new to bloodred..

[Menhir]

@Darin - the second photo postet by jelle is not a butterbloodred. It's a butter out of the clutch from pewter where also one butterblood hatched. As you see, the belly is nearly white with only some specles but hasn't that creeping yellow in it.
So - especially such an animal shouldn't be in the clutch when it is ONLY dominant-recessive.

Did I lose you a second time???

Perhaps the 3 pictures in comparison - to see why I meant that it isn't that easy to distingush them by the belly:

Normal Butter: (c) pewter

ButterBloodred: (c) pewter

And at last the odd Butter out of the Butterbloodred project from jelle: (Photo also from jelle!!! - sorry, couldn't just link it, had to attach...)

 

[SODERBERGD]

Belly

To me, this has always been the benchmark for bloodreds. Whatever was happening dorsally or laterally seemed variable. I only called them bloodred if they had "bloodred" belly pattern.

Now, new can of worms. I was telling Darin yesterday that most of my bloodreds do not have "clear" or even white bellies. In fact, I don't think I own one that has a white belly unless it's pewters. ALL of my pewters have virtually completely white bellies, but not a single other color of bloodred does. Most of classically colored bloodreds have mostly red bellies. Some as much as 95% red. All of the albinos have 1/3 to 2/3 red bellies.

Except for literally a few black flecks or specks, what all of those bloodreds have in common is the lack of black checkering. That is, they have no more than dots of black Vs the relatively huge black checkers found on nominate corns.

To me, the standard has always been:
If it has the atypically, uncheckered belly that is heretofore characteristically recognized as the "bloodred" belly, it is a bloodred. Regardless of what color it is or how hazy, faded, diluted, diffused the pattern is laterally or dorsally. As Kathy says, the belly has always been the benchmark for bloodreds, but I'm adding the part about it rarely being a patternless, white belly.

On another note. I never liked the term "hurricane" for those motleys. Jim Stelpflug called them donut motleys. I called them bullseye motleys referring to the two concentric circles. It was only when I was repeatedly told about the hurricane name that was coined long ago, I relented and put that into print. I don't like the name hurricane as I spend hours a year explaining it to folks and why their perfectly circled motleys are not hurricanes. They usually shrug me off as not knowing what I'm talking about and defer to what they were told when they bought their "counterfeir" hurricanes.

 

[kathylove]

Some comments about Eddie Leach...

I just read the other thread about this subject, but since this one is newer and more active, no point in keeping two going on the same subject.

It goes back quite a long time to the early bloodred years, but this is to the best of my memory...

We were over to Eddie's house a couple, or maybe a few, times in the early '80s when he was working on the project. From what I remember, he collected some deep red corns in the Supds / Hastings area and started breeding them together. I can't remember if any of the originals lacked ventral checks, I think that came with a little inbreeding. But I do remember that he was excited that some had a lot of orange towards the rear half and was trying to get more of that. When he decided to get out of corns completely about the mid 80s or so, I believe he charged more for the ones with the most ventral orange, so that has been with the morph from the beginning.

We were there the first night he sold any (Ernie Wagner called Eddie while we were there, and he got the second pick of any originals that were sold). As I mentioned earlier, Eddie was circulating a price list for "corn golds". We immediately came up with bloodreds and Ernie picked his own name, which didn't stick. It was an exciting time!

Because of the huge clutches of tiny babies that didn't want to feed (their eggs also had a common characteristic of translucent "windows" and"strings of pearls" effect that connected many of the eggs, but didn't seem to affect hatch rates), we immediately started outcrossing to other strains, especially hypos. I now have only one original, inbred strain female left. She is a '92 baby, still going strong, but for how much longer? I have been breeding her to her son (who is het for hypo and much oranger than she is) and the babies genrerally don't look nearly as deep red as she is. I have saved some back, but probably should save LOTS back this year - it is always possible that this could be her last year to produce.

I also met Eddie's daughter - gave her a Manual to give to dad. She said he has been out of snakes for a long time, but wanted to show him his name remembered.

Anyway, this trip down memory lane is what I remember. Bill was with me every time we visited. He is not here now, but I will check with him later and see if he remembers anything differently from what I do, and make corrections accordingly. Hope this answers most of the questions about the origin of bloodreds.

 

[Darin Chappell]

Menhir,

Now that I see what you are saying, let me address each of those three pictures, in order.

First: Obviously, that is a normal butter, and its checkering is certainly obvious.

Second: That is a butter "bloodred" and it lacks the checkering completely and has the yellow "creeping effect" about which I wrote before.

Third: That is a butter het for the "bloodred" pattern, and it is expressing exactly what one would expect it to express, if I am seeing it correctly. I see a clear stripe (no checks within the stripe in the center of the belly) running down the center of the belly, and checks (which, in the case of the butter, happen to be yellow/clear) on either side of the clear stripe. Whether there is any yellow creeping in from the sides further down towards the tail or not, I cannot see.

However, those pictures seem to me to be proving what I was saying rather than disproving them. The difficulty for me was not being able to recognize the pattern differences of the non-het, het, and homozygous animals, but rather the color of the checks of the butter het "bloodred" pattern animal. That light yellow color simply did not catch my attention when I first saw the picture. Now that I am looking more closely, the pattern seems to be EXACTLY what one would expect.

Does anyone have an animal that is het for the bloodred pattern mutation that DOES NOT exhibit the belly pattern previously described to one degree or another? I know some of them are almost completely clear from checks, and some are almost completely checkered, but they all, at least ALL that I have EVER seen, they all have the checks along the sides with a "checker free" stripe down the center. Does anyone have an animal they know to be het for the pattern that does not show this anomaly?

 

[Susan]

I've come really late into this thread, and I must admit that the last several pages didn't get totally read. I also admit that I am definately NOT an expert on Bloodreds. In fact I never really liked them until the Pewters came out. Throughout my reading of this thread (which has given me a slight head-ache, Thank you all very much ! LOL), I have thought of what I have always considered the Bloodreds to look like....light colored heads as hatchlings, white or speckled belly (definately no distinct checks), and a dorsal pattern that becomes "infused" with the ground color and "obscurring" the actual pattern as the snake reaches maturity. Rich hit the term that I was thinking of..."hyper-erythristic". I don't care for the name "diffuse" and not "patternless" (mostly because that name should be reserved for when we actually develop a corn snake that is born without a pattern!).

Rich's "hyper-erythristic" name would work great for the actual RED Bloodreds (but keeping them Bloodreds is perfect for them), but not for the other colors. "Pewter" is great for the Charcoal Bloodreds since it actually describes the snake as a mature adult. I am certain that other names will come up to describe perfectly Lavender Bloodreds, Caramel Bloodreds, Butter Bloodreds, etc. However, we are still lacking a different name for the actual mutation. Working on Rich's train of thought, I came up with "hyper-spectral", translating into "above in degree or extent the colors of the rainbow".

 

[Rich Z]

Heck, I don't know....

But I think the odds of me calling this particular cultivar as a "Diffused Lavender Corn" are pretty slim.

 

[Hurley]

LOL, and to think--my first impression when looking at that corn was "What a wonderful example of the diffusion pattern we've been talking about." :duck:



Very nice pattern on that one.

(I wish I still had the old paint program I had when I had a Mac. It had a 'diffusion' effect that was basically a scrambling locally of the pixels of the picture. It would take a sharp black outline and "pepper" it out with higher concentrations of "molecules" where the line was, with a thinning of particles as you move laterally from the point of origin....ending up with something that looks just like that snake. )

 

[Susan]

Rich - I would call it an Amethyst corn...JMHO.

GORGEOUS!!!

 

[Darin Chappell]

ÅÐÉÓÊÉ¢ÆÙ -- Eclipse, outshine, overshadow, shade, shadow

The above Greek term (pronounced as: epi-skee-AH-dzo), with the accompanying meanings might be anglicized for us as "episkiastic" and serve as a good name for the pattern mutation we're all discussing. Let me offer a few reasons why...

1. It is actually describing what is taking place (including what Rich said about the ground color overshadowing the saddles more than them actually fading away).

2. It has the benefit of being a Greek name just as amel, anery, and hypo are.

3. No one could confuse it for any other morph/appearance, because no one would associate it with anything other than what we say it is.

Just an idea to throw out there ...

 

[Susan]

Darin - Nice choice! I could live with that. And it could just be "epi" for short, which would make it easy on the tongue (like amel, anery, and hypo) without it being confused with anything else.

 

[Marcel Poots]

Rich,

That is the most beautifull corn you have ever showed here imho. Absolutley magnificent. And now I know for sure, I will start making hets next year..

 

[ecreipeoj]

I have no recent experience with breeding Bloodreds. I bred them many, many years ago, and when I had an entire clutch of Bloodreds die from not eating I got out of them. HUGE MISTAKE! Perhaps some of those who are currently breeding Bloodreds can answer some of my questions that I have when I read about the Bloodred pattern on the forums.

I am currently caught up in the Bloodred Craze and out crossing many of my corns with Bloodreds this year. Lava X Bloodred, Lava X Pewter, Amel Bloodred X Very Red Amel Okeetee and a few others. I have a feeling that I will be very confused when I look at the F1’s and even the F2’s. Which are Bloodreds or have the Bloodred pattern and which are not. I think it will be a matter of opinion with most of them and very evident on some.

This does not seem to be a simple recessive trait or co-dominant trait in my opinion. In either case, it would be very clear. If you breed a Motley with a normal het for Motley, it is very obvious that the Motley gene is recessive and is more than just a white belly recessive trait. Half of the offspring will be Motleys and the other half will look normal. There are exceptions of course. (White bellies that you can’t tell if they are motley or normal, but rare) A co-dominate or semi-dominate Salmon Hypo Boa gene is an all or nothing gene. Yes, I am into boas too!. The offspring are either Salmon Boas or regular boas. The regular boas do not carry the gene and can never produce a Salmon Boa. This does not seem to be the case with bloods. It is not an all or nothing semi-dominant mutant gene, but seems to be more related to the normal partially dominant pattern genes of corn snakes. The Bloodred belly pattern does seem to be recessive, with a normal partially dominant Bloodred pattern that can be present.

So is the Bloodred gene a mutant recessive gene or mutant semi-dominant gene or perhaps a combination of recessive (belly pattern) and normal genes partially dominant for pattern and color genes? Much like an Okeetee crossed with something else will most likely show some Okeetee traits like the black borders, which is a type of a normal partially dominant pattern trait. The same happens with Miami phase corns when crossed with other corns. The normal partially dominant Miami phase color shows up on F1’s and is not of the mutant type recessive or semi-dominant genes.

I am an old timer I guess, but don’t feel like it yet. Bloodred Corns are ingrained in my vocabulary as a distinctive type of corn. All of the Pewters, Anery Bloodreds, Amel Bloodreds, Butter Bloodreds and other Bloodred Crosses are a result of out crossing and are out crossed Bloodreds. The original type Bloodred color and pattern are in the process of being recovered with selective breeding. A very classic looking Bloodred which is very dark red with the Bloodred pattern, can be het for Anery A and when bred to another Bloodred het Anery A, will produce Classic Bloodreds and Anery A Bloodreds. These Anery A Bloodreds are genetically Bloodreds, but are expressing a recessive mutant gene. When they are bred to a Classic Bloodred, they will produce more Classic Bloodreds. This is why I would have a problem replacing the name of an Anery or Carmel, or Butter Bloodred, with “Defused” Butter for example. These homo mutant Bloodreds are genetically the same, or should be, and can produce Classic Bloodreds when bred to a Bloodred.

I think the very dark, dried blood color of a Classic Bloodred can have an effect on a mutant homo Bloodred. A Lavender Bloodred may be a darker shade of purple than a standard Lavender. But when a Lavender Bloodred is bred to a Classic Bloodred, it should still produce a Classic Bloodred. This will be the standard that I will strive for with my Lava X Pewter, and Lava X Bloodred Projects. I will also strive for the Classic Bloodred pattern in all of my mutant creations. The more exaggerated the better! An Amel Bloodred should produce a Classic Bloodred when bred to a Classic Bloodred. I would expect that a Butter Bloodred would be a different color than a Butter and have a very exaggerated Bloodred pattern or what is the point? But when this Butter Bloodred is bred back to a Classic Bloodred, it should produce a Classic Bloodred. If we only focus on the Bloodred Pattern and call it “Defused“ Corn, then I think much is lost. You can describe the Bloodred pattern any way that you want to, but it is still a Bloodred pattern.

WOW! I just saw the Lavender Bloodred that Rich Z posted. That is nice! It is what I would expect a Lavender Bloodred to look like. I bet if he bred it to a Classic Bloodred it would produced Classic Bloodreds het for Lavender. It is a Lavender Bloodred and could be named something else, but to group all of the different mutant Bloodred morphs into a “Defuse” group seems wrong to me. They are already in a group called Bloodreds.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Wild Bloodred Stock

Why isn’t there any wild caught Bloodreds or something similar? Shouldn’t there be some that are close that the originator used to selectively breed the Bloodreds from. Are the Volcano Corns, that are suppose to be wild caught, the stock Bloodred came from rather that the rejected Bloodred outcross that they are claimed to be and ignored. There should be wild corns crawling around somewhere that have the Bloodred pattern and a darker than normal red color to them.

 

[Marcel Poots]

Re: Some comments about Eddie Leach...

Because of the huge clutches of tiny babies that didn't want to feed (their eggs also had a common characteristic of translucent "windows" and"strings of pearls" effect that connected many of the eggs, but didn't seem to affect hatch rates), we immediately started outcrossing to other strains

That is the problem overhere in Holland. Bloodreds have been brought in in the early years. Still Bloodred clutches are hard to start feeding. I found one really red Bloodline but these Bloodreds have been known to through whole none feeder cluthes that will eventually die of starvation. Here is the mother:

This is the 03 female I got from this clutch:

As expected she refused to eat the first few months. But after forcefeeding a chickleg she started off:

Right now she is a vocarious feeder that actually tried tie eat my fingers several times:

 

[Drizzt80]

Joe, I hope you don't mind, but I took a few liberties with your recent post. . . removed bloodred when it was used and replaced it with diffuse. Your post still holds the exact same meaning, intent, arguement etc.

Obviously Bloodred itself would be used in the cases of Classic Diffuse snakes, and Pewter would be used in the cases of Charcoal Diffuse snakes. I used Classic and Charcoal diffuse to keep consistent with the content. I also put in Skizzle where you used defused. Etc. etc. etc.

Hopefully my intent here is understood. We're arguing language, semantics, whatever now, and the 'desire' to change what words we have used and want to use in the future. It has already been stated numerous times how Mocha changed to Lavender, Muted(?) Anery/Pine Island Anery changed to Charcoal, etc, etc.

Following this thread, it's pretty apparent to me that a change in the use of the term Bloodred needs to be made and should be made for the good of the hobby itself. Yes it will still involve explaining backgrounds, heritage, etc. But again, that's already being done with just about every morph out there!! Diffuse, or whatever, would simply make it easier to understand when explanations are made. Before I begin rambling and rehashing, etc., follows is your changed post:

D80

I have no recent experience with breeding Diffuses. I bred them many, many years ago, and when I had an entire clutch of Diffuses die from not eating I got out of them. HUGE MISTAKE! Perhaps some of those who are currently breeding Diffuses can answer some of my questions that I have when I read about the Diffuse pattern on the forums.

I am currently caught up in the Diffuse Craze and out crossing many of my corns with Diffuses this year. Lava X Classic Diffuse(Bloodred), Lava X Charcoal Diffuse(Pewter), Amel Diffuse X Very Red Amel Okeetee and a few others. I have a feeling that I will be very confused when I look at the F1’s and even the F2’s. Which are Diffuses or have the Diffuse pattern and which are not. I think it will be a matter of opinion with most of them and very evident on some.

This does not seem to be a simple recessive trait or co-dominant trait in my opinion. In either case, it would be very clear. If you breed a Motley with a normal het for Motley, it is very obvious that the Motley gene is recessive and is more than just a white belly recessive trait. Half of the offspring will be Motleys and the other half will look normal. There are exceptions of course. (White bellies that you can’t tell if they are motley or normal, but rare) A co-dominate or semi-dominate Salmon Hypo Boa gene is an all or nothing gene. Yes, I am into boas too!. The offspring are either Salmon Boas or regular boas. The regular boas do not carry the gene and can never produce a Salmon Boa. This does not seem to be the case with Diffuses. It is not an all or nothing semi-dominant mutant gene, but seems to be more related to the normal partially dominant pattern genes of corn snakes. The Diffuse belly pattern does seem to be recessive, with a normal partially dominant Diffuse pattern that can be present.

So is the Diffuse gene a mutant recessive gene or mutant semi-dominant gene or perhaps a combination of recessive (belly pattern) and normal genes partially dominant for pattern and color genes? Much like an Okeetee crossed with something else will most likely show some Okeetee traits like the black borders, which is a type of a normal partially dominant pattern trait. The same happens with Miami phase corns when crossed with other corns. The normal partially dominant Miami phase color shows up on F1’s and is not of the mutant type recessive or semi-dominant genes.

I am an old timer I guess, but don’t feel like it yet. Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) Corns are ingrained in my vocabulary as a distinctive type of corn. All of the Charcoal Diffuse(Pewters), Anery Diffuses, Amel Diffuses, Butter Diffuses and other Diffuse Crosses are a result of out crossing and are out crossed Diffuses. The original type Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) color and pattern are in the process of being recovered with selective breeding. A very Classic looking Diffuse(Bloodred) which is very dark red with the Diffuse pattern, can be het for Anery A and when bred to another Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) het Anery A, will produce Classic Diffuse(Bloodreds) and Anery A Diffuse. These Anery A Diffuses are genetically Diffuses, but are expressing a recessive mutant gene. When they are bred to a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred), they will produce more Classic Diffuses(Bloodreds). This is why I would have a problem replacing the name of an Anery or Carmel, or Butter Diffuse, with “skizzle” Butter for example. These homo mutant Diffuses are genetically the same, or should be, and can produce Classic Diffuses(Bloodreds) when bred to a Diffuse.

I think the very dark, dried blood color of a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) can have an effect on a mutant homo Diffuse. A Lavender Diffuse may be a darker shade of purple than a standard Lavender. But when a Lavender Diffuse is bred to a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred), it should still produce a Classic Diffuse (Bloodred). This will be the standard that I will strive for with my Lava X Charcoal Diffuse(Pewter), and Lava X Diffuse Projects. I will also strive for the Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) pattern in all of my mutant creations. The more exaggerated the better! An Amel Diffuse should produce a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) when bred to a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred). I would expect that a Butter Diffuse would be a different color than a Butter and have a very exaggerated Diffuse pattern or what is the point? But when this Butter Diffuse is bred back to a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred), it should produce a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred). If we only focus on the Diffuse Pattern and call it “skizzle“ Corn, then I think much is lost. You can describe the Diffuse pattern any way that you want to, but it is still a Diffuse pattern.

WOW! I just saw the Lavender Diffuse that Rich Z posted. That is nice! It is what I would expect a Lavender Diffuse to look like. I bet if he bred it to a Classic Diffuse(Bloodred) it would produced Classic Diffuses(Bloodreds) het for Lavender. It is a Lavender Diffuse and could be named something else, but to group all of the different mutant Diffuse morphs into a "skizzle" group seems wrong to me. They are already in a group called Diffuse.

 

[ecreipeoj]

D80

I don’t mind at all. I respect and appreciate opposing arguments and opinions. It looks like I made a pretty good argument for you in the changed version. LOL

Like you said in either form it has the same meaning so why change it? I guess that is where we stand. Some of us are on this side of the fence and the others on the other side. All of us are only a few voices in the big picture that may have an opinion on the subject. Old timers and newcomers and everybody in between will have different experiences that will effect how they feel about the subject.

For me, I have stated my position and now have to go feed a bunch of hungry snakes. I think that Bill and Kathy Love should have the final say on this one. I think that the originators or the ones involved in the first stages of a new morph should have the final say. I hope this tradition stands the test of time!

 

[Drizzt80]

Ureka!?

[BI think that Bill and Kathy Love should have the final say on this one. I think that the originators or the ones involved in the first stages of a new morph should have the final say. I hope this tradition stands the test of time! [/B]

I couldn't agree more!!

Just had another viewpoint explode in my head. Following this thread, I see the two sides of the fence you mentioned, and believe it wraps around a simple phrase I tend to lead my life by: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I think the two camps are the minority(?) who think it's not broke, and those who feel it is broke. Let me explain.

This thread started with the "What's the difference between . . ." type of question. I know, it wasn't exactly like that but . . .

Same snakes, two different questions to be posed in the future:
1. What's the difference between a Bloodred and an Anery Bloodred?
2. What's the difference between a Bloodred (Classic Diffuse) and an Anery Diffuse?

How would you answer those two different questions? And how convenient would it be tou deal with the question that would most definitely follow question #1: How can you have a Black snake that's labeled bloodred?

I think it's clear that a name change would make the explanations (that will ALWAYS be needed) much shorter and clearer. Hence, it is broken, and needs to be fixed.
D80

 

[Rich Z]

Another "Diffused Defused Suffused Faded Getting Patternless Anemic Blooded Hyper-Lavender Corn Snake":

As you can see, even coming up with a single name to cover the range of this one variation is going to be quite challenging.

 

[Darin Chappell]

Sorry about the failed transferrence of the Greek term to that last post, everyone. Using English letters in place of the Greek ones, the term in question is EPISKIAZO. That is the one that means "to eclipse, overshadow, etc." It is pronounced (epi-skee-AH-dzo), and could be used to describe the pattern mutation in a bloodred as being "episkiastic."

The Greek letters looked fine on my screen, but apparently they do not correlate to viable fonts here. What was Rich thinking in not providing the opportunity to write in dead language script here?!?!? How short-sighted can you get, Rich???

 

[Darin Chappell]

OK ... If a pattern mutating gene is truly co-dominant, it will work like this, will it not?

A homozygous animal (having two sets of the co-dominant gene) will show a unique pattern mutation.

A heterozygous animal (having one co-dominant gene and one normal gene) will show a pattern mutation that is distinct from the homozygous, but definitely NOT normal.

An animal that has no co-dominant genes, shows no effects of the pattern mutation at all.

Agreed so far?

If (and I mean a HUGE "IF") I have that right thus far, then:

A homozygous animal bred to another homozygous animal will produce 100% homozygous offspring, exhibiting the pattern mutation of the homozygous to one degree or another (based on the quality of the individual).

A homozygous animal bred to a normal will produce animals all heterozygous for the co-dominant gene, and they will ALL (to one degree or another, depending on their individual "quality") show the pattern mutation common to all hets for this trait.

A homozygous bred to a heterozygous will produce 50% homozygous animals (showing homozygous pattern traits) and 50% heterozygous animals (showing heterozygous pattern traits).

A heterozygous bred to a heterozygous will produce 25% homozygous animals (showing homozygous pattern traits), 50% heterozygous animals (showing heterozygous pattern traits), and 25% normal animals showing no effects at all.

A heterozygous animal bred to a normal will produce 50% heterozygous animals (showing heterozygous pattern traits) and 50% normals with no effects at all in pattern.

Of course all fo that is simply statistical probabilities, but is this not EXACTLY what we have seen happening in the "bloodred" breedings over the years? I have never heard anyone saying that they have found something different in their efforts. Almost anyone with any bloodred experience at all can pick out the animals that are het for bloodred out of a bucket of normals with remarkable accuracy.

If this pattern mutation is not a predictable genetically based mutation which is co-dominant in nature, what else could it be? I am open to any suggestion, but I simply see no evidence for anything else here.

Now, the red coloration is another issue, and we cannot try to link the two concepts in our argumentation here. The pattern is the result (I believe) of a single genetic determinant. However, the red coloration is a result of linebreeding over several generations. It is entirely correct to compare the red "factor" of the bloodred mix to the miami and okeetee phase animals. These are issues of linebreeding and are the result of who knows how many genes involved. BUT that is a separate issue to the question of the pattern mutation, which is individually discernable and predictable in animals of all colors and line breeding backgrounds.