carnivorouszoo
Crazy Critter Lady
I've never seen an amel with eyes like that. Those eyes look alot like my normal het amel stripes. My normal mot het stripes eyes are a bit on the brown side though.
-
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.
BUF gene
- Thread starter Ivanfromsicily
- Start date
I have read over the links that Kathy posted a few days ago. From the data there, I agree with Chuck Pritzel's conclusions.
As Chuck wrote, the question of whether the buf gene and the caramel gene can be in the same gene pair is still up in the air as far as we know. However, according to one of the links, in the 2009 season, Slangenbroed had eggs from two matings, butter het motley x orange and golddust motley x orange. These matings could have already answered the question.
As Chuck wrote, the question of whether the buf gene and the caramel gene can be in the same gene pair is still up in the air as far as we know. However, according to one of the links, in the 2009 season, Slangenbroed had eggs from two matings, butter het motley x orange and golddust motley x orange. These matings could have already answered the question.
mike17l
Self-Admitted Duckoholic
If "orange" is actually a "buf" amel.
There are still to many questions, as Brent said, a lot of i's to dot and t's to cross. It is way to early for anyone to say (in print or online) that this is a confirmed new gene and confirm the mode of inheritance.
Shiari
Blutterer
Well, the first 'buf' animal appeared from a normal het amel paired with an amel, according the breeding record chart. So yes, an orange WOULD be a 'buf' amel.
The first animal, a female, apparently appeared in 2001. In 2004 she was bred to an amel het caramel and that pairing subsequently produced the first "oranges".
mike17l
Self-Admitted Duckoholic
Or just some amels het for caramel. Or just some amels exhibiting normal range of color. Still much work to do with this "new gene".
Shiari
Blutterer
No, having seen the pictures of these guys as adults and babies, they don't look like normals. They look like more yellow/brown caramels, especially as babies. They're starkly light and dark, with yellow spots between the saddles... same as how a hatchling caramel looks and can be mistaken for an anery by the inexperienced.
What questions? That's the meat I've been digging for. People keep saying questions but they don't ask them. Spell it out for me bro, I've been around a few years, but I'm still a noob with breeding.
I'd like to see two things done to nail buf down.
1. Find some homozygous bufs. All the babies from a homozygous buf mated to either a normal or a heterozygous buf would be expected to be buf.
2. Mate caramels to bufs with one caramel (or carame combination) parent. If some normal babies are produced, then buf and caramel are independent mutant genes.
1. Find some homozygous bufs. All the babies from a homozygous buf mated to either a normal or a heterozygous buf would be expected to be buf.
2. Mate caramels to bufs with one caramel (or carame combination) parent. If some normal babies are produced, then buf and caramel are independent mutant genes.
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
By the way I have to mention that I have seen many buff like normals in ads over here, I always thought they were just some poor contrasted normasls, with little red. Of course it could be that the gene is all over the gene pool on this side of the pond.
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
The bufs do remind me of one of my girlies:
This is her progression gallery:
http://www.snakearound.nl/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=444
She turned out more miami like, the yellow in the background disappeared. Maybe she's buf not het caramel... though people have said it could be a bit of emoryi heritance. But especially the clutch a year later with another female was clearly devided into 3 types of normal looking animals... not a somewhat homozygous group of animals with a mixed look. I did sell the clutch unfortunatley.. but this year I plan to breed the girlie to her father.. see what happens!
Interesting thing is, the father of this girl threw a weird mixed of normals with another female the year after: from grey with mahony saddles to more buff looking ones (yellowish).
This is her progression gallery:
http://www.snakearound.nl/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=444
She turned out more miami like, the yellow in the background disappeared. Maybe she's buf not het caramel... though people have said it could be a bit of emoryi heritance. But especially the clutch a year later with another female was clearly devided into 3 types of normal looking animals... not a somewhat homozygous group of animals with a mixed look. I did sell the clutch unfortunatley.. but this year I plan to breed the girlie to her father.. see what happens!
Interesting thing is, the father of this girl threw a weird mixed of normals with another female the year after: from grey with mahony saddles to more buff looking ones (yellowish).
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
Wish i could edit.... :
She turned out more miami like, the yellow in the background disappeared. Maybe she's buf not het caramel.... Interesting thing is, the father of this girl threw a weird mixed clutch of normals with another female the year after: from grey with mahony saddles to more buff looking ones (yellowish). People have said it could be a bit of emoryi heritance. But especially the clutch a year later with another female was clearly devided into 3 types of normal looking animals... not a somewhat homozygous group of animals with a mixed look. I did sell the clutch unfortunately.. but this year I plan to breed the girlie to her father.. see what happens!
She turned out more miami like, the yellow in the background disappeared. Maybe she's buf not het caramel.... Interesting thing is, the father of this girl threw a weird mixed clutch of normals with another female the year after: from grey with mahony saddles to more buff looking ones (yellowish). People have said it could be a bit of emoryi heritance. But especially the clutch a year later with another female was clearly devided into 3 types of normal looking animals... not a somewhat homozygous group of animals with a mixed look. I did sell the clutch unfortunately.. but this year I plan to breed the girlie to her father.. see what happens!
slangenbroed
New member
From slangenbroed himself
http://cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96347
here is a chart with all i ever bred with buff
And a explanation from chuck below here ( i ask to use it ) he did a great job
to explane, better than i can do !!!!!!!!!!!!
Evidence for the inheritance pattern of the Buf gene.
________________________________________
A few of my friends have asked me for clarification on this subject, so I have made this condensed/digested version to hopefully make it clear why the buf gene is listed in the CMG along with other known genes. I think it should also be noted that the goalposts for this gene have been set much higher than other similar genes which were included in recent years without any controversy. Regardless of this double standard, the evidence collected by Jan Notte over the past few years is very compelling.
Following are reasonable hypotheses which could be proposed to explain the "buf" phenomenon, and what the evidence says about each of them.
Buf is recessive Mendelian.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: Crossing Orange X Buf het amel produced a clutch of 8 hatchlings, 2 of which were non-buf. If buf were recessive, both of these parents would have to be homozygous, and thus the entire clutch would have been homozygous for the same. Another cross of the same produced 6 eggs, 4 of which were non-buf.
Buf is dominant (or codominant) Mendelian.
Status: Confirmed.
Reason: Eleven separate clutches producing 44 buf offspring out of 144 total. The 21 which resulted from buf X buf crosses did not show any obvious third (homozygous) phenotype so it is a reasonably safe conclusion that it is not codominant, although further evidence could appear at some future date. If so, we can consider it codominant and carry on.
Buf is not Mendelian.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: There is clear on/off expression of this gene in clutchmates, which occur in predictable ratios of offspring.
Buf is the phenotype of snakes het for caramel.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: First, Buf corns do not resemble normal hatchlings het for caramel, the saddle colors are obviously different. Next, a cross between buf X butter het motley produced 5 orange and 4 amel hatchlings. Every one of these nine hatchlings was het for caramel, so if the phenotype were a result of being het for caramel, the entire clutch would be "orange" corns. Golddust Motley X Orange produced 19 hatchlings between first and second clutches, 8 of which were buf or orange and 11 of which were not buf or orange. The same reasoning applies as did with the butter het motley. Finally, the parents of the 2001 buf matriarch were normal in appearance. If one of them was het caramel to pass this gene down to the 2001 female, they would have looked "buf" too.
Buf is the phenotype of snakes homozygous for caramel.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: See "Buf is recessive" above. If these snakes were homozygous, buf X buf would produce all buf, no non-buf. Results from two clutches exclude this hypothesis by producing non-buf hatchlings.
Buf is an allele to caramel.
Status: Undetermined.
Reason: A few crosses have been performed which include buf on one side and caramel on the other, but so far no conclusive evidence for or against allelism has surfaced. A conclusive test would be het buf het caramel or orange (amel het buf) het caramel x anything homozygous for caramel including butter, amber, golddust, honey, etc. The results of such a breeding would include non-buf, non-caramel hatchlings if buf and caramel do not share a locus. If they share a locus, all hatchlings will express buf or caramel since neither parent would have a wild-type allele to throw to any of its offspring. A significant number of hatchlings would then provide a statistical argument for an allele hypothesis. This is illustrated in the Punnett squares below. It should also be noted that since buf is dominant to wild type, and to caramel if it is an allele (known buf het caramel exhibits the buf phenotype) it is not nearly as important in most cases to know whether or not they share a locus, because it is not necessary to match up buf with caramel, as it is with recessive genes to get them to reappear from hets.
Buf needs to be crossed to a caramel in order to conclude testing.
Status: False.
Reason: A simple punnett square shows that Buf x caramel (or butter, etc) will produce exactly the same prediction regardless of whether it is assumed to be an allele to caramel or not an allele to caramel. Buf X caramel will not produce data that wasn't already produced by buf x butter and buf x golddust.
BTW if anyone wants to discuss the evidence or its meaning please feel free to post. I doubt there's much left, though.
Also, let's try to keep in perspective that we are not mapping a genome, we are determining outcomes of breedings. That is the whole purpose of "proving" a gene: to answer the questions of "what will I get if I breed this to a ____?" We don't need to know the base-pair sequence or which chromosome it's on in order to make reasonably accurate predictions.
In the case of buf, the data is sufficient to describe all breedings except one. We already know what will result from het buf X anything: 50% buf corns, and homozygous buf X anything = 100% bufs. The one single question we do not know at this time is, "what is the result of buf het caramel x caramel?" and we do know that the answer is either going to be 50% buf, 25% caramel, 25% normal, or 50% buf, 50% caramel. The two results are similar enough that in many cases "bad luck" is as much or more of a variable.
There are definitely all kinds of interesting side-questions that we can ask, but the answers to those questions don't affect the outcome in the vast majority of breedings, and the same questions remain unanswered about amel, ultra, hypo, strawberry, sunkissed, lava, dilute, anery, charcoal, caramel, lavender, cinder, kastanie, diffused, masque, piedsided, motley, stripe, terrazzo, tessera, stargazer, and short-tail.
http://cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96347
here is a chart with all i ever bred with buff
And a explanation from chuck below here ( i ask to use it ) he did a great job
to explane, better than i can do !!!!!!!!!!!!
Evidence for the inheritance pattern of the Buf gene.
________________________________________
A few of my friends have asked me for clarification on this subject, so I have made this condensed/digested version to hopefully make it clear why the buf gene is listed in the CMG along with other known genes. I think it should also be noted that the goalposts for this gene have been set much higher than other similar genes which were included in recent years without any controversy. Regardless of this double standard, the evidence collected by Jan Notte over the past few years is very compelling.
Following are reasonable hypotheses which could be proposed to explain the "buf" phenomenon, and what the evidence says about each of them.
Buf is recessive Mendelian.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: Crossing Orange X Buf het amel produced a clutch of 8 hatchlings, 2 of which were non-buf. If buf were recessive, both of these parents would have to be homozygous, and thus the entire clutch would have been homozygous for the same. Another cross of the same produced 6 eggs, 4 of which were non-buf.
Buf is dominant (or codominant) Mendelian.
Status: Confirmed.
Reason: Eleven separate clutches producing 44 buf offspring out of 144 total. The 21 which resulted from buf X buf crosses did not show any obvious third (homozygous) phenotype so it is a reasonably safe conclusion that it is not codominant, although further evidence could appear at some future date. If so, we can consider it codominant and carry on.
Buf is not Mendelian.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: There is clear on/off expression of this gene in clutchmates, which occur in predictable ratios of offspring.
Buf is the phenotype of snakes het for caramel.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: First, Buf corns do not resemble normal hatchlings het for caramel, the saddle colors are obviously different. Next, a cross between buf X butter het motley produced 5 orange and 4 amel hatchlings. Every one of these nine hatchlings was het for caramel, so if the phenotype were a result of being het for caramel, the entire clutch would be "orange" corns. Golddust Motley X Orange produced 19 hatchlings between first and second clutches, 8 of which were buf or orange and 11 of which were not buf or orange. The same reasoning applies as did with the butter het motley. Finally, the parents of the 2001 buf matriarch were normal in appearance. If one of them was het caramel to pass this gene down to the 2001 female, they would have looked "buf" too.
Buf is the phenotype of snakes homozygous for caramel.
Status: Falsified.
Reason: See "Buf is recessive" above. If these snakes were homozygous, buf X buf would produce all buf, no non-buf. Results from two clutches exclude this hypothesis by producing non-buf hatchlings.
Buf is an allele to caramel.
Status: Undetermined.
Reason: A few crosses have been performed which include buf on one side and caramel on the other, but so far no conclusive evidence for or against allelism has surfaced. A conclusive test would be het buf het caramel or orange (amel het buf) het caramel x anything homozygous for caramel including butter, amber, golddust, honey, etc. The results of such a breeding would include non-buf, non-caramel hatchlings if buf and caramel do not share a locus. If they share a locus, all hatchlings will express buf or caramel since neither parent would have a wild-type allele to throw to any of its offspring. A significant number of hatchlings would then provide a statistical argument for an allele hypothesis. This is illustrated in the Punnett squares below. It should also be noted that since buf is dominant to wild type, and to caramel if it is an allele (known buf het caramel exhibits the buf phenotype) it is not nearly as important in most cases to know whether or not they share a locus, because it is not necessary to match up buf with caramel, as it is with recessive genes to get them to reappear from hets.
Buf needs to be crossed to a caramel in order to conclude testing.
Status: False.
Reason: A simple punnett square shows that Buf x caramel (or butter, etc) will produce exactly the same prediction regardless of whether it is assumed to be an allele to caramel or not an allele to caramel. Buf X caramel will not produce data that wasn't already produced by buf x butter and buf x golddust.
BTW if anyone wants to discuss the evidence or its meaning please feel free to post. I doubt there's much left, though.
Also, let's try to keep in perspective that we are not mapping a genome, we are determining outcomes of breedings. That is the whole purpose of "proving" a gene: to answer the questions of "what will I get if I breed this to a ____?" We don't need to know the base-pair sequence or which chromosome it's on in order to make reasonably accurate predictions.
In the case of buf, the data is sufficient to describe all breedings except one. We already know what will result from het buf X anything: 50% buf corns, and homozygous buf X anything = 100% bufs. The one single question we do not know at this time is, "what is the result of buf het caramel x caramel?" and we do know that the answer is either going to be 50% buf, 25% caramel, 25% normal, or 50% buf, 50% caramel. The two results are similar enough that in many cases "bad luck" is as much or more of a variable.
There are definitely all kinds of interesting side-questions that we can ask, but the answers to those questions don't affect the outcome in the vast majority of breedings, and the same questions remain unanswered about amel, ultra, hypo, strawberry, sunkissed, lava, dilute, anery, charcoal, caramel, lavender, cinder, kastanie, diffused, masque, piedsided, motley, stripe, terrazzo, tessera, stargazer, and short-tail.
SnakeAround
Formerly Blutengel
Great Chuck worked that out so clearly! There are I's to be pointed but the conclusion is clear: buf is a new, dominant gene. It would be nice though to do confirmation breedings to see if the predictions about buf x normal come true. Personally I would do that to 'make it a wrap' after all the efforts taken.
Groenslang
New member
Finally, someone has put it all down in one post! Thanx Chuck and thanx slangenbroed for posting this! This topic became heavy reading at times, nut still was fascinating most of the time!
@ Blutengel: She is a good looking animal!
@ Blutengel: She is a good looking animal!
Yes, I read that, but the only statement concerning ancestry that jumps out at me is this one:
I'm just curious if there has been any tracking back to see where the stock may have originated from.
The reason I am curious is because I believe I have seen animals like that at my facility over the years, but just never paid attention to them (they were too close to being normal looking to catch my eye), and am curious if it was something that tagged along with the original Caramel carrier. Depending on how long ago this trait developed might tell a lot about how widespread it really is.
My guess is that it is VERY widespread but not recognized by most people.......
slangenbroed
New member
That a good one 9 years back !!!!!!!!!!!!
I will look at home iff a have some stats from 2001 and before !!!!
greatings
Jan
One thing struck me about the buf matriarch. She was the only buf baby out of 21 (as I recall). And neither parent looked buf or orange. If one of her parents was an unrecognized buf, then I would have expected closer to 50% of the babies to be buf or orange.
So far, I have four possible explanations:
1. The buf gene was a mutation that took place in a cell line either the father's testes or the mother's ovaries.
2. Buf can show incomplete penetrance -- genetics or environment causes a genetic buf to look normal. But if so, why were the genetics ratios close to the expected in the buf matriarch's descendants?
3. Really bad luck.
4. Nonrecognition due to inexperience on slangenbroed's part at that time. I mean no offense. I am just trying to cover all possibilities.
Jan, did you ever mate the buf matriarch's parents again? Did you mate the matriarch's parents to any other snakes? If so, did they produce any more buf babies? If either or both of the matriarch's parents produced more bufs, that would help to answer Rich Z's question about how wide spread the buf gene is.
Another question. In 2009, there were a couple of matings of snakes. One parent had buf among the genes, and the other parent had a gene combination that included caramel. I have not seen any posts containing the results of those matings. Is there any chance of posting them here?
Thanks in advance.
So far, I have four possible explanations:
1. The buf gene was a mutation that took place in a cell line either the father's testes or the mother's ovaries.
2. Buf can show incomplete penetrance -- genetics or environment causes a genetic buf to look normal. But if so, why were the genetics ratios close to the expected in the buf matriarch's descendants?
3. Really bad luck.
4. Nonrecognition due to inexperience on slangenbroed's part at that time. I mean no offense. I am just trying to cover all possibilities.
Jan, did you ever mate the buf matriarch's parents again? Did you mate the matriarch's parents to any other snakes? If so, did they produce any more buf babies? If either or both of the matriarch's parents produced more bufs, that would help to answer Rich Z's question about how wide spread the buf gene is.
Another question. In 2009, there were a couple of matings of snakes. One parent had buf among the genes, and the other parent had a gene combination that included caramel. I have not seen any posts containing the results of those matings. Is there any chance of posting them here?
Thanks in advance.
I would choose door number 3. I've had worse luck over the years with certain projects.
unch: