Hets

[Susan]

I am surprised that you've never met a breeder that claimed to recognize motley hets, as I've already met three locally; perhaps they've convinced each other of it. At least one claims to recognize het hypo as well. I didn't find any proof of being able to recognize motley with much better than a 60% average (barely better than flipping a coin), or of being able to recognize het hypo at all, I included the disclaimer. Had you posited your reply as a clarification, which my statement could have used, rather than a correction, I wouldn't have needed to reply.

You said it yourself...3 local breeders that have probably convinced themselves. And this 60% average is out of how many snakes, het status completely unknown prior to being evaluated, and then proven to be het motley? Yes...it's not much better than the toss of a coin. And if the number of snakes is what I think...then a coin toss will be just as good.

I would like to hear from breeders nationwide, or even worldwide, as to whether they believe a het motley (with no association with stripe) can be even remotely identified by phenotype.

 

[Susan]

In fact, here are some photos of some of my snakes. Tell me which are het motley and which are not.

 

[jaxom1957]

In fact, here are some photos of some of my snakes. Tell me which are het motley and which are not.

I've never claimed to be able to do so, so what's your point?

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that Lanikai, Lilac, Spectra & Sylvia are het motley.

 

[Susan]

I've never claimed to be able to do so, so what's your point?

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that Lanikai, Lilac, Spectra & Sylvia are het motley.

My point is that I don't think your 3 local breeders will have any better luck than you just did.

 

[jaxom1957]

My point is that I don't think your 3 local breeders will have any better luck than you just did.

Which was what? All wrong? Some wrong?

 

[Susan]

You picked 3 out, called a non-het a het, and missed 4 others.

 

[jaxom1957]

You picked 3 out, called a non-het a het, and missed 4 others.

If I had to choose four others, they would be these, in order of likelihood:

1. Kathlyn
2. Calyx
3. Pretty
4. Gregg

 

[Susan]

Sure...now that I've told you exactly how many are het motley...plus you've had time to visit my website and obtain their genetic information.

I'm sorry, but you're theory of being able to identify het motley by phenotype alone doesn't hold water in my book. Anyone saying they can have simply been lucky.

 

[jaxom1957]

Sure...now that I've told you exactly how many are het motley...plus you've had time to visit my website and obtain their genetic information.

I'm sorry, but you're theory of being able to identify het motley by phenotype alone doesn't hold water in my book. Anyone saying they can have simply been lucky.

1. I've never been to your website.

2. I don't have a theory about being able to identify het motley; I said it was inaccurate and hardly better than flipping a coin.

I chose the snakes I did based on aberrant saddles, which is what the breeders who claim it can be say they use. Am I to understand from your RUDE AND ACCUSATORY response that I did better than expected?

I originally listed the four snakes I thought most likely to be het motley. You said three were correct, one was not, and that four others were. I then looked at the pictures again and listed the four I thought most likely.

I never claimed I could pick a het motley from a dead carrot. If I hadn't known that there were four others, I wouldn't have known there were ANY. In a real world test, where the number, if any, of het motleys is unknown, I wouldn't have been able to tell whether any specific snake was or was not.

BTW, the next time you feel like accusing me of doing something like you claim I did here, you can kiss my ass.

 

[Susan]

...you can kiss my ass.

I love donkeys!

And as I stated earlier...I made my point. Are ANY of the snake's whose photo I posted het motley? Maybe.

 

[jaxom1957]

And as I stated earlier...I made my point. Are ANY of the snake's whose photo I posted het motley? Maybe.

The only point you've made is that you are dishonest. In spite of being corrected on at least three occasions, you kept insisting that *I* claimed to be able to identify het motleys. To disprove a claim I never made, you listed several photos of corns and said to identify which, if any, were het motley. In spite of seeing no point to the exercise, I chose the four I thought most likely. You then claimed I had done poorly, while not bothering to say whether those I guessed were het motley or not, and did not do so until asked point blank. You provided the additional information that four others were het motley as well, so I guessed the four I thought most likely.

Apparently I guessed well, as, instead of saying which I got right or wrong, you accused me of cheating. At every step, you have attempted to manipulate the discussion by creating a straw man position, claiming I held it, then arguing against it. When your phony, pointless test didn't go the way you expected, the way that would allow you to belittle me, you accused me of cheating. In the future, I will know not to bother reading your posts, as you've already demonstrated how low you are willing to stoop.

 

[Joejr14]

Jaxom, why do you insist on doing this? Everytime you're either corrected, or ask about something---the thread turns into a pissing contest where you show everyone your all-mighty genetics knowledge.

You're going to have a very short stay here if you keep picking fights with very well established, and respected members.

Fact is, you said het motley can be identified by phenotype. That was wrong. Instead of back tracking and making up bogus crap to cover yourself---why can't you just say, "oops, my bad---I screwed that one up."??

:shrugs:

 

[jaxom1957]

Jaxom, why do you insist on doing this? Everytime you're either corrected, or ask about something---the thread turns into a pissing contest where you show everyone your all-mighty genetics knowledge.

You're going to have a very short stay here if you keep picking fights with very well established, and respected members.

Fact is, you said het motley can be identified by phenotype. That was wrong. Instead of back tracking and making up bogus crap to cover yourself---why can't you just say, "oops, my bad---I screwed that one up."??

I knew I could count on you to misstate the case, as you always do. I said that identifying het motley was inaccurate. When what I wrote was misinterpreted, I stated that my post could have used some clarification.

I have studied Mendelian genetics for over twenty-five years, in dogs, cats, birds and goats. You've yet to find me in error, despite your lame attempts. I don't go looking for fights. Susan picked this won, and cheated when she lost it. I had no doubt that you would come to her defense, armed as always with lots of hollow innuendo and no data.

Try this on for size: Of the eight snakes I guessed were het motley, how many were? Ask your "respected" buddy Susan why she didn't answer that question.

 

[Joejr14]

What exactly am I reading wrong here, Jaxom?

There are a few morphs, such as motley and diffuse, that sometimes can be detected when het, but not with 100% accuracy. The short answer is "no".

Motley cannot be detected as a het. Period. End of story.

You were wrong.

Later in the post, you decided to add that when in combonation with stripe it is nearly 100%. Well first off, when there is one motley gene, and one stripe gene, it IS 100%, not nearly. So, you were wrong on both fronts.

Many here have been wrong in plenty of statements, and many have admitted so. I made a lot of mistakes when I first started---which is what you're doing. You're speaking too quickly, and you're goofing up at times. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't charge out and say you haven't made an error and I'm just picking on you.

Just to prove my point....

Are these "bloodred" as in "selective bred for red coloration" or "diffused bloodred", the pattern? Certainly looks red enough!

There is no such thing as 'bloodred' for color. Bloodred is bloodred---the gene, the overall look. Whether or not you want to call it diffused doesn't matter---bloodred has always meant a snake with dark red coloration, a clear ventral, wiped sides, and normally a somewhat grey head. There is no 'bloodred' morph that's just a red snake without those other aspects.

I'm not going to quote this entire post, but in the 'Lavender Corns....possibilities" thread, I made a response along with a few others, and literally, you came in a day later and did nothing but essentially copy exactly what was said into your own words. What was the point of that?

You're new---I don't know if you're trying to impress everyone with your 25 years of genetics expertise, your sets and sub-sets, or your Boolean Algebra skills, but it's really getting old.

A slice of humble pie would do you wonders. We all make mistakes---there's nothing wrong with that. It's obvious you understand genetics, but understand genetics doesn't mean you can understand cornsnake genetics, terms, and morphs in 2 days.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

If there wasn't a limit on how many times I can give people Karma in a specific amount of time, a lot of people as of these last few days will have Karma coming out of their ears from me.

 

[jaxom1957]

Motley cannot be detected as a het. Period. End of story.

Read the post again: "There are a few morphs, such as motley and diffuse, that sometimes can be detected when het, but not with 100% accuracy." So, I said "sometimes" and "not with 100% accuracy". If they cannot be detected, PERIOD, how many of Susan's did I guess right??? Still waiting... Oh, that's right, I got enough right that she had to resort to claiming I cheated.

Later in the post, you decided to add that when in combonation with stripe it is nearly 100%. Well first off, when there is one motley gene, and one stripe gene, it IS 100%, not nearly. So, you were wrong on both fronts.

"Het motley, when in combination with het stripe" is nearly indistinguishable from homozygous motley, so you cannot tell, with 100% accuracy, if it is het motley and not homo motley. As well, there are motleys and motley/stripes that exhibit almost no sign other than a clear belly, making them difficult to distinguish from normal.

There is no such thing as 'bloodred' for color. Bloodred is bloodred---the gene, the overall look.

There's a lot of debate about bloodred being the overall look for a simple reason: not all diffused corns are red at all, much less bloodred. Bloodred is a selectly bred portion of diffuse. I do not accept that bloodred indicates diffuse without questioning it because snakes are being offered for sale as bloodred that have no diffuse gene.

I'm not going to quote this entire post, but in the 'Lavender Corns....possibilities" thread, I made a response along with a few others, and literally, you came in a day later and did nothing but essentially copy exactly what was said into your own words. What was the point of that?

I certainly can't argue with a statement devoid of examples, can I?

You're new---I don't know if you're trying to impress everyone with your 25 years of genetics expertise, your sets and sub-sets, or your Boolean Algebra skills, but it's really getting old.

I realize that you and your clique expect all of the newbies to defer to your years of experience without question. Unfortunately for you, I'm not new to the subject or the underlying theories, and nothing in your posts would lead me to believe your "experience" has taught you anything greater than mine has me. What's getting old is your posturing and condesencion. "Haha, Susan PWND someone!" instills such respect, doesn't it?

A slice of humble pie would do you wonders. We all make mistakes---there's nothing wrong with that. It's obvious you understand genetics, but understand genetics doesn't mean you can understand cornsnake genetics, terms, and morphs in 2 days.

I got my first corn a year and a half ago, and have been researching the subject ever since. There is nothing special about corn snake genetics that requires a steep learning curve. As far as humble pie goes, I'll be damned if I'm going to allow snide slurs and insults to go unanswered, from you, susan, blkkat or anyone else. Far too many of you spend your time trying to find ways to demonstrate to the newbies how superior you are to them, and I'm not impressed by it. You want me to sound less arrogant? Try sounding less condescending. You want me to stop reiterating my points? Answer them with something more than your own blanket statements, insults and logical fallacies.

I have made mistakes, as well as statements that required clarification. When I've made a mistake, I've said so. When a clarification was offered, I acknowledged it. If I catch it first, I make the clarification myself. What I don't do is back down when I know my position is correct, no matter how many others decide to pile on the other side. If you can't post a response that is on point and rebuts my argument, I'm not going to give you much credence.

 

[Susan]

The only point you've made is that you are dishonest. In spite of being corrected on at least three occasions, you kept insisting that *I* claimed to be able to identify het motleys. To disprove a claim I never made, you listed several photos of corns and said to identify which, if any, were het motley. In spite of seeing no point to the exercise, I chose the four I thought most likely. You then claimed I had done poorly, while not bothering to say whether those I guessed were het motley or not, and did not do so until asked point blank. You provided the additional information that four others were het motley as well, so I guessed the four I thought most likely.

Apparently I guessed well, as, instead of saying which I got right or wrong, you accused me of cheating. At every step, you have attempted to manipulate the discussion by creating a straw man position, claiming I held it, then arguing against it. When your phony, pointless test didn't go the way you expected, the way that would allow you to belittle me, you accused me of cheating. In the future, I will know not to bother reading your posts, as you've already demonstrated how low you are willing to stoop.

Your first attempt at guessing which of the posted snakes were het motley, you obtained a not-so-good score of 30%. It wasn't until after I told you that 70% of the posted snakes were het motley that you were able to make a better guess. Heck, anyone could do well when chosing 7 out of 10. You proved yourself that detecting het motley status is nothing more than a guess by your first choices. The non-het motley snakes are Cinnamon, Sylvia and Daniel. You were the first to bring up that het motley can be detected, yet were unable to identify them when I even put the odds in your favor. Then you stiputate that it is only when with het stripe. Shoot...I can also identify het lavender...when in combination with het lavender, as well as all the other morphs, when in combination with itself.

I never said you cheated...just that you had enough time to do so. If you're going to split hairs about what someone actually said, then let's please split hairs

As for your not reading any more of my posts...THANK YOU! I really dislike talking to dead space.

 

[jaxom1957]

Your first attempt at guessing which of the posted snakes were het motley, you obtained a not-so-good score of 30%. It wasn't until after I told you that 70% of the posted snakes were het motley that you were able to make a better guess. Heck, anyone could do well when chosing 7 out of 10. You proved yourself that detecting het motley status is nothing more than a guess by your first choices. The non-het motley snakes are Cinnamon, Sylvia and Daniel. You were the first to bring up that het motley can be detected, yet were unable to identify them when I even put the odds in your favor. Then you stiputate that it is only when with het stripe. Shoot...I can also identify het lavender...when in combination with het lavender, as well as all the other morphs, when in combination with itself.

I never said you cheated...just that you had enough time to do so. If you're going to split hairs about what someone actually said, then let's please split hairs

As for your not reading any more of my posts...THANK YOU! I really dislike talking to dead space.

You just can't help misstating the facts, can you? I NEVER CLAIMED THAT *I* COULD TELL HET MOTLEY. Never, not even once. When you posed your challenge, I reminded you AGAIN that I had never claimed I could do so. Nor did I "stipulate" only when in combination with het stripe. Being able to see motley/stripe has nothing to do with being able to detect het motley. It did have to do with the original question, and when I thought of it, I posted it. Prior to you moot test, you were aware that I was relying on what a few local hobbyists had told me, aware that I didn't find their results persuasive, and aware that I never claimed I could do it.

I took some guesses anyway, listing the four I thought most likely to be het motley. I was correct on three out of the four. That's 75% accuracy. I didn't express any opinion on the others, het or not; I guessed the four I thought most likely. You then tried to downplay that I was correct on 3 out of 4, and said there were four more. I apparently guessed all of them accurately. That means that 88.5% of the snakes I guessed to be het motley were in fact het motley. I was wrong on one.

I was the one who pointed out that it was an unrealistic test, and listed the reasons why. I hadn't expected to get more than half right, the equivalent of a coin toss. I'm still surprised I guessed more than that, and it makes me wonder if there may be something to it, even if it isn't very reliable. But your blatant implication that I had cheated stunk of desperation, a ploy to avoid acknowledging how many I guessed correctly. Were you waiting to show how wrong I was, to put me in my place? Your derision backfired in your face when I was correct on more than chance would predict.

Post after post, you have misstated what I wrote. You persisted in claiming I had taken the position that I could tell het motleys, long after you knew better. You tried to "correct" my post on motley/stripes, only to have it pointed out yet again that I stated it correctly. Your "test" was pointless. Your statement that I had time to check on your website was a blatant implication that I had cheated, and was intended to insult me. Any claim that it wasn't meant that way is another insult: to every reader's intelligence.

I don't care that you don't like me. I don't take kindly to being insulted, and you have gone out of your way to try to do so. If you find me abrasive, it's the response your remarks deserved. I didn't come to the forums to argue, but I also didn't come here to be the butt of a clique of self-appointed "experts'" none-so-subtle jibes.

I'm opinionated. I'm loud and abrasive, as well as stubborn. I am also intelligent and well educated. Most importantly, when I argue a point, I stick to the point. I state the facts behind my opinions. I don't gratuitously attack the person arguing against me, but I do respond to personal attacks in kind. When debating a point, I have little or no sense of humor and usually fail to recognize any one's else attempt at it. I don't run, I don't hide and I don't lie or cheat. I pay my bills and follow through on my deals. I take my reputation for honesty deathly serious, and don't allow anyone to undeservedly smear me. I offer respect to those who comport themselves in a manner that warrants it, not to those who simply claim they deserve it. I don't demand respect from anyone, but I brook disrespect from no one. I know what I've accomplished in my life, and what it cost me; the price was too dear to take slurs lightly.

 

[ferdelance]

... Wow i didnt know that this would turn into such a big discussion. I cant even keep up with this all. So you only can tell if something is het moltey? I dont know.

 

[jaxom1957]

... Wow i didnt know that this would turn into such a big discussion. I cant even keep up with this all. So you only can tell if something is het moltey? I dont know.

Sorry for the confusion (and the sidetracking). No, there is no reliable way to tell if a snake is het motley.

If the snake is het for motley and stripe, two alleles that share the same position, it will appear to be motley, so that het is recognizable. The motley gene appears to dominate the stripe gene (totally or partially? another discussion for a later date), so the snake looks motley. To my eye, motley/stripes look different from homozygous motley, with more stretched saddles and longer lines, but there is way too much variation in both homozygous motley and motley/stripe for that to be a reliable indicator. Call it, "a preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's another long discussion, and you'll have no problem finding threads on the topic if you want more information.

The amelanism allele and the Ultra allele also share a position, so a snake het for both amel and ultra will be recognizable as such. Unlike motley, the amel and ultra genes are codominate, so instead of looking like one or the other, the snake looks like a blend of the two, and is referred to as an "Ultramel".

Lavamel's have a similar name, but I'm not sure if they are homozygous for both lava and amel, het for both lava and hypo A, or some other combination. Someone else will either agree or correct me, and then you'll know. I think homo for amel and lava is amelav, and het for both hypo and lava is lavamel, but don't quote me on it. (I hope I caught that mistake before I confused you, sorry)

Het for diffuse can often be recognized by having a clear line down the center of the belly, absent the normal checks, though they can still be seen along the sides of the line.

Someone else mentioned caramel, but that's not one I've researched, so they'll have to speak for themselves.

I hope this explanation was more helpful.