new to bloodred..

[SODERBERGD]

Sidenote. . .

Amanda, you're welcome. You've done better with yours than I have with mine. Mine are smaller than the one you show there, but don't we love that red. Don't respond to my comments here on this forum as we don't want to distract the thinkers. For one, I know I'm having trouble concentrating on all this rocket surgery. I personally find genetics to be like math. Either you have a knack for it like Serp or you have the polar opposite like Don (me). I'm fine with the simple recessives, but this codominant stuff is hurting my virtual head.

 

[Darin Chappell]

Joe,

You keep equating the Bloored pattern with the Salmon boa, and that's not an accurate comparisson. In order to be accurate, you have to equate the Bloodred pattern to the Super Hypo, because in BOTH of those specimens, the animal in question is HOMOzygous for the mutant gene in question.

Super Hypo = ss
Bloodred = bb

The Salmon boa is comparable to the het bloodred patterned animal, because they each have one mutant gene and one dominant gene at the given locus.

Salmon = sS
het bloodred = bB

If you cross a Salmon to a normal, you get normals and Salmons:

sS x SS = 50% sS and 50% SS

If you cross a Bloodred to a normal, you get normals and het bloodreds:

bB x BB = 50% bB and 50% BB

Het bloodreds DO look different than do normals, AND they look different than bloodreds. They are a third phenotype, which is, by definition, what constitutes a co-dominant gene.

Salmon is co-dominant because the hets look different than the normals and the homozygous animals. Bloodreds work in exactly the same way, thus they too are the result of a co-dominant gene.



Marcel,

A Super Tiger bred to a normal will throw 100% Tigers, not 50/50 Supers and normals. Also, Het bloodred (Outcrossed bloodreds) IS a simply inheritable gene, but you're right in that it is not simple recessive. It is co-dominant. Breed a het bloodred to a normal, and you will get, statistically speaking, 50% normals and 50% animals het for bloodred. Breed those F2 hets together and you will get the classic 25/50/25 split of bloodreds, hets for bloodred, and normals. That makes it simply inheritable, but it is the fact that the hets can be picked out by their phenotype that the gene is a co-dominant one.

 

[SODERBERGD]

By the way. . .

. . . we need to alert the boa people that they have a serious problem like our's. They have mistakenly named a genetic pattern mechanism after a color. SALMON. Boy are they going to be upset. I hope we're in time. grin

 

[Marcel Poots]

The "Super" is a dominant form of a co-dominant gene, and can be bred to a normal animal to produce entire clutches of the visible het, or co-dominant form. So I was wrong by saying Super tiger is codominant.

My Super Tiger:

Tiger retic (Courtesy Bob Clark)

 

[Marcel Poots]

Marcel,

A Super Tiger bred to a normal will throw 100% Tigers, not 50/50 Supers and normals.

I said: Super Tiger X Normal = Normals and Tigers. But I have never bred them myself so I don't know if that is correct. I figure there will be some normals.

 

[Darin Chappell]

If the following is true:

tt = Super Tiger

tT = Tiger

TT = Normal

Then:

tt x TT = 100% tT

So, it would be impossible for a Super Tiger bred to a normal to produce anything other than 100% Tigers.

At least that is my understanding of the Tiger gene, that it is co-dominant. If it is, it has to work as outlined above.

 

[Marcel Poots]

At least that is my understanding of the Tiger gene, that it is co-dominant. If it is, it has to work as outlined above.

I think you are 100% correct on this one.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Don,
Boa people don’t have near the problems that us corn people have yet and they have solved their problem of a morph being called by a color already, which is what eventually will happen to the Blood double homo morphs. Rich Z’s Lavenderblood, may be called an Amethyst Corn like was suggested or something completely different, but it will still be a Lavenderblood Corn.

Since the Salmon Boa is a Hypo Boa and the only known hypo gene within the Boa group, it is not a big problem yet. A Homo Anery/Salmon = Ghost, A Homo Salmon/Amel = Sunglow (These scream!). An Anery Boa is still called an Anery Boa. There must be something about that gene that is just do damn uninspiring that it just cannot be called anything else.

