Yes, Don says red factor is what makes cayennes and sunglow red, I agree totally, but I was just speculating on whether animals that are homozygous for red factor will be even more red than het animals carrying a single copy. People do cayenne fire x cayenne fire breeding so plenty of red factor homozygotes should be out there. You'd expect one of those to produce all red factor offspring when mated to anything else. Has that ever been observed?
The whole salmon/coral thing is confusing for me since there isn't universal agreement. From what I've gathered from his website in the past, my understanding is that Don now labels his red factor (he calls it red mask) snows as coral snows and considers salmon to be a member of the "coral snow family." And then there was this post which I guess answers my question about homozygotes.
https://www.cornsnake.net/index.php...id=1101:day091814&catid=69&Itemid=252&lang=en
But then I think at other points he has labeled his salmon snows as being the result of strawberry? I wouldn't necessarily say I agree with that characterization, but I guess I'm reserving judgment until someone does a lot of controlled breeding experiments. But if you have some messages where he's clarified, that would be cool!
Here's a link to his facebook where he mentions coral blizzards produced by a red factor amel het anery charcoal, who was produced by a coral snow x blizzard pairing.
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=194025887305243&story_fbid=855600521147773
I really wanna know what those coral blizzards look like!
There's been a lot of different statements about Red Factor and Red Coat, etc, over the past 5 years or so that I have been trying to figure it all out. Initially, it was thought that RC and RF were the same thing, just called different names. (Joe Pierce was using RC, I'm not sure, but I think at the time, Don was using RF terms.)
I started using RF. Then a member here, Bob did some test breeding with RC and RF and found them to be different, RF being dominant, and RC being recessive.
In talking with Donovan, he said that RF and Salmon had been proven to be the same thing.
It is my understanding, that with the dominant gene, an animal cannot be het, in the fact it cannot produce a homo animal. Am I wrong in that? I have never seen it. Has anyone produced any RF babies from to non visual animals?
That's where I am saying they are not het, because I do not believe they do.
If someone has proven that, I'd like to see it, because I do not want to be making the wrong conclusions.
I have equated the dominant (or incomplete dominant rather) gene such as Tessera to be the same as the Jag gene in Carpet Pythons. The Jag gene is an incomplete dominant, and acts the same as the Tessera gene. Only visuals can produce visuals, and when pairing a Jag to a non Jag, about half of the babies are visual, and the normals do not carry any of the Jag gene.
Super Tessera has been proven, but I do not know about in the RF situation. It would be worth a try, for sure.
The biggest problem with this whole RF/Salmon and now Red Mask thing (which I didn't realize he had started using that term until fairly recently), is that there has been no consistency in the name. That is why I stuck to using RF, because back when I started talking to Don about it, and Bob was doing the RF and RC test breeding, RF was used for the dominant gene. One reason I opted to stick with RF instead of "Salmon" after talking to Donovan, is also because of the Salmon/Coral confusion. RF is more definitive, IMHO.
Strawberry is visually different from RF, from what I have seen (only a couple animals in person), but that is another red gene that adds to the confusion.
I did not come up with the "RF" label, but will continue to use "RF" for the dominant gene, as it was the first term Don used, and then Bob used it for the dominant version.
