Poll: are you going to call "bloodred" anything else?

[carol]

Thanks for the reminder on the "het" situation. I can't argue with that point. I am still personally uneasy with selling a het bloodred or a het diffused (what ever ends up being the case). But that is just my own choice. I don't even think it was something I took into consideration until this thread started. Either name implys something they might just not get.
I guess we'll just have to sit and wait for breeding results to see if the pattern trait is really dilluted when outcrossed. I know you don't like that term but you know what I mean when I say outcrossed. Too tired to think of the correct term at the moment.
I don't think motleys loose thier stregth and what we see is normal variance. However, I do see this trend in bloods, but certainly not enough to prove it one way or the other. Granted there are some really great Pewters and Hypo Bloods out there, a majority of the ones I have seen seem to loose something in the translation. I guess only time and breeding trails will tell.

Anyone do any deep thought on whether the pattern aspect of bloodred may be linked to two different genes? Just something that crossed my mind, wondered if anyone else pondered on that one yet?

 

[Rich Z]

Well, it has been my experience that the Blood Red trait certainly seems to act like a single recessive gene. Otherwise when I bred Hypomelanism into Blood Red and had those double het animals, I would never have gotten Hypomelanistic Blood Reds. Nor when breeding Lavender into Blood Red and producing hets would I have ever gotten Lavender Blood Reds (or whatever we'll eventually call them) in the next generation. If we are not talking about a single recessive gene, then what exactly are we talking about? Co-dominant? Nope, not that I have seen. Partial co-dominant? Well you'll have to define and explain that one to me.

The ratios seem to be pretty much what you would expect for a single recessive, but there does seems to be bleed over into F1s as well as intermediary results in some of the F2s that don't quite make the grade. What would you call that? Heck, you should see the results of my breeding Amber to Blood Red. Interesting animals, to be certain. I am certain that when the eggs hatch out this year from breeding those F1s together, there is going to be a lot of head scratching going on. But what else is new?

So if someone offers Hypomelanistics het for Blood Red, or Lavenders het for Blood Red, and you breed them together, I think you will have every reason to expect that (depending on your luck quotient) you will very likely get the expected results if you treat the genes as being single recessives. At least that has been the case that I have seen over the years. The fact that some of the cast offs will have partial influence of the Blood Red trait probably really shouldn't be considered as a flat out negative aspect of this, now should it?

If you breed Lavender Blood Red to Lavender Blood Red, what would you expect to get? With somewhat of a bit of variability between individuals, certainly I will expect to get Lavender Blood Reds. If you breed Lavender into Blood Red, would you or would you not refer to those offspring as heterozygous for both Lavender AND Blood Red? Well, I certainly would. And actually I have. And the results I get from breeding them is fully consistent with this expectation.

 

[Drizzt80]

Serp I think your latest post has been your best description/argument so far with what is going on with bloodred compared to other morphs. BTW, thanks for using my new motley as an example! I have always been myphed myself looking as some of the examples of motley snakes and not really seeing the 'motley' in them. A perfect example of the variance you see in them as well as bloodreds.

Rich makes an excellent argument in his latest post as well, and not sure if it was his intent, but it lends more support to identifying the 'bloodred' pattern/gene/affect with a different name. Specifically to the discussion on F1's being het and showing characteristics of the hidden genes . . . There was a thread recently concerning het for butters. I have 2 normal het butters and 1 amel het butter. They don't even compare to my normals or amels. I could place them side by side and pick out the 3 hets right now. They are so much more yellow than you'd expect in a normal or amel. Would I expect to see this affect in all het for butters? No, but with my current situation, I would expect to see it to some possible degree or not at all in the hets.

Just another $.02 in this discussion. I can't help but feel we may actually be getting somewhere finally!!

D80

 

[Darin Chappell]

"Co-dominant? Nope, not that I have seen."

Rich, I'm confused (big shock there!). When you say that you have not seen evidence of this trait (the pattern, I mean) being co-dominant, what do you mean by that? Perhaps we are using two different concepts of what a co-dominant gene does in an animal, but I am seeing nothing BUT evidence of this trait's co-dominancy.

I hate to argue with someone who obviously has so much more experience than I do, so I am really just asking out of curiosity's sake as much as anything else. Surely, we must be using the same term in differing ways, though.

 

[Rich Z]

Well, let me pull a definition of codominance out of one of my genetics texts:

Alleles which lack dominant and recessive relationships may be called intermediate alleles or codominant alleles. This means that each allele is capable of some degree of expression when in the heterozygous condition. Hence the heterozygous genotype gives rise to a phenotype distinctly different from either of the homozygous genotypes. Usually the heterozygous phenotype resulting from codominance is intermediate in character between those produced by the homozygous genotypes, hence the erroneous concept of "blending". The phenotype may appear to be a "blend" in heterozygotes but the alleles maintain their individual identities and will segregate from each other in the formation of gametes.

First off, what exactly are the characteristics that positively identify a Blood Red corn and are considered to be the phenotype for this cultivar? Is it one or more visible trait? Well, let's simplify it and just pick one: Patternless abdomen. Or even more specifically a patternless white abdomen.

Secondly, for a trait to be codominant it has to be comdominant with SOMETHING. Which is what? All of the traits that DON'T make the Blood Red look, or just some of them? How about just the LACK of patternless white abdomen? Well OK, let's consider that then. If the Blood Red trait of the patternless white abdomen were truly a codominant trait, then based on the above definition, then ALL of the babies produced by breeding a Blood Red to anything that lacked the patternless white abdomen would be an intermediary between completely patternless white and normally patterned abdomen.

Is this what we get? Not that I have seen. You may get a few in a clutch that look like that, but certainly not all of them. Matter of fact, in my opinion, we are getting less white and more orange in the abdomens of Blood Reds based on what the original line looked like, so there is some question about what exactly the genetic component of this trait is.

Do you get babies that tend to lean towards the Blood Red look with the dorsal coloration? Why yes, in most cases you do. But would that be surprising based on the fact that Blood Reds have been selectively bred for this coloration? It would be like breeding an Okeetee to any other variety of corn and being surprised that the babies tended to have this coloration influence as a result. Would you refer to this as codominance?

Now the wrinkle in this is that apparently this Blood Red "look" is more evident in some breedings than others, depending on what you breed it with. For instance, breeding Blood Red to Lavender or Hypomelanism tended to produce pretty much all normal looking animals, at least for me. Whereas breeding Blood Red to something like an Okeetee produces more a much more blending look. Also, my breeding the Hypo Blood Red with Amber produced all pretty much identical looking animals that tended to very much look like a blending of traits. I don't know of anyone who has bred Blood Red to Miami Phase, but I would be real surprised if the babies turned out having much of the Blood Red influence in a breeding like that.

So perhaps the question of "codominant to what?" needs to be explored more fully.

Granted this could be a subjective judgment call based on the opinion of the person making the call. But two examples that come to my mind that would be real world, sink your teeth into, examples of codominance would be:

Yellow Corn x Blue Corn = Green corns
Striped Corn x Normal Blotched Corn = Aztec/Zipper/Zig-Zag corns

These would be pretty much indicative of codominant traits, in my opinion. I guess it depends on how liberal or strict your definition of codominance is.

 

[Darin Chappell]

I don't know that I have ever seen a bloodred with a completely white belly. I'm sure there are some, probably several, but given the evidence that I have seen, I would imagine that they must be a very small minority of the overall population. All of the pewters I have seen have had clear, white bellies, but not bloodreds.

You asked a pertinent question about the defining characteristic of bloodred. That seems to be the $64,000 question here, doesn't it? In my opinion, there is not ONE characteristic that identifies an animal as a bloodred, because THAT cultivar is the result of a simple pattern mutation along with the red coloration that comes from line-breeding. It is not a popular opinion, to be sure, but it is mine.

However, if we simply look to the pattern of the "bloodred belly" as Don Soderberg calls it, then I think we can see that it is one that is checker-free, and will usually have the ground color from the lateral lines creeping into the otherwise white belly. When I see that phenotype, I believe that animal to be homozygous for that "bloodred belly" gene.

If I bred a homozygous animal to a wild type animal, I will get babies that are all het for that "bloodred belly." Will they also possibly show tendancies toward a more red spectrum? Maybe, maybe not, but as you correctly pointed out, that is from the line-breeding side of the equation, and not really what we are talking about here.

If one looks at those F1 animals' bellies, I believe that one will find evidence in the HUGE majority of them of the "bloodred belly" trait partially expressing itself in those heterozgous animals. Checkering along the sides with a "clear stripe" down the middle is the most obvious evidence of this being the case. Will they all show it? No, but probably 95% of them will to one degree or another.

Co-dominance, according to the text you cited, means that a gene is "capable" of expressing itself in an "intermediate" form somewhere between the phenotypes of the animals homozygous for the two co-dominant genes (in this case, "bloodred belly" and wild type). So, if I suspected "bloodred belly" to be co-dominant to the wild type belly, I would expect to see F1 babies have effects of of both genes showing up in their belly markings. In my opinion, that is what we do see.

Remember, if you look at the wild type corn's belly and the "bloodred belly" on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 = WT and 100 = homozygous for bloodred belly), then all of the animals that are het for those traits must show up somewhere on the scale in the 1 to 99 range. They need not all be perfectly moderate 50s to comply with the definition of co-dominance. The 1s may be fairly indistinguishable from 0s, but if the gene is codominant, and the animals in question are truly hets, then they are 1s whether we can visually distinguish them or not. It is the "capacity" to express a heterozygous phenotype that makes a gene co-dominant, not a full expression in every individual example.

So, the question I have to ask myself (and everyone else) is: "Do you think, based on the evidence of how the trait is expressed as a whole over the entire family of animals possesing genes for that 'bloodred belly,' do you think that the homozygous, heterozygous, and wild type animals are likely to express three different phenotypes on their belly markings?" If so, then you have to accept the genes which control those markings to be co-dominant to one another. If not, you are looking at something I simply cannot see, and I would REALLY be interested to see what it is that you are talking about.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Carol,
I have been thinking the same thing as well. Are Bloodreds a result of one gene, recessive or otherwise, or a result of two genes. Or a combination of a recessive gene and selective breeding of normal non-mutant genes. There does seem to be more of a blending effect when out crossing Bloodreds. There also seems to be more of a re-blending of non-mutant genes when breeding the outcrossed Bloods back together, rather than the on and off triggers that you would expect with a mutant gene, recessive or otherwise. The belly pattern obviously has the on and off triggers that you would expect with a recessive gene or co-dominant gene, but could also have selective breeding effects at the same time.

I have been looking at the bellies of all of my corns a lot more lately and I am amazed at how many have partial non-checkered bellies. Especially, how many have the line down the middle of the belly which is suppose to be an indication of a co-dominant het bloodred belly. Either I have a lot of het bloodreds in my colony, or this belly pattern is very wide spread and caused by many things. I am sure it is very possible to selectively bred most of the belly checkers away, without a mutant gene being involved at all. It is also possible to selectively breed the pattern of a corn in either direction you wish to go.

I am also finding the co-dominance of the Bloodred gene harder to accept. You should not have to have such a good imagination or magnifying glass to see a co-dominant genes effects. You should get clutches of snakes with a majority of the clutch, or all of them, which are very obviously an in-between look rather than just a few and some not at all. This really suggest a blending and not co-dominance. What ever happen to the brown bag test. The average guy/gal is suppose to be able to pick these out fairly easily, when mixed with other types.

Photo: Lava Corn het Ice. (Opaque of course) No bloodred or other mutant gene other than Lava and Anery A.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Miami Phase Corn

 

[ecreipeoj]

Lavender

 

[ecreipeoj]

Amel

 

[Darin Chappell]

Well, I was only kidding about finding the name for a cornsnake in the original Tsalagi language, but after I said that, it got me to thinking ... you all know how dangerous THAT is for me!

Anyway, I couldn't find a term for "corn snake" specifically (or even a description beyond a simple "snake" that I could use in place of our beloved species!), so I used the term, "rat snake" as my translational jumping off point.

The word in the Tsalagi language is:

Tsi-s-de-tsi i'-na-dv

It is pronounced (kind of!):

Jih-sday-jih Ih-nah-duh

The bold is the syllable of emphasis.

My family is of Tsalagi descent, but because my ancestors were on the Trail of Tears, and my immediate ancestors grew up in a time and place when it wasn't cool (or safe) to be "Indian," much of our language capacity was lost in the Tsalagi tongue.

I love studying languages, and have several that are pet projects of mine. Thanks for the opportunity to do a little research!

 

[Serpwidgets]

Ok, I'm hoping to get us several steps further in what we can agree on...

Well, it has been my experience that the Blood Red trait certainly seems to act like a single recessive gene. Otherwise when I bred Hypomelanism into Blood Red and had those double het animals, I would never have gotten Hypomelanistic Blood Reds. Nor when breeding Lavender into Blood Red and producing hets would I have ever gotten Lavender Blood Reds (or whatever we'll eventually call them) in the next generation.

As far as the matter of, "there is a simple trait, whether it is recessive or codominant is still a question," this is a slam dunk.

Regarding questions of two or more simple traits, only two traits would bump the number of pewters in an F2 from "bloodred X charcoal" down to 1 in 64. Any "bloodred plus anything" would be bumped down to 1 in 64. This is certainly not what we're seeing. We are seeing a "1 in 4" or reasonably similar result in the recovery of this phenotype.

This is an extremely good indication of a simple trait. Consider that motley was branded a "simple recessive" by Dr Bechtel when only a handful of F2s had been produced from a handful of F1 clutches. Also consider what was required for any of the other traits. We've gone way above and beyond the call of duty in those types of breeding trials with this one. After being crossed into a zillion different lines, it has been recovered independently by a lot of breeders.

As to whether or not it is codominant, this may remain the subject of arguments for some time, but IMO considering it as a simple recessive or a simple codominant is by far the most accurate way to describe it at this point.

What we can take from that is, either way, the F1s are properly considered heterozygous, regardless of their appearance, for whatever we finally decide "it" is. This is an important distinction from selectively bred morphs because it affects the way we make breeding plans. When working with a purely selectively bred morph, you don't plan on using something that looks nothing like the target morph and getting good results from it. With this, we know it happens in a familiar and predictable way.

Can we now all agree that a simple trait (regardless of how it is technically identified, or whether it is codominant or recessive) has been shown to exist?

 

[carol]

I'll go for that. I just still like "Blood" better. The degree in which this "gene"(lets call it "gene" X lol) is displayed is just still so variable that just as few F2's homo for "gene X" may look "diffused" as F2's that end up being red. Even if these animals don't even look like the colors "bleed", we could fall back on lineage to validate the name "Blood". As for the point that "blood" and "bloodred" are already used interchangably, the people who ALREADY use them both to describe the same thing already know about the effects of "mixing it up". No one will really get ripped off, the worst thing that could happen is that a newbie customer will be looking for a "Blood" corn (Normal corn displaying gene "X"), see a gorgeous Bloodred on a table marked "Blood" corn and they will get what they were looking for and then some.

 

[Serpwidgets]

First off, what exactly are the characteristics that positively identify a Blood Red corn and are considered to be the phenotype for this cultivar? Is it one or more visible trait? Well, let's simplify it and just pick one: Patternless abdomen. Or even more specifically a patternless white abdomen.

IMO "checkerless" says it without specifying beyond the bounds. It would be the most "minimal" definition and should be a totally inclusive means of identification. (That is, it shouldn't produce "false negative" results.)

It will not be possible to define it by phenotype in such a way that there will never be false positives. That is, it will always be true that cornsnakes not carrying or expressing this trait can mimic the appearance of individuals who ARE expressing it.

If we applied that standard to this trait (as Joe and others continue to do) then we also need to all stop calling anything by the names anerythristic, charcoal, hypo, sunkissed... This is not reasonable, and I'd really hope that the point of "other corns can look like that" can stop being raised. It's simply not a sensible argument to anyone who acknowledges any of the above 4 traits.

How do we separate other mimics? AneryA is not simply defined by phenotype. It does not properly apply to all non-red cornsnakes. Instead, it applies to any non-red cornsnake that also produces non-red corns when bred to a recognized AneryA. Same goes for Charcoal.

With that qualification, I would think the method of identification would be:

Any corn that expresses at least a checkerless belly (and can additionally express some loss of side pattern) and which, when bred with a recognized "expressor" of the trait (or a het) produces offspring expressing "the trait."

Again, if this isn't sufficient for all cases (such as when upper keys corns are mixed in) then we also need to take into consideration how you properly "identify" the hypo-looking offspring of two normals het hypo/sunkissed, or any of the other pairs I listed before, and what that says about the validity of naming any of them.

 

[Serpwidgets]

I'll go for that. I just still like "Blood" better. The degree in which this "gene"(lets call it "gene" X lol) is displayed is just still so variable that just as few F2's homo for "gene X" may look "diffused" as F2's that end up being red. Even if these animals don't even look like the colors "bleed", we could fall back on lineage to validate the name "Blood". As for the point that "blood" and "bloodred" are already used interchangably, the people who ALREADY use them both to describe the same thing already know about the effects of "mixing it up". No one will really get ripped off, the worst thing that could happen is that a newbie customer will be looking for a "Blood" corn (Normal corn displaying gene "X"), see a gorgeous Bloodred on a table marked "Blood" corn and they will get what they were looking for and then some.

For the "old-timers" I think a major problem with this is transition... there's no way you're going to get people who've been using them interchangably to stop doing so. I'm one of them.

Also, it's not a different name...

Hypomelanistic = Hypo
Amelanistic = Amel
Anerythristic = Anery
Bloodred = Blood

It's an abbreviation. They might as well still be called "bloodreds" because it won't matter either way.

I think using a different and unrelated term will also be helpful to people who have it permanently etched on their brains that these two things (the trait and the patternless red snakes) are one and the same. Using "Blood" and "Bloodred" will only reinforce the notion that they're the same thing. I can already hear that being used (as if it's a good) supporting argument by someone standing behind a table and saying "they're the same thing."

It will also be easier to notice the fact that something has happened if something completely new is applied to them. If you're walking around a show and see "blood" corns and didn't know of this thread, you would not think twice about it... someone abbreviated "bloodred" just like they abbreviate anerythristic and amelanistic.

However, if it's "stickly staples with four M's and a silent Q" you will want to know what it is. IOW this should help make more people (who don't read the forums or surf the net) aware of a change.

 

[carol]

For the "old-timers" I think a major problem with this is transition... there's no way you're going to get people who've been using them interchangably to stop doing so. I'm one of them.

I have the same arguement for switching them over to "diffuse".

As for the people who are too stubborn to admit the pattern and the red are too different things... well even with the name diffuse, they will still say "its the same thing"

It will also be easier to notice the fact that something has happened if something completely new is applied to them. If you're walking around a show and see "blood" corns and didn't know of this thread, you would not think twice about it... someone abbreviated "bloodred" just like they abbreviate anerythristic and amelanistic.

Now that's a point. Which makes me tempted to revert back to "Blood pattern" for the normal color specimens with this pattern gene. As far as the morphs like "Lav Blood Corn", one look at the critter on the table will confirm it is not just a nicknamed bloodred. "What is that?", they ask, "A Lavendar with the same pattern mutant as a bloodred" you answer. It is an easy answer, they check thier mental files against what a bloodred pattern looks like and they get it.

I do have to say, I am not against a new name all together, but I just don't think any of the new ones suggested are any better at being well descriptive. I also think a name a bit closer to its origins would help people from getting too confused when reading up on the subject. Bloodred has just been used for so long to mean both.

Using "Blood Pattern" will also be more effective in getting people to see there is two different things envolved. "Diffuse" will either make those stubborn ones say "It's something all together different" or "Its all the same". I say let the old schoolers be what they are, they are already educated enough to make thier choice. We need to concentrate on the new ones, one that if we teach that "Blood" can mean two different things (like wind and wind) from the very start, they will be OK. I really don't see anyone out there that continues to be confused on the subject after it is explained. And since it will have to be explained anyway, I think we should wait until something better can be thought of. Blood Pattern doesn't roll off the tounge, but it is pretty accurate and won't conflict with what is already in print in large numbers.

 

[Rich Z]

Again, if this isn't sufficient for all cases (such as when upper keys corns are mixed in) then we also need to take into consideration how you properly "identify" the hypo-looking offspring of two normals het hypo/sunkissed, or any of the other pairs I listed before, and what that says about the validity of naming any of them.

Been there, thought that......


Seems to be a quirk of human nature where we MUST label everything and have it categorized with its own neat little label. We seem to have this curious digital point of view about the analog nature of the natural world that just is at odds with reality. I'm surprised (or maybe there already is) that someone hasn't labeled every possible shape that a cloud formation can be in. Not a generalization like cirrocumulus, or cirrus, but each individual cloud itself. The "Mickey Mouse" phase cloud, for instance.

In some respects, I feel that is what we will be doing with the genetics of the corn snake. How many different looking types of 'A' Anerythristics will we come up with that may wear their own label eventually? How many of Lavenders? How many different looks can the Motley come in? And then we combine those genes together to come up with even more variations that are subject to having even more names applied to them.

If anyone has ever studied fractals, I think you will see some insight as to what we are facing here.

This is going to get interesting, I do believe. :crazy01:

 

[Serpwidgets]

Now that's a point. Which makes me tempted to revert back to "Blood pattern" for the normal color specimens with this pattern gene. As far as the morphs like "Lav Blood Corn", one look at the critter on the table will confirm it is not just a nicknamed bloodred. "What is that?", they ask, "A Lavendar with the same pattern mutant as a bloodred" you answer. It is an easy answer, they check thier mental files against what a bloodred pattern looks like and they get it.

I remember in high school we'd read from textbooks, and each person would read one paragraph out loud. I was utterly dumbfounded that 95% of people skipped, added, or changed words between what was written in the book and what they spoke aloud. Not just minor things, but things that often drastically changed the meaning of what was there.

"Blood Pattern" will still be shortened to "blood." I really think we need to get away from the word "blood" altogether.

I don't have a major problem with "blood lav"... I still have a problem with it, but on a more of a "semantics" level. But with normal colored ones and hets, that creates the problem of the gene itself having a different name depending on the situation.

Using "blood" has the same feel to me as if I were to incorporate and set up my booth at reptile shows with a big sky blue banner having the name "Serp'n'Co" on it. It's "different," but it isn't different.

To my moral compass, it's on the same level as selling a piece of rope through magazine classifieds as "solar powered clothes dryers." If I can forsee bad consequences to people who are acting reasonably, it is then my responsibility to make a reasonable effort not to create such a situation.

For those who don't like the suggested terms, IMO a good alternative is a "nonsense" term like motley... basically any word, real or made up, that cannot create a preconcieved notion about the morph. Stuff like "Snafu" or "Modulated" or ...

 

[Rich Z]

Heck, I've been considering making up labels for the deli cups lately that would simply read:

<center>

Corn Snake
Miscellaneous

</center>




Bet you a dollar I would get at least a half dozen questions per show about whether this is a new morph or not....

 

[Clint Boyer]

IMO a good alternative is a "nonsense" term like motley...

Webster:
mot'ley (mot'le) adj.. 1, composed of discordant elements; heterogeneous.

I've always liked Motley and thought it was a very descriptive name.