For anybody that may know, There are a couple of T+ Boas that look more like our Hypo Corns in appearance with the opaque coloration where the black should be. One is a Colombian Boa and the other an Argentine Boa. The Salmon Hypo Boas, are basically just a very light boa with an overall lighter appearance and it happens to be dominant to the normal gene. Not the Hypo genes that I am accustom to, but the co-dominance of the gene is very interesting. This is very obvious and is 100% certain.

Is the Blood gene recessive or co-dominant? I am not convened either way at the moment. Most have said that it is recessive, with some indications in the F1’s of the Blood pattern. This could just be some normal dominant genes causing this by the mixing or out crossing of two different normal pattern variations. For the time being, I will assume that it is recessive just like the striped and motley genes. It seems to take multiple generation to recover all of the Bloodred traits.

Is the belly pattern and the Blood pattern connected as a recessive trait, or is one of the co-dominant? I guess I will see. Darin is about the only one that is sticking his neck out and saying that the Blood gene is co-dominant in some way, but I fail to understand his comparison to the Salmon Boa gene. It is not important that I understand it. I am sure what he is saying is perfectly understandable to many. If the Blood pattern is co-dominant or dominant over the regular pattern, then it should be extremely obvious.

When my Lava X Pewters hatch out, if the blood pattern is dominant then I will see the blood pattern on some of them with 100% certainty. If the gene is recessive, when I breed the F2’s together, I will see the blood pattern, with 100% certainty and hopefully some “Ice Pewters” or some name to that effect. I believe that Hypo Pewters are already in the making and will be something like “Silver“ Pewters I have heard tossed around.

Most people drop the “Red” from Bloodreds and refer to them as Blood Corns or just Bloods. This has already been suggested many times and something that would not get much objection to. I feel that if Rich Z breeds one of his Lavenderbloods X Blood and the results are a Blood het Lav, then this homo lav/blood is a genetic Blood, pattern, color and all.

 

[Amanda E]

When my Lava X Pewters hatch out, if the blood pattern is dominant then I will see the blood pattern on some of them with 100% certainty. If the gene is recessive, when I breed the F2’s together, I will see the blood pattern, with 100% certainty.

Well yes as you wrote it, that would be true, but we're saying that it may be co-dominant not dominant.

So when you hatch out your Lava x Pewters, if bloodred is co-dominant, the babies will all have a look unique to them that says they have the bloodred trait in them (reduced dorsal and lateral pattern and unusual ventral checkering - but not to the extent that you would see with a homozygous bloodred).

 

[paulh]

The "Super" is a dominant form of a co-dominant gene, and can be bred to a normal animal to produce entire clutches of the visible het, or co-dominant form. So I was wrong by saying Super tiger is codominant.

A mutant gene is not determined to be dominant or codominant by dosage. It's determined to be one or the other by the phenotype of the heterozygote. A mutant is dominant if the heterozygous form looks like the homozygous mutant form. A mutant is codominant if the heterozygous form can be distinguished from the homozygous mutant form.

Super tiger is the phenotype produced by the homozygous form (with a pair of tiger mutant genes). Tiger is the phenotype produced by the heterozygous form (with a tiger mutant gene paired with a normal gene). Tigers and super tigers can be easily distinguished (AFAIK), and neither looks normal. So the tiger mutant gene fits the definition of a codominant mutant.

Another possibility for the bloodred pattern mutant gene's inheritance is recessive with variable expressivity. For a mutant to be codominant, we should be able to reliably distinguish the heterozygote from both the homozygous mutant form and the homozygous normal form. But with variable expressivity, one can't RELIABLY distinguish the heterozygotes from one of the two homozygotes. I think someone will have to do a fair amount of breeding to decide about the bloodred pattern gene.

From what people say on the kingsnake.com boa forum, salmon may be better called a dominant with variable expressivity than a codominant.

And I don't have any trouble with the name "salmon". There seems to be a color effect as well as a pattern effect. Otherwise, nobody would be distinguishing sunglow boas from albino boas.

"T positive albino" is a very slippery term. If they ever test them, either the Kahl or Sharp strain of albino boa may turn out to be T positive. For that matter, both may turn out T positive. IMHO, those "T-positive albino" boas that look hypomelanistic should be called hypomelanistics.

 

[Darin Chappell]

I ask again: Does ANYONE have an animal they know 100% to be het for the bloodred pattern, which does NOT show the belly pattern that has checkering down both sides and a "checker free" stripe down the middle of some sort? I mean, there many be several of these floating around, but I have never seen one, and everyone to whom I have ever spoken says that these hets always show this pattern variation.

I am honestly interested in any responses anyone can offer. I'm not talking about possible hets (although I personally think there is no such thing...it either expresses the co-dominant effects, or it does not). If you have a het for bloodred animal that has a normally checkered bell pattern, I really, REALLY want to see it here.

Thanks in advance for everyone's help on this!!!

 

[pewter]

I have a lot of het. animals that look absolutly normal!!!

 

[SODERBERGD]

I have some. .

Darin:

I have some, but no time to shoot them right now. I'd estimate that about 40% of my F-1 from bloodred x non bloodreds have almost normal bellies. Don't quote me on that percentage because it varies from animal to animal, but I don't recall seeing a clutch of F-1s that were all what you describe. Most of them but not all had that center portion devoid of markings almost from neck to tail.

Don
www.cornsnake.NET

 

[Darin Chappell]

Pewter,

I agree that many are going to have a much less obvious "clear/checker free" stripe running down the center, but even the one you've shown above has the pattern on its belly. Look at the flash on downward. See how the checks don't fully meet in the middle like they do from nearly that point upward? That is what I am talking about.

I admit, that one is as nearly normal as I have seen, but I honestly believe you can put it in a bucket of normals and we could separate it out as a het for bloodred patterned animal.

I'll tell you what. Let's try something here. I am willing to make the call with no other information given to me other than a belly shot just like you provided there, as to whether an animal is het for bloodred or not. You take as many pictures as you like of your het bloodred animals and I will state right here for everyone to see what I think about them being het or not. Throw some normals into the mix to trip me up, if you want; I'll take all opportunities.

Now, I'm willing to do this at the risk of embarrassing myself for all to see on a couple of conditions:

1. We are all on the honor system here. I won't change my vote on what you have, and no body tries to post something when they aren't sure about its genetics. Either post a normal with NO bloodred in its background, or post a KNOWN het.

2. Let's limit this to non-amel specimens, please. I have a hard time seeing some of the variations of lighter colored animals on my computer screen, so posting normally pigmented animals is really the only fair way to see if what I am asserting is true or not.

3. I want everyone to understand that I am only trying to prove out my assertion that animals het for bloodred have a distintively different look to them than do non-bloodred carrying normals. I am not trying to "put anyone in his/her place," and I don't want this to get personal on any level. If someone wants to get into a spitting match over this, I am not interested.

4. This "test" is about the phenotype of animals het for bloodred rather than my individual ability to see them for what they are. I mean, I know people who cannot pop a hatchling for anything, but that person's individual inability doesn't mean that hatchlings cannot be reliably popped! Let's just see what the pictures show for themselves. I think I should be able to spot the vast majority of all animals het for bloodred, but even if I were wrong 10% of the time, does that mean there is no "het" pattern discernable? How many corns are mis-sexed each year by experienced breeders???

Now, in return, I simply ask that we try to be as honest, upfront, and scientific about this as is possible. I trust lots of people here (so anyone could perform the role I am about to suggest), but I know many are all very busy too! What I suggest is that we all agree on one person to keep record of what each picture represents as it is posted here. When an individual posts his picture, he can then email the list of what he has posted to this trusted third party, who will keep everything to himself/herself until AFTER I have made my judgment calls on the pictures in question.

So, if you want to act as the "Vault of Answers" in this challenge, please speak up.

Again, this is not about ego. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But let's just see how accurately the pattern of which I am speaking presents itself in the overwhelming majority of corns that are het for bloodred. I am officially putting my ever-so-small reputation where my mouth is.

Any takers???

 

[Serpwidgets]

Darin, I'm not sure... I understand what you're saying but I personally don't see it. I also know that Don can visually sex corns with like 95% accuracy. I can't do that, but obviously there is a "detectable" difference between the sexes if you know what you're looking for. So I know it's possible that there might be a discernable difference between hets for the pattern and not.

Personally, I think that some of them are detectable, some are not. I think that some "completely unrelated and no way they're het" individuals will fool anyone, making it as useful/useless as visually identifying ghost adults from anery adults. (I hope I'm wrong.)

I was going to pose the same challenge to you, but you challenged yourself first. Here are some bellies for your evaluation. (Sorry I already had amels and snows in there before you posted your challenge.) And yes, I'm definitely trying to trip you up and prove you wrong... otherwise it's not really going to prove anything to any of us, including you.

 

[SODERBERGD]

hmmmm???

Except maybe J, they all look like they could be outbloods.

 

[paulh]

Originally posted by ecreipeoj
Genetics 103 (contents deleted)

Eek! I don't know where that came from, but if I'd written it, I wouldn't put it on the web. I'd bury it somewhere and then deny it ever existed. Like some companies do with toxic waste.

 

[Clint Boyer]

 

[Menhir]

Sorry, I don't see a sence in testing Darin...
Perhaps this is a little funny, but it doesn't say anything, imho.
Why?
We could do the same test with adult Hypos/not Hypos - same result.
The thing is, if I have a clutch where I could expect a ratio of Hypos/non Hypos - it is plenty more easy to say wheter a hatchling is Hypo or not. I cam compare his color to the other hatchlings and so on...
And I think it's the same case with bloodred - if I know what parings the animals come from, I can make really better guesses than posting all kinds of bellies floating around and also don't have the chance to compare the one belly, to the bellies of the clutchmates.

~argh~ perhaps to early in the morning to form good sentences...

 

[Darin Chappell]

Menhir is right. Testing ME is of no importance, so if ANYONE wants to cast votes about those pics, I think they should feel free to do so. But since I put my big mouth on the line, I'll go first in regard to a pic by pic basis.

Let me just point out a couple of things first.

1) Like I said, Amels are tough to judge, due mostly to the differences in computer moniters, so I have to beg off on them a little. I'll make a call, but you have to cut me some slack on those!

2) I should have been more clear, but I meant for there to be full belly shots like the one Pewter initially posted above. I can take almost any snake in my collection, and given a pic of the right 1.5", make it look like almost anything I want it to look like.

I'm not AT ALL suggesting that Serp has done this for trickery purposes. What I AM saying is that snippets of the pattern are not always indicative of the whole, and I think that is a fair assessment.

So, with that being said, let me see how big a fool I've made of myself over this! The answers are ("yes" equals het for bloodred, and "no" equals not het for bloodred) :

A -- Yes
B -- Yes
C -- Yes
D -- No
E -- That's a tough one, but -- Yes
F -- No
G -- Another tough one, but -- Yes
H -- Not that I can see...
I -- Yes
J -- No
K -- Yes

Also, I'd say that Clint's is not het for bloodred either.

For those with the actual answers, you might give others a chance to offer their opinions before you tell me that I GOT THEM ALL WRONG!!!!

To be honest, I'm really interested to see how closely to the truth my answers are. I didn't just guess on these (though the snow is tough to see and the ones that look like they could be anery or charcoal outcrosses are tougher for some reason).

So, wait a while for any others to jump in -- then LET ME HAVE IT!!! I won't be whining, regarldless of the outcome!