SODERBERGD
Active member
Joe
Stop being so shy and tell us how ya really feel, dude. LOL.
Stop being so shy and tell us how ya really feel, dude. LOL.
-
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.
Poll: are you going to call "bloodred" anything else?
- Thread starter Serpwidgets
- Start date
SODERBERGD
Active member
Sorry, wrong thread. . .
. . . Joe was ranting about the ultra and I put that on the wrong thread. I'll go to the right one now.
. . . Joe was ranting about the ultra and I put that on the wrong thread. I'll go to the right one now.
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
Since we're taling about the distinguishing characteristic of episkiastism, I'll put my two cents' in by saying that it is the belly pattern, in my mind. That is the sole defining characteristic for this pattern.
Now, there are other aspects which can be taken into account to determine whether this is a GOOD specimen of the morph (head pattern, head coloration, and lateral saddles being less distinct to the point of being non-existant in the best examples), but none of those a re the defining characteristic of this morph. It is only the belly, that "bloodred belly" as Don Soderberg calls it, that defines the morph.
If an animal has that characteristic, it is an animal homozygous for episkiastism, in my opinion. Anything beyond that, and you are getting into the issues of whether it has influences from line-breeding or other homozygous genetic influences.
Now, there are other aspects which can be taken into account to determine whether this is a GOOD specimen of the morph (head pattern, head coloration, and lateral saddles being less distinct to the point of being non-existant in the best examples), but none of those a re the defining characteristic of this morph. It is only the belly, that "bloodred belly" as Don Soderberg calls it, that defines the morph.
If an animal has that characteristic, it is an animal homozygous for episkiastism, in my opinion. Anything beyond that, and you are getting into the issues of whether it has influences from line-breeding or other homozygous genetic influences.
SODERBERGD
Active member
Then. . .
isn't it a little contradictory to look for the perfect name for this morph? I mean, if we're all in opposite camps over what name most accurately describes what separates this snake from others, why are we naming it for something that does not involve the "defining characteristic" of this morph? The belly.
Not trying to stir up a mess again, but you bring to light a good point. In my opinion and apparently in the eyes of others, the most distinguishable feature of this morph that is different than others is the belly markings. I don't propose we change the name to reflect that. Just pointing out that no name we're using or thinking about using addresses what most of us feel is the defining standard for the morph. This begs the question, "why are we changing it?". The answer is always the same. "Because the color namesake does not apply to the pattern appearance mechanism of this morph." I disagree if you consider the "bleeding" affect of color that affects pattern. Of course, in lieu of scientific evidence, I'm stating that I personally believe the stimuli for the pattern blending and melanin reduction (some latent) satisfies the description of "bleeding".
isn't it a little contradictory to look for the perfect name for this morph? I mean, if we're all in opposite camps over what name most accurately describes what separates this snake from others, why are we naming it for something that does not involve the "defining characteristic" of this morph? The belly.
Not trying to stir up a mess again, but you bring to light a good point. In my opinion and apparently in the eyes of others, the most distinguishable feature of this morph that is different than others is the belly markings. I don't propose we change the name to reflect that. Just pointing out that no name we're using or thinking about using addresses what most of us feel is the defining standard for the morph. This begs the question, "why are we changing it?". The answer is always the same. "Because the color namesake does not apply to the pattern appearance mechanism of this morph." I disagree if you consider the "bleeding" affect of color that affects pattern. Of course, in lieu of scientific evidence, I'm stating that I personally believe the stimuli for the pattern blending and melanin reduction (some latent) satisfies the description of "bleeding".
carol
Down with the sickness
Darin.... as far as places where we agree, does anyone disagree with the fact that if a person is well educated on what is involved in the make up of a bloodred, they will have a grasp on how it reacts when "mixed"? And that people who are learning about corns and want to know what a diffused corn is will want to also know what a bloodred is?
One point for Hurley...
Don't you think the same arguement could be made for keeping the Blood name? Will they say "eek, a Blood corn may not always be red, Run away! I'll never understand". So maybe those people shoud stick with Trinkets as well.
I also wondered about the Keys aspect of it when I was cleaning cages this weekend. I picked up a Keys corn and wondered how it was inherited. Will we eventually outcross keys corns and have to come up with a different name for outcrosses with patternless bellys?
To me, if a bloodred has been so outcrossed that all that is left is a plain belly, it might as well be labeled a normal AFAIC. After reading this thread again after a break. It seems the only real arguement that hangs me up is the het situation. The more I think about it, adding the name "diffuse" will actually rip more people off. It really makes them think they are getting something special. When in reality if they don't have an understanding they think they will breed thier "diffuse" with an amel and get more "diffused" in F2, breed one of those to something else and still plan to get "diffused" in the F2 of that breeding. By that time all the "diffused" corns they get will only be distinguishable by a patternless belly. Seems like a rip off to me. I can see the defense "Well I will just explain to them how diffuse can vary", why not just explain how bloodred can vary? Maybe that same customer will come on the forums in ten years and say "My diffuse corn really isn't diffused, I think it is crazy to have such poorly descriptive name. People hear the name diffused and are going to want a diffused snake. It is such a contradiction, I think we have to save people from getting ripped off and call them "clear belly" corns."
How about we just call our bloodred outcrosses "normals"? The more I think about using the term bloodred in "het" it almost seems unethical no matter what name you slap on it. If you really don't want to sell your Pewter X Charcoals as just Charcoals, then sell them as "Pewter X Charcoals". Selling them as Charcoals het diffused is like selling a Charcoal het Candy Cane. You have no idea if those babies will produce good diffused pattern or just patternless bellies.
Another problem I see is: So Serp goes to a show and labels these animals "diffused", the guy next to him sees that the new name is drawing some interest. He thinks to himself "Heck, I always thought Bloodreds should be called "Blended" Corns. If he slaps a new name on it so can I. Then you got the guy across the hall who sees some interest. He comes over and askes about them and learns that the only real identifying factor is a patternless belly. "Hmmm", he thinks to himself, "this guys diffuse corns are getting some attention, my keys corns arn't selling so well today. They have patternless bellies, I'll sell them as diffuse as well." And then uh-oh here comes Darin setting up his "epi" corns, the vendor next to Darin seems real interested in that.....
And all these people at the show are supposed to know that "Serp and Darin are the only reputable breeders knowledgeable enough to ethically put on a new name".
I see us explaining to a lot more confused people after a few months of that. I have a few lines here that are non-motley, not-bloodred, but do have patternless bellies.
If I start outcrossing my Milksnake Phase with other lines and get snakes that don't look like Milksnake Phase but have the patternless belly, and I suggested I called these corns something special because they have a patternless belly. You would all say I was crazy. "Maybe there is genetics involved in the belly pattern, but you just have "my normal is special syndrome"". At best you would suggest I call them normals from Milksnake Phase lineage. Which is what I think we should do with Bloods.
Another situation I see is perhaps three different people read this thread, see Serp, Hurley, and Darin say "I don't care, this is what I think and this is what I do". They all get inspired to call bloodred what they want and we have 5 different names for something that wasn't that broke to begin with. Serp will get up, Darin will get up, then Hurley will get up. It'll be Anarchy. :rofl:
No offense personally of course!
One point for Hurley...
Don't you think the same arguement could be made for keeping the Blood name? Will they say "eek, a Blood corn may not always be red, Run away! I'll never understand". So maybe those people shoud stick with Trinkets as well.
I also wondered about the Keys aspect of it when I was cleaning cages this weekend. I picked up a Keys corn and wondered how it was inherited. Will we eventually outcross keys corns and have to come up with a different name for outcrosses with patternless bellys?
To me, if a bloodred has been so outcrossed that all that is left is a plain belly, it might as well be labeled a normal AFAIC. After reading this thread again after a break. It seems the only real arguement that hangs me up is the het situation. The more I think about it, adding the name "diffuse" will actually rip more people off. It really makes them think they are getting something special. When in reality if they don't have an understanding they think they will breed thier "diffuse" with an amel and get more "diffused" in F2, breed one of those to something else and still plan to get "diffused" in the F2 of that breeding. By that time all the "diffused" corns they get will only be distinguishable by a patternless belly. Seems like a rip off to me. I can see the defense "Well I will just explain to them how diffuse can vary", why not just explain how bloodred can vary? Maybe that same customer will come on the forums in ten years and say "My diffuse corn really isn't diffused, I think it is crazy to have such poorly descriptive name. People hear the name diffused and are going to want a diffused snake. It is such a contradiction, I think we have to save people from getting ripped off and call them "clear belly" corns."
How about we just call our bloodred outcrosses "normals"? The more I think about using the term bloodred in "het" it almost seems unethical no matter what name you slap on it. If you really don't want to sell your Pewter X Charcoals as just Charcoals, then sell them as "Pewter X Charcoals". Selling them as Charcoals het diffused is like selling a Charcoal het Candy Cane. You have no idea if those babies will produce good diffused pattern or just patternless bellies.
Another problem I see is: So Serp goes to a show and labels these animals "diffused", the guy next to him sees that the new name is drawing some interest. He thinks to himself "Heck, I always thought Bloodreds should be called "Blended" Corns. If he slaps a new name on it so can I. Then you got the guy across the hall who sees some interest. He comes over and askes about them and learns that the only real identifying factor is a patternless belly. "Hmmm", he thinks to himself, "this guys diffuse corns are getting some attention, my keys corns arn't selling so well today. They have patternless bellies, I'll sell them as diffuse as well." And then uh-oh here comes Darin setting up his "epi" corns, the vendor next to Darin seems real interested in that.....
And all these people at the show are supposed to know that "Serp and Darin are the only reputable breeders knowledgeable enough to ethically put on a new name".
I see us explaining to a lot more confused people after a few months of that. I have a few lines here that are non-motley, not-bloodred, but do have patternless bellies.
If I start outcrossing my Milksnake Phase with other lines and get snakes that don't look like Milksnake Phase but have the patternless belly, and I suggested I called these corns something special because they have a patternless belly. You would all say I was crazy. "Maybe there is genetics involved in the belly pattern, but you just have "my normal is special syndrome"". At best you would suggest I call them normals from Milksnake Phase lineage. Which is what I think we should do with Bloods.
Another situation I see is perhaps three different people read this thread, see Serp, Hurley, and Darin say "I don't care, this is what I think and this is what I do". They all get inspired to call bloodred what they want and we have 5 different names for something that wasn't that broke to begin with. Serp will get up, Darin will get up, then Hurley will get up. It'll be Anarchy. :rofl:
No offense personally of course!
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
Like I said before, I am only wanting to identify the pattern mutation (which has at its core, but is not limited to, the belly common to all of these animals) as a distinct part of what makes up a bloodred. I am not wanting to change anything that is already there; just name something we all know about, but no one has named. I am just wanting to have a term of use so that the confusion that already exists can be lessoned.
I have never claimed to be expert on any of these issues, and though I do consider myself to be very ethical in what I do, I certainly have not tried to place my ethics above anyone else here. I am not quite sure what has been meant by some of the posts in relation to me and my supposed motives on this, but I am trying to assume that it is just hard to read what someone meant to write sometimes.
If no one likes the term "episkiastic," don't use it. I'll be the only one, and it will die on the vine, because I promise you I don't sell enough animals to make any difference at all. You won't be bothered by me at any show, and you won't have to explain anything at all.
Just come up with something! I absolutely disagree with the idea that animals that have the pattern mutation only, without the red coloration through line-breeding, are nothing more than normals. Don Soderberg calls it the bloodred belly. Fine, I can live with that. It shows where the mutation was first recognized while distinguishing the fact that not all animals that have this trait are bloodreds.
It was never my intention to be THE ONE who named this mutation, nor did I ever have a dog in this fight that I thought was the "end all, be all" name. So, if you all want to call it something else, I'm good. Just let me know what it is.
I have never claimed to be expert on any of these issues, and though I do consider myself to be very ethical in what I do, I certainly have not tried to place my ethics above anyone else here. I am not quite sure what has been meant by some of the posts in relation to me and my supposed motives on this, but I am trying to assume that it is just hard to read what someone meant to write sometimes.
If no one likes the term "episkiastic," don't use it. I'll be the only one, and it will die on the vine, because I promise you I don't sell enough animals to make any difference at all. You won't be bothered by me at any show, and you won't have to explain anything at all.
Just come up with something! I absolutely disagree with the idea that animals that have the pattern mutation only, without the red coloration through line-breeding, are nothing more than normals. Don Soderberg calls it the bloodred belly. Fine, I can live with that. It shows where the mutation was first recognized while distinguishing the fact that not all animals that have this trait are bloodreds.
It was never my intention to be THE ONE who named this mutation, nor did I ever have a dog in this fight that I thought was the "end all, be all" name. So, if you all want to call it something else, I'm good. Just let me know what it is.
carol
Down with the sickness
Not at all trying to accuse anyone of being unethical. I was just pointing out that changing the name won't stop anyone from being ripped off, we really have no control over what others do, but we can set a reliable pattern.
When I said selling them as hets is almost unethical, I REALLY did not mean that anyone that has sold them as hets is so. I am positive I have even used the term before. I have just come to the realization that I personally don't think using het for this trait is such a good idea. As for me, I am starting to make the choice to not put a name on something that may not be there in F2 (aside from the belly). I appriciate that you are not overly defensive because I sincerely did not mean to impy anything bad. I would just like to point out that if it all comes down to the belly, diffuse or "epi" don't describe any better than blood.
LOL, Bloodred belly works for me. If you can't call Normal colored corns with a plain belly "Normals", how about Normals with Blood Pattern?
I was partially refering to Serps post where he stated that part of his motivation was so he could sell these normal color animals or hets something that didn't make them sound undesirable. Maybe "blood pattern" isn't as catchy as "diffuse" but I believe it will create less confusion in the long run.
When I said selling them as hets is almost unethical, I REALLY did not mean that anyone that has sold them as hets is so. I am positive I have even used the term before. I have just come to the realization that I personally don't think using het for this trait is such a good idea. As for me, I am starting to make the choice to not put a name on something that may not be there in F2 (aside from the belly). I appriciate that you are not overly defensive because I sincerely did not mean to impy anything bad. I would just like to point out that if it all comes down to the belly, diffuse or "epi" don't describe any better than blood.
LOL, Bloodred belly works for me. If you can't call Normal colored corns with a plain belly "Normals", how about Normals with Blood Pattern?
I was partially refering to Serps post where he stated that part of his motivation was so he could sell these normal color animals or hets something that didn't make them sound undesirable. Maybe "blood pattern" isn't as catchy as "diffuse" but I believe it will create less confusion in the long run.
First off, Darin, I don't think I could say it better.
The argument that a new name will drive newbies away in droves was your argument, not mine. I personally think that the average human being with enough intellect to be able to read will have enough to understand one more name when it's applied to a pattern that was previously unnamed. I happen to have a bit more hope that perhaps your "average joe" would want to learn about the morphs and the terminology involved and perhaps a taste will even spark a bit more interest to learn more. It'd be nice to be able to explain bloodreds to them with a term for the pattern and a lively discussion on the selective hypererythristic breeding in some lines.
The below quote just hit me wrong, perhaps I read it the wrong way? I would think any of us average Joes would find it insulting that anyone would believe they couldn't learn or understand a word and its meaning.
And besides, high-powered words and meanings?
What makes "diffuse" a high-powered word? ...Or its meaning, for that matter. It's in the dictionary; it's not just a chemistry term. Personally, I think it applies, but that's just me. It may not be the prettiest term or catchiest phrase, but it's descriptive.
Entry Word: diffuse
Function: verb
Text:
1
Synonyms
SPREAD 1:circulate, disperse, disseminate, distribute, propagate, radiate, strew
Related Word: extend; expand
Contrasted Words: compact, consolidate, center, centralize, focus
Antonyms: concentrate
2
Synonyms
INTERFUSE 2: infuse, interlard, intersow, intersperse, intersprinkle
As I've said before, I'm not saying we should rename bloodreds at all. I believe I've typed that more than a few times. I just feel the pattern itself deserves a name. Bloodreds will still be bloodreds and pewters will still be pewters on the table. If I want to lose a few sales at the table because I personally don't feel some of my bloods deserve the bloodred name and I want to be as honest with the customer as possible, I doubt that'll hurt anyone but myself. That way I can go home at night and feel I've represented my animals as accurately as possible with as little doubt to my meaning as possible. Besides, as Darin said, I doubt I'll ever sell enough animals to make a difference to anyone.
(And before I get someone jumping at my previous statement... NO, this is not some personal attack at anyone or an insinuation that I don't know how so and so can sleep as night, the dirty rat, I'm good, they're shady yadda yadda blah blah blah...it was simply a statement of my own personal morals and what I feel I should do ethically to live within them. My choice, my belief, no aspersions cast.)
On a side note re: Keys corns. I don't claim any expertise in this realm at all, but I'll throw this out there for someone to educate me on the subject:
The Keys corns have blank bellies, do they not? Or most do at any rate, at least to my understanding.
(from Rich's description: The Upper Keys Corn is kind of hard to describe. In some instances it looks like something inbetween a hypomelanistic corn and a regular Miami Phase corn. There is usually very little contrast between the blotches and ground color. And often the abdomen can be pretty much patternless.)
If you breed a Keys corn with a bloodred, what do you get?
In the F2?
If you breed a Keys to an Okeetee, what do you get (belly pattern-wise and 'other-wises')?
In the F2?
Has it been proven, or are we sure that the Keys corns aren't carrying the pattern trait of bloodreds?
I ask because I don't know. To me in the pictures, they look like not-very-red bloodreds. :shrugs:
In fact, let me just cut and paste this to a new thread, I think it'