Anery Lavender

[carol]

Well, trust me on this one, it is really not a good idea to make broad assumptions based on a single animal you have, or even just a few. I have produced a lot of these Anery/Lavenders the last few years and there are some that you would have a serious tough time telling them from regular Lavenders. Of course, there is always the possibility that some of the lighter Lavenders we have seen over the years may in fact BE Anery/Lavenders. We certainly can't rule that out at all. But as babies, it is not quite so easy at all to draw that dividing line between Lavender and Anery/Lavender.

And for the record, yes, ALL of my original stock of everything I labeled as "Anery/Lavender" came from Anerythristics that were het for Lavender, so there would be NO mistake in what they actually are. Of course, now I am getting them from breeding Anery/Lavenders directly together.

I am currently growing up a bunch of Anerythristic Motleys het for Lavender, since I felt Anery/Lavender Motleys may be rather interesting looking. Joe's example certainly looks like it could fit that bill well enough.

Definitely not. I admit I haven't seen anywhere near the number of Anery Lavs you have, but I've seen quite a few. I agree that broad assumptions will always have exceptions. Most people would say that it's easy to tell hypos from non-hypos, but put that assumption in a clutch of Lavs and Hypo Lavs and you get stung again. I still believe they have a combined effect and one does not totally mask the other.
If they did not have some sort of combined effect, than "Snopals" would have no special look to them. Also if there were nothing more to Anery Lavs than Lavs themself, you wouldn't be wasting space with all those Anery Mots het Lav.

 

[Rich Z]

Definitely not. I admit I haven't seen anywhere near the number of Anery Lavs you have, but I've seen quite a few. I agree that broad assumptions will always have exceptions. Most people would say that it's easy to tell hypos from non-hypos, but put that assumption in a clutch of Lavs and Hypo Lavs and you get stung again. I still believe they have a combined effect and one does not totally mask the other.
If they did not have some sort of combined effect, than "Snopals" would have no special look to them either. Also if there were nothing more to Anery Lavs than Lavs themself, you wouldln't be wasting space with all those Anery Mots het Lav.

The Anery Motleys het Lav were just something I wasn't expecting, so I held onto them on a lark. But honestly I don't have high hopes for the results I will get out of them. Matter of fact, if I got rid of them before breeding them, that would not be at all unusual around here. I often will terminate a project before I even get to the point of obtaining results when it seems likely that the results will not be worth the effort.

As for "snopals" maybe it's just my eyes, but I have NEVER seen anything in all the "possible" and "likely" snopals I have produced that I would have felt comfortable going out on a limb and saying they were exactly that. Matter of fact, with the occurrence of "pink snows" and Opals that will look like Blizzards, I doubt that many people (myself included) will be 100 percent capable of accurately identifying Snows and Opals in clutches where both are present, much less something that is actually a "snopal". When in doubt, I use a lowest common denominator rule. And quite honestly NO ONE can be without doubt in accurately identifying all these critters we are now producing.

As for Hypos, yes, they are often easy to tell from normals as babies but not always. I have had instances of what looked like normal corns turning BRIGHTER as they matured. Then when bred to known Hypos, produced all Hypo babies. So what is that mechanism? And as for Hypo and Lavender, I have had enough results to know for certain that telling light Lavenders from Hypo Lavenders and dark Hypo Lavenders (particularly females) from regular Lavenders can be a real challenge. And wait until we throw all those other Hypo genes into the mix. The ability to 100 percent accurately tell what a baby may be from an unknown genetic mix of parents in many instances is getting more difficult to do every year. Even if you KNOW the genetic mix (as much as is realistic), there are so many nuances even in the "older" genetic traits to throw some doubt into 100 percent accurate IDs when another gene throws a curve ball at us by influencing other genes in unexpected ways.

No, not trying for gloom and doom here, but I think we need to be pragmatic when it comes to thinking we know what we are labelling. Using terms such as "as best I can tell", or "as far as I know" when identifying something may certainly be prudent to do, in my opinion.