-
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.
Availability of Ultra Amel this year?
- Thread starter Khaman
- Start date
wikkedkornman
demi-god
plan on about $200 for one, unless you get lucky.
snakepimp
ACR Breeder #0169
What variables are you using in your calculations, Tom?
Recent past price trends for various corn morphs? Or are you looking at the overall snake and/or reptile market trends?
Just curious, as I have tried to work out some kind of divinitory formula for predicting the future market price of various animals...
And, I really really like the ultramels, although Ultra hypos left me somewhat underwhelmed, (unlike Lavas) and I prefer the name paramel. (I guess it just didn't catch on, nice try Rich Z.)
Recent past price trends for various corn morphs? Or are you looking at the overall snake and/or reptile market trends?
Just curious, as I have tried to work out some kind of divinitory formula for predicting the future market price of various animals...
And, I really really like the ultramels, although Ultra hypos left me somewhat underwhelmed, (unlike Lavas) and I prefer the name paramel. (I guess it just didn't catch on, nice try Rich Z.)
Yeah...... I would still like to see some serious effort put into a methodology for naming some of this new stuff. At one time we discussed something like Ultra/Amel as a desginator for the Ultra & Amel het combo producing Paramels, er Ultramels. This is likely going to become much more important as other "co-heterozygous" traits are discovered and we need to refer to them in a systematic and understandable manner as a group.
Even some sort of logical symbol convention we can use to solve some upcoming problems with identifying the results of this Ultra quagmire would be helpful. For instance, the logical construct of the Paramel, er Ultramel, is Ultra :AND: Amel. However, when we have a situation where an Ultramel is bred to a normal animal, the resulting offsrpring will be normal, het for Ultra :OR: Amel.
When we begin finding other genetic traits that fit this mold, and start combining them, this is going to get messy in a hurry. Heck, for that matter what are we going to call animals that are homozygous for both Ultra and any other form of Hypo? I wil be producing babies that are the results of animals het for both Sunkissed and Ultra. Suppose their traits are additive? And further suppose I carry this to the next logical step down the road by breeding animals that are homozygous for 'A' Hypo and Sunkissed to animals homozygous for Ultra and Sunkissed? That will produce animals homozygous for Sunkissed that are het for both Ultra and 'A' Hypo. But what about that next generation? Is there any reason to think that all three of those genes will not be additive together in a triple homozygous animal? How about if Amelanism is thrown into that mix giving us an Ultramel that may be homozygous for one or both of those other Hypo genes as well?
We need to start planning ahead........
Even some sort of logical symbol convention we can use to solve some upcoming problems with identifying the results of this Ultra quagmire would be helpful. For instance, the logical construct of the Paramel, er Ultramel, is Ultra :AND: Amel. However, when we have a situation where an Ultramel is bred to a normal animal, the resulting offsrpring will be normal, het for Ultra :OR: Amel.
When we begin finding other genetic traits that fit this mold, and start combining them, this is going to get messy in a hurry. Heck, for that matter what are we going to call animals that are homozygous for both Ultra and any other form of Hypo? I wil be producing babies that are the results of animals het for both Sunkissed and Ultra. Suppose their traits are additive? And further suppose I carry this to the next logical step down the road by breeding animals that are homozygous for 'A' Hypo and Sunkissed to animals homozygous for Ultra and Sunkissed? That will produce animals homozygous for Sunkissed that are het for both Ultra and 'A' Hypo. But what about that next generation? Is there any reason to think that all three of those genes will not be additive together in a triple homozygous animal? How about if Amelanism is thrown into that mix giving us an Ultramel that may be homozygous for one or both of those other Hypo genes as well?
We need to start planning ahead........
snakepimp
ACR Breeder #0169
Heck, it's already getting messy.
I decided I wanted to make my own Lavender Motleys, so I bred a "Lavender" male, to a "Motley" female. the pairing resulted in Normals, unidentified "hypos" and amels. I bred that same "Lavender" male to a Ghost female and produced 100% anerys. I bred him to an amel-het-snow as well and produced Normal, anery, amel, and snow offspring.
So, that "Lavender" male has turned out to be homozygous for Anery, het for Amel, and possibly carrying some kind of hypomelanism other than the original Hypo in an unknown state; Het or Homo, I don't know because the motley female may be normal, or may be exhibiting this same hypomelanism (?!?!?) whatever it may be, because so many Motleys often show so little melanin to start with, and she produced definite hypos (see picture). Or perhaps one of the two is exhibiting Ultra since it behaves co-dominantly (more like incomplete dominance, I guess, or something...I forget what the results of the Ultra tests even were now...)
I would love to test breed him some more, but he suffered a terrible prolapse this year, and the Doc. stitched him up rather poorly if you ask me (I have done many better stitch jobs on myself and other animals...) and I don't know if he will breed again, he definitely lost one hemipene, and we have been fighting an infection "down there" in him for a month now, so I may never know what the deal is with his "fancy" genes.
Planning ahead is very noble, sensible, and responsible, Rich, so I am sure it will never happen. I loved your "Murphy's Law" post, by the way, really hit home this year.
the good news, I have the first clutch of F2s in the incubator now.
I decided I wanted to make my own Lavender Motleys, so I bred a "Lavender" male, to a "Motley" female. the pairing resulted in Normals, unidentified "hypos" and amels. I bred that same "Lavender" male to a Ghost female and produced 100% anerys. I bred him to an amel-het-snow as well and produced Normal, anery, amel, and snow offspring.
So, that "Lavender" male has turned out to be homozygous for Anery, het for Amel, and possibly carrying some kind of hypomelanism other than the original Hypo in an unknown state; Het or Homo, I don't know because the motley female may be normal, or may be exhibiting this same hypomelanism (?!?!?) whatever it may be, because so many Motleys often show so little melanin to start with, and she produced definite hypos (see picture). Or perhaps one of the two is exhibiting Ultra since it behaves co-dominantly (more like incomplete dominance, I guess, or something...I forget what the results of the Ultra tests even were now...)
I would love to test breed him some more, but he suffered a terrible prolapse this year, and the Doc. stitched him up rather poorly if you ask me (I have done many better stitch jobs on myself and other animals...) and I don't know if he will breed again, he definitely lost one hemipene, and we have been fighting an infection "down there" in him for a month now, so I may never know what the deal is with his "fancy" genes.
Planning ahead is very noble, sensible, and responsible, Rich, so I am sure it will never happen. I loved your "Murphy's Law" post, by the way, really hit home this year.
the good news, I have the first clutch of F2s in the incubator now.
Serpwidgets
New member
If Ultramel were a bad name it wouldn't have stuck so quickly. It seems like the vast majority of people who were against it were not doing so because they didn't like it, but because they didn't understand, or didn't believe, what was going on. That and every time something new is discovered, a lot of people drag their feet, thinking it's going to stop anyone else from knowing what they know or from trying to apply a name to it. It's going to continue to be their problem, because the market will decide with or without them. 
If you want to genotypically describe an ultramel, the symbology would be a<sup>a</sup>·a<sup>u</sup>, or you could just say "Ultra/Amel." People who do not get either of those are not going to "get" any other description or wording anyway. We've entered a new age where it's simply not possible to deal with corn genetics without understanding locus and allele.
If you cross an ultramel to a normal, you get normals het for either ultra or amel. This is the nature of the trait, no matter what name we apply to it. If someone does not get that, they aren't going to, no matter what name or non-name is applied. There are going to be plenty of people who never get it, because they think genetics is hard and only geniuses can get it. There will be plenty of people who will think they will definitely get the ultra gene into their stock by buying a normal hatched from an ultramel parent. There's not much we can do about them, other than try to teach them how genetics really works.
When other new phenotypes are created by combining different traits together, these will possibly get their own names. I'm not sure how having a name for ultramels will have any bearing on those other combinations, or if that's what you were trying to say. :shrugs: I do think that we'll probably get a lot of similar-looking but genetically incompatible combo morphs happening as a result, and it will definitely be important at that point to be very clear about which ones involve which genes. Any pics of or thoughts on the existing sunkissed + hypo combination?
If you want to genotypically describe an ultramel, the symbology would be a<sup>a</sup>·a<sup>u</sup>, or you could just say "Ultra/Amel." People who do not get either of those are not going to "get" any other description or wording anyway. We've entered a new age where it's simply not possible to deal with corn genetics without understanding locus and allele.
If you cross an ultramel to a normal, you get normals het for either ultra or amel. This is the nature of the trait, no matter what name we apply to it. If someone does not get that, they aren't going to, no matter what name or non-name is applied. There are going to be plenty of people who never get it, because they think genetics is hard and only geniuses can get it. There will be plenty of people who will think they will definitely get the ultra gene into their stock by buying a normal hatched from an ultramel parent. There's not much we can do about them, other than try to teach them how genetics really works.
When other new phenotypes are created by combining different traits together, these will possibly get their own names. I'm not sure how having a name for ultramels will have any bearing on those other combinations, or if that's what you were trying to say. :shrugs: I do think that we'll probably get a lot of similar-looking but genetically incompatible combo morphs happening as a result, and it will definitely be important at that point to be very clear about which ones involve which genes. Any pics of or thoughts on the existing sunkissed + hypo combination?
snakepimp
ACR Breeder #0169
I am not saying that ultramel is a "bad" name, just that paramel is more appropriate in it's connotation.
If I understand correctly; the Heterozygous state of Ultra is expressed phenotypically.
How do you get the unicode special characters to show up? As in; "Aa+Au"
If it's standard HTML, then this --> Ω <-- should be Omega...
Is there an index of BB code that contains listings for these characters.
Thanks in advance, Serp.
If I understand correctly; the Heterozygous state of Ultra is expressed phenotypically.
How do you get the unicode special characters to show up? As in; "Aa+Au"
If it's standard HTML, then this --> Ω <-- should be Omega...
Is there an index of BB code that contains listings for these characters.
Thanks in advance, Serp.
Serpwidgets
New member
The superscript is made with HTML tags:
a < sup > a < /sup >
produces:
a<sup>a</sup>
The · ('dot') between them is alt+0183 (hold down the alt key, then type 0183 on the number pad, then let up the alt key.)
a < sup > a < /sup >
produces:
a<sup>a</sup>
The · ('dot') between them is alt+0183 (hold down the alt key, then type 0183 on the number pad, then let up the alt key.)
E. g. guttata
Her name was Mary-9/17/05
Serpwidgets said:
Now that you're giving lectures on proper html usage, how about giving me a few classes so I can make my site better
.
snakepimp
ACR Breeder #0169
Thanks, I just bought your book, by the way.
why didn't I think of a superscript tag..? :shrugs: I knew it existed..
I must be suffering from caffeine deficiency. I am excited to see the F2 offspring from my "Lavender Motley" project, especially since many of the F1s came out hypo. I am hoping that it is Ultra, but we'll see. I have another clutch being laid at this minute being laid by an opal female, bred to the F1 male I pictured a couple of posts back.
why didn't I think of a superscript tag..? :shrugs: I knew it existed..
I must be suffering from caffeine deficiency. I am excited to see the F2 offspring from my "Lavender Motley" project, especially since many of the F1s came out hypo. I am hoping that it is Ultra, but we'll see. I have another clutch being laid at this minute being laid by an opal female, bred to the F1 male I pictured a couple of posts back.
E. g. guttata
Her name was Mary-9/17/05
snakepimp said:
LOL
Don't worry, redundacy isn't that bad, we all do it sometimes because it really isn't that bad to be reduntant which isn't that bad.
Serpwidgets
New member
Since the original male produced amels when crossed to an amel, he's het amel. If he's het amel and not a phenotypical "hypo" then he's not carrying the ultra gene. (Otherwise he'd be an a<sup>a</sup>·a<sup>u</sup> ultramel.)
The breeding to the ghost female producing 100% anerys would lean toward him not being het hypo, but this also depends on how many hatchlings were in that clutch, too. There's always an outside chance that he's still "just het for hypo," even if there was a clutch of 20. (With all other things being equal, it's astronomically unlikely, but sometimes other factors will skew the results... all other things are not always equal.)
Considering how unlikely it would be at this point in time for the lavender and motley to both be carrying either sunkissed or lava, IMO the best bet is still standard hypo. (There's also the possibility of a fifth hypo-like trait, but personally I'd try to prove the F1s on regular hypo as well. It would seem even more unlikely that both the motley and the lavender, especially if unrelated, would be carrying the same "never-before-seen" hypo-like trait.)
Based on the above, the two most likely possibilities I see are:
1- the lav and the motley are both het hypo.
2- the lav is het amel, the motley is het ultra.
But in scenario 2, the F1s would be ultramels and should (should) stick out like a sore thumb.
Let us know how it comes out.
The breeding to the ghost female producing 100% anerys would lean toward him not being het hypo, but this also depends on how many hatchlings were in that clutch, too. There's always an outside chance that he's still "just het for hypo," even if there was a clutch of 20. (With all other things being equal, it's astronomically unlikely, but sometimes other factors will skew the results... all other things are not always equal.
)Considering how unlikely it would be at this point in time for the lavender and motley to both be carrying either sunkissed or lava, IMO the best bet is still standard hypo. (There's also the possibility of a fifth hypo-like trait, but personally I'd try to prove the F1s on regular hypo as well. It would seem even more unlikely that both the motley and the lavender, especially if unrelated, would be carrying the same "never-before-seen" hypo-like trait.)
Based on the above, the two most likely possibilities I see are:
1- the lav and the motley are both het hypo.
2- the lav is het amel, the motley is het ultra.
But in scenario 2, the F1s would be ultramels and should (should) stick out like a sore thumb.
Let us know how it comes out.
snakepimp
ACR Breeder #0169
Well, the 2 clutches I got from the Lavender male x ghost, totalled 20 eggs, so I think that nearly rules out standard hypo, because none came out as ghosts, they looked to be pretty clearly anerys, when they hatched. Although, some of them have proven to be very light peachy anerys, they still have good amounts of real black pigmentation.
I understand now, and agree it's not possible that the "Lavender" male is exhibiting Ultra, like you said, there would have been ultramels, out of 22 eggs, I am sure there would have been at least one, and I am sure I could spot it.
Maybe it could be lava, but the hypos don't look like lavas I have seen, though I have never seen them "in person." They do, admittedly, look like standard hypo. I agree that iit is most likely Hypo "A," but the lav x ghost breeding didn't show that. I have another clutch due to hatch any minute now from this year's Lav x Ghost pairing, so I will check them out very closely.
You do agree that the male I posted in this thread is a hypo, don't you?
I have many pictures of 2004's F1 Lav x Mot offspring posted HERE
I also have a clutch from that Lav male x Opal (het for nothing, I am told) that should help clarify things somewhat further.
Thanks for your helpa nd discussion of this, Serp. I read your Ultra progeny prediction post, and I understand the inheritance now. I guess I never really read the thrilling conclusion to the gigantic, "Ultra Mystery" thread.
Here's a pic of the male in question.
I understand now, and agree it's not possible that the "Lavender" male is exhibiting Ultra, like you said, there would have been ultramels, out of 22 eggs, I am sure there would have been at least one, and I am sure I could spot it.
Maybe it could be lava, but the hypos don't look like lavas I have seen, though I have never seen them "in person." They do, admittedly, look like standard hypo. I agree that iit is most likely Hypo "A," but the lav x ghost breeding didn't show that. I have another clutch due to hatch any minute now from this year's Lav x Ghost pairing, so I will check them out very closely.
You do agree that the male I posted in this thread is a hypo, don't you?
I have many pictures of 2004's F1 Lav x Mot offspring posted HERE
I also have a clutch from that Lav male x Opal (het for nothing, I am told) that should help clarify things somewhat further.
Thanks for your helpa nd discussion of this, Serp. I read your Ultra progeny prediction post, and I understand the inheritance now. I guess I never really read the thrilling conclusion to the gigantic, "Ultra Mystery" thread.
Here's a pic of the male in question.
Serpwidgets
New member
Yeah, the male posted earlier could pass for a hypo, although it does appear to be in the "gray area" between normal and hypo. Sometimes they hatch out dark and grow up looking like hypos. The only results I've ever heard from these cases is that they later do not "breed true" to other hypos and a lot of head-scratching occurs. Something is going on with those, but there doesn't seem to be any real predictability with them yet.
I didn't see any pics amongst the hatchlings that looked like hypos to me, so I'm wondering if this might be a similar case. (Or I missed the hypos, or there weren't any pictured?) Can you point out or post some pics of the hypo hatchlings from the lav X mot cross?
Here's a split clutch I just hatched out. The hypos definitely leap out at you and say "hey, I'm over here!" :wavey: http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20388
BTW that lav male is another interesting example of a lavender homo anery, which looks like a regular lavender. (Didn't even catch that the first time around.) It will be interesting to see what exactly is up with the other ones (like Clint's) that look so different, as if they're intermediates betwen lav and anery colors.
I didn't see any pics amongst the hatchlings that looked like hypos to me, so I'm wondering if this might be a similar case. (Or I missed the hypos, or there weren't any pictured?) Can you point out or post some pics of the hypo hatchlings from the lav X mot cross?
Here's a split clutch I just hatched out. The hypos definitely leap out at you and say "hey, I'm over here!" :wavey: http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20388
BTW that lav male is another interesting example of a lavender homo anery, which looks like a regular lavender. (Didn't even catch that the first time around.) It will be interesting to see what exactly is up with the other ones (like Clint's) that look so different, as if they're intermediates betwen lav and anery colors.