• 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

mike17l said:
the corn snake community.
Click to expand...

If you want to know what the Corn Snake Community is, well I logged into a different forum today, I had not been there since January 6th, that site had all of 65 threads with a new post in them, of which about 15 were ads by Joe Pierce of all people. This site has over a hundred threads with new posts in the in less than a 24 hour period. Just saying, if the community is to be convinced, it should be as much of it as possible.
 
mike17l said:
HAHA!! Really, that is your response?
Click to expand...
Ah Mike, come on now. Disciple #2 has spoken. Hold hands. Sing Kumbaya, all will be revealed. You just have to believe.

A genetics finger being shaken at us by someone that argued snakes could be het for Candy Cane is hilarious!!! :roflmao:

D80
 
*smacks forehead*

you can't be serious...wow...just wow...

butter, is an amel caramel...

do I REALLY need to say more?
 
yep, just as I thought, place is nothing but a swirling cess pool of nasty people looking for blood. I didn't honestly think it had changed, and the above replies confirm that.
 
Drizzt80 said:
Ah Mike, come on now. Disciple #2 has spoken. Hold hands. Sing Kumbaya, all will be revealed. You just have to believe.

A genetics finger being shaken at us by someone that argued snakes could be het for Candy Cane is hilarious!!! :roflmao:

D80
Click to expand...

The animal in question was a Miami het amel. When you breed a candy cane to that animal, you will get some candy cane looking babies. And Candy canes are indeed just specially bred amels. And two candy canes will produce a number of young that look like regular amels. Proven over and over. The thing your doing is bringing up OLD history. Very nasty of you and totally expected of you.
 
little wonder why Chuck and Connie refuse to come to this site with this antagonistic attitude of certain members. Wow...just wow...I knew you were all lurking and waiting to jump at the first opportunity. This thread wasn't about finding out answers, it was only about trying to be mean spirited and pick at people.

AND even try to pick at me for something I did so many years ago when I was still just passing on what had been sold to me as a Miami het candy cane. Wow, just wow. And you claim not to have a chip on your shoulders. Bologne! PURE BOLOGNE! You responses above totally blow that concept out of the water!
 
Russell said:
Very nasty of you and totally expected of you.
Click to expand...
Nasty how? Nasty in that you're claiming genetic expertise about the buf gene (which you thought were rootbeers and creamsicles) yet schooled me on the percentages of hatchlings produced that would be Candy Cane? That nasty? Okay, if you say so. Sorry I brought it up.

Russell said:
This thread wasn't about finding out answers, it was only about trying to be mean spirited and pick at people.
Click to expand...
Really? You started the pissing and moaning. All I have EVER been asking for since slangenbroad brought up buf 5 years ago is a (logical) breeding that shows buf isn't het Caramel. It has NOT been done. Period. Your magical chart, that has all the information out there, does not include a buf bred to a Butter to show that it's NOT het Caramel. Every breeding that matters on that magical little chart is either het Caramel or possibly het Caramel. "It's your site". Isn't that the attitude you brought to the table?

D80
 
Russell said:
little wonder why Chuck and Connie refuse to come to this site with this antagonistic attitude of certain members. Wow...just wow...I knew you were all lurking and waiting to jump at the first opportunity. This thread wasn't about finding out answers, it was only about trying to be mean spirited and pick at people.

AND even try to pick at me for something I did so many years ago when I was still just passing on what had been sold to me as a Miami het candy cane. Wow, just wow. And you claim not to have a chip on your shoulders. Bologne! PURE BOLOGNE! You responses above totally blow that concept out of the water!
Click to expand...

I take exception on my own behalf and on behalf of other members of the corn snake community. Yes, I said the community. This response is additionally unkind to the OP, whom I took to be a person who's newer to the hobby (or at least to the genetics/breeding aspects of it) asking an honest question. It was honestly and respectfully answered.

Russell said:
And so, your unable to bridge that gap that a caramel has been tested?
Click to expand...

Again, I have a serious interest in genetics in general and in caramel-based corn snake morphs in particular. I have always tried to dissect the information about the proposed buf gene logically, using scientific thinking. That's what I do and who I am.

No, Russell, I'm sorry but the issue here is not my/our being unable to "bridge that gap that a caramel has been tested." The issue is that, to the best of my knowledge at this point no cross has been done with an animal that was a caramel and nothing else.

Perhaps the test has been made, but I haven't seen it published. In science, publication and peer review is part of the process. I'm a peer and I'm reviewing in an unbiased fashion. There's no proof in the evidence publicly offered thus far that buf is a new gene. Name-calling, disrespect and distractions don't change this.
 
Russell - I love Chuck and Connie. I think they are good people. I respect their decision not to visit this forum as yes, things do get very heated around here at times. There have also never been any issues between you and I.

That being said....

I have no vested interest in the Buf discussion one way or the other although I have followed it. And I do agree that the basic pairing to a straight Caramel - with no hets, no combo homo morph, has not been done. Or at least not done and shared with the rest of the cornsnake community. That is all that has been asked from the beginning and there is no reason why it should not/could not have been done to silence the doubters if this is indeed a new gene. Breeding with a butter - which is also homo amel - is not the same as breeding with a straight caramel. What is to say with that amel added in to the mix that there wasn't something else at play there? It needs to be tested out against just a regular old caramel to prove once and for all what exactly Buf is or is not. This should just be common sense and if slangenbroed really wanted to prove what he had, you would think he would've been able to do this and make his point.
 
WOW! A lot of hostility here!

I did not follow the Buf threads too closely. I had no real interest in that color / gene, and it was a bit convoluted and difficult to follow, so I chose to concentrate on other things. So I have no real opinion about it one way or the other.

But I am really sorry to see a genetics discussion devolve in this way. The thing that I usually enjoy so much about this forum is that we USUALLY are able to discuss so many subjects so well, and OFTEN, (but not always!) manage to have very civil debates about many touchy subjects.

That said, since I have nothing more to add to the discussion unless Chuck sends me new info, (or unless somebody addresses me in particular) I will try to stay out of the melee. I consider Chuck and Connie to be good friends, although I would not hesitate to disagree on a point in which I felt he was wrong. If I researched Buf thoroughly, maybe I would disagree - but I don't really plan to put any more time or effort into it than I already have. So I will have to reserve judgment for now, and see what new info comes out in the future.
 
So may I ask then, why an animal that is homozygous for caramel not good enough?

Why must he breed to a straight Caramel het for nothing? Is that really as easy to find as you think? And why would the results be different? How could they be different, it is still 100 percent CARAMEL gene, wether is a an Amber, or Golddust, or Butter.

I'm arguing the point about it doesn't matter what Caramel something you use. When something is homo for Caramel, you can use that animal to test for the Caramel gene!

A butter corn would have a TWO caramel genes the exact same as a straight Caramel would at that locus. As would a Golddust, or Amber, or Topaz... As long as the animal you are using is homozygous Caramel, it can be used to test for Caramel.

If I have an animal that is suspected to even just CARRY the Caramel gene, and all I had was a BUTTER corn, I'd still get all normal babies if he didn't carry the Caramel gene. And if he did carry, half the babies would be caramel since the butter is 100 percent Caramel.

So I ask you, why are you insisting it must be only Caramel and nothing else to be able to test for Caramel?
 
And I want you to PROVE using genetic wording that a butter corn can not test another corn for Caramel any less than using a straight Caramel.

Good luck with that.
 
I think what they are saying is that a caramel with no amel should be tested to prove the amel is not affecting the colors. Um, I understood that.
 
but why would amel cause the caramel to be affected? two different genes! And if Buf was caramel, or het caramel, the butter being all caramel would throw caramel babies.
 
part of the problem with using a butter is that pretty much all of the 'buffs' out there are het for amel as well.

A simple pairing to a straight caramel should result in a very obvious mix of true 'normals' and 'buffs' if it in indeed a unique trait. By adding amel into the mix, with a potential for 50% to carry the amel gene in homozygous form, it's going to skew the results. Simple is always better when trying to isolate a new gene. I certainly hope that when charcoals appeared they didn't do something like simply breed it to a het anery and call it a day.

The point is, that these animals have never been tested against a *homozygous* caramel animal in any form.
 
Add any other color to another and it WILL be affected. Take for example my amel mot het caramel stripe. She has a high yellowy undertone because of the caramel. Any amel I have seen that has that high yellowy undertone has been het caramel. This example shows exactly what you are asking. How could it affect it. The amel being het COULD cause more orange in the coloring of a caramel. In theory that is, having never done this myself or seen one I can not say desisively that it would or that it would affect all of them that way but it COULD. That is why breeding to a caramel with absolutely no hets would prove the AMEL was not affecting it AND that it was NOT caramel in any shape or form. Does that help? Please note caps were used to emphisise not yell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top