential for 50% to carry the amel gene in homozygous form, it's going to skew the results. Simple is always better when trying to isolate a new gene. I certainly hope that when charcoals appeared they didn't do something like simply breed it to a het anery and call it a day.

The point is, that these animals have never been tested against a *homozygous* caramel animal in any form.
 
Old 02-24-2010, 03:12 PM   #60
carnivorouszoo
Add any other color to another and it WILL be affected. Take for example my amel mot het caramel stripe. She has a high yellowy undertone because of the caramel. Any amel I have seen that has that high yellowy undertone has been het caramel. This example shows exactly what you are asking. How could it affect it. The amel being het COULD cause more orange in the coloring of a caramel. In theory that is, having never done this myself or seen one I can not say desisively that it would or that it would affect all of them that way but it COULD. That is why breeding to a caramel with absolutely no hets would prove the AMEL was not affecting it AND that it was NOT caramel in any shape or form. Does that help? Please note caps were used to emphisise not yell.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Tags
buf

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 PM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06666303 seconds with 10 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo