Bloodred or het. Bloodred???

[Marcel Poots]

OK, Blood red (hypos being one of my favorite) is NOT a simple recessive gene. So the term het is miss leading.

Yes, that is what the old books say. If I would write a new book today I would say Bloodred is a 100% simple recessive gene. Simply because Bloodred X Bloodred will result in 100% bloodred offspring. But I would indeed say the term Bloodred is misleading. Since the gene has almost no effect to the coloring but only to the pattern. So if you breed Bloodred X Bloodred and take out the normal colored ones (which are 100% bloodreds by gene) saying these are not bloodreds then you are doing something wrong. I call these ugly Bloodreds. But Bloodreds nonetheless. The best way to overcome this problem is by calling them diffused. I think I will stick to Bloodred however since I think it is a very cool name.

 

[Roy Munson]

Yes, that is what the old books say. If I would write a new book today I would say Bloodred is a 100% simple recessive gene. Simply because Bloodred X Bloodred will result in 100% bloodred offspring. But I would indeed say the term Bloodred is misleading. Since the gene has almost no effect to the coloring but only to the pattern. So if you breed Bloodred X Bloodred and take out the normal colored ones (which are 100% bloodreds by gene) saying these are not bloodreds then you are doing something wrong. I call these ugly Bloodreds. But Bloodreds nonetheless. The best way to overcome this problem is by calling them diffused. I think I will stick to Bloodred however since I think it is a very cool name.

Just curious, Marcel, but why would you call it 100% simple recessive when heterozygous diffused corns often have some expression of the gene? I'm also curious how you label the "ugly Bloodreds" when you sell them?

 

[Drizzt80]

Marcel,
Excellent example of what I was thinking. Your bloodred hatchling has so much more red in the background compared to the one first posted. They both have about the same amount of diffusion on the sides. What I figured (from the hatchling photo) is that yours would turn out the exactly the way it did (bloodred). I'm thinking that hers is going to be more orangey instead of red, because of the lack of 'intensity' in the red background, but with great diffusion (diffused). Hence, showing Serp's adult snake he uses to show a normal diffused that's not necessarily bloodred.

D80

 

[Marcel Poots]

Marcel,
I'm thinking that hers is going to be more orangey instead of red, because of the lack of 'intensity' in the red background, but with great diffusion (diffused). Hence, showing Serp's adult snake he uses to show a normal diffused that's not necessarily bloodred.

D80

Here is my Bloodred male. I choose him for his red saddles and not for the diffused sides 9which do not show much red at all.

Now only a few months further down the road his sides are matching up the saddles.

I am pretty sure the Bloodred from magila will has very red sides at one point.

 

[Marcel Poots]

Just curious, Marcel, but why would you call it 100% simple recessive when heterozygous diffused corns often have some expression of the gene? I'm also curious how you label the "ugly Bloodreds" when you sell them?

Yes, there is some degree of co-dominance involved making the outcrossed look identifiyable. I call the ugly Bloodreds ugly bloodreds to my customers. I charge them considderable less for an ugly Bloodred.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Ok, this is the first I have heard of the diffusion portion being proven to 1 locus.

Yep, this is where all the pewters, granites, fires, plasmas, avalanches, whiteouts, cow plops :grin01: , etc etc come from.

As for co dom/incomplete dom,, I have a good friend that ALWAYS tells me there are no co dom, in corns the way there are in boas or pythons.

There are, I'm sure. They have tens of thousands of genes.

I think the reason we don't have a pile of them yet is because of the way they are discovered. In corns we are working with a mostly closed population and finding things through inbreeding, which will bring recessive genes to the surface. The way we'd find a dominant or codominant gene is to have a spontaneous mutation occur within the captive population.

In boas/pythons they seem to be discovering new genes by simply mass-importing thousands of specimens, or at least by picking through thousands (or tens of thousands?) of WC specimens. Obviously the only thing you're going to find is something that is het for a codominant or dominant mutant, or something that's homo for a recessive mutant. Then if it's a non-recessive on/off gene, all it takes is one breeding to make a good case that it's heritable (half the clutch is mutants, the other half is normal) and you've got a new "proven" gene. (I find it interesting though that they don't then go about breeding them to each other to determine if it's codominant or fully dominant... they finally figured that out with motley in boas after something like ten years... ?)

In corns the closest we have is diffusion. It's still a possibility that caramel, lavender, and hypo are not as completely recessive as we think. And I'm not convinced that motley always has zero effect in hets. But these are a far cry from salmon, pastel, etc.

 

[kimbyra]

I don't get this calling them "ugly" bloodreds thing. The non-"patternless" bloods are really beautiful, and if they weren't connected to the patternless blood red look, people would be paying big bucks for them. Diffused is simple, and gives a very pretty morph a name. The pic of a diffused Serp showed was awesome. I want one of those even more than a second bloodred right now. What rich colors! Just my 2 cents folks.

 

[Marcel Poots]

I don't get this calling them "ugly" bloodreds thing.

If you breed the best Miami to a different gorgeous Miami and one of the offspring looks like an Okeetee, I would call it an ugly Miami. Not to offend the poor thing but it does not seem to be what you expect of Miami. When a Bloodred is orange and it has clear saddles when full grown it is an ugly Bloodred but it could be a beautifull corn.

 

[Serpwidgets]

If you breed the best Miami to a different gorgeous Miami and one of the offspring looks like an Okeetee, I would call it an ugly Miami.

LOL! I would just call it an okeetee. :cheers:

 

[kimbyra]

Miamatee? lol

Maybe the diffused non-patternless should be a Garnet. Think about it. A beautiful deep red patterned diffused definetly deserves the name Garnet.
Anyway, I get that your going for patternless, but the patterned ones are really outstanding looking. I bet people will start buying them for that look. I mean, people by sunglows even though (I think) a plain old motley normal looks better. Sunglow has a cool name though.

 

[Serpwidgets]

Marcel, I think you can see how silly that position is if you take the same angle with normals:

There is one standard to which normals should aspire: the Okeetee Phase. Those that live up to the selective breeding for that look are okeetees, all others are just "ugly okeetees."

So, normals are not normals, they are ugly okeetees.

Upper Keys corns are just ugly okeetees.

Carol's Miamis are very very ugly okeetees.

None of those other things exist, it is all binary... okeetee or ugly okeetee. That's it. :shrugs:

It's your option, of course. I'm at least grateful that you can tell they are not all the same thing. :cheers:

I bet people will start buying them for that look. I mean, people by sunglows even though (I think) a plain old motley normal looks better. Sunglow has a cool name though.

Nah, I think this is just a matter of taste. I prefer the look of a good sunglow motley over a normal motley. I'd really love a corn that looks like a sunglow motley with black eyes. (Maybe the lava mots will make that happen.)

 

[Marcel Poots]

Marcel, I think you can see how silly that position is if you take the same angle with normals:

Maybe it's just the way I try to explain it. In Europe we have some bad line of Opals. In fact I would not separate them from snows by sight. So I call them ugly Opals. As 'snows' they are gorgeous if the snow genes where present but they are true Amel Lavenders.

So, normals are not normals, they are ugly okeetees.

Ok, I see you really try your best here to make me look like an @ss... so I will leave at this then.. :crazy02:

(Maybe the lava mots will make that happen.)

Or Bloodred Motley? Just wait a few months..

 

[Marcel Poots]

Marcel, I think you can see how silly that position is

One more thing though.. If you replace in all my posts on this topic the word 'ugly' with 'less obvious', do I still look like a complete moron? :headbang:

LOL..

 

[Serpwidgets]

Ok, I see you really try your best here to make me look like an @ss... so I will leave at this then.. :crazy02:

Not at all, but it was funny. :grin01:

(I'd better :sidestep: before Carol reads what I said about her Miamis!)

Or Bloodred Motley? Just wait a few months..

Or maybe this week! Wanna race? :santa:

It's been forever waiting for the F2s. Do you have eggs yet? I can't wait to see what your clutch looks like.

 

[Marcel Poots]

Two friends of mine have eggs in the incubator. They come from my F1 hatchlings. I think they are about 4 weeks along. So maybe only 3 - 4 weeks to go.. If you hatch them this week and you have pictures could you please (pretty please) sent me pictures? :sobstory:

 

[kimbyra]

Bloodred mot's!?! I am soooo saving my pennies. A lot of pennies I bet. LOL

 

[Serpwidgets]

Two friends of mine have eggs in the incubator. They come from my F1 hatchlings. I think they are about 4 weeks along. So maybe only 3 - 4 weeks to go..

One clutch is due to hatch this weekend and should be coming up on the eggcam soon. The next one should be shortly after. Those two are "Hurley's" clutches. (The adults are on breeding loan so they're only half "ours.") The last clutch is "mine" and is only a couple weeks along.

If you hatch them this week and you have pictures could you please (pretty please) sent me pictures? :sobstory:

Hear me now and believe me later, if anything hatches out that we think might be blood mots or diffused mots, you will have a hard time trying to avoid the pictures on the forum.

Oh, the parents are also het charcoal! :dgrin:

 

[HerpZillA]

ugly vs good looking

Serpwidgets, agree with the person responce to you. An "ugly" blood red is not an ugly snake, and I'm wrong in that use, I should call it a poor example or something else. I have a poor blood red, but I think she is a great looking corn. Try to forget the goal of the perfect blood red and just look at this as a corn.

Now I'm old school and was away from herps for the most part, and I was never into corns, mainly because they were a nice looking milk snake to me. I don't even think I knew of okeetees back then? So that snake in the mid 70's would have been a fortune. Today it is not even an average "bloodred". But I think it's nice, and the price I could not pass up as it was less than most any corns.

 

[HerpZillA]

another factor of buying a blood red

As I made the above post I started to think I have no idea how old she is. I have heard of people getting corns to 3' in 1 year. My creamcicle will make that I'm sure.

So, with blood reds, it takes time for the diffusion. If my BR is 1-2 years old, she may diffuse quite nicely. If she was maintained fed and is 4 years old, I have less hope of her diffusing nicely.

Just thougth I'd throw that in.

tom

 

[carol]

Hit this thread a little late....

Some have started calling that gene "diffusion" in order to separate the gene from the sum of what makes a corn a bloodred. (Homo diffusion plus selective breeding = bloodred.)

Gasp! What? Huh? "Some" eh?
I wonder where they got that idea from? Take me to their leader! I guess we just needed a term for ugly Bloodreds. :rofl:

Now we're even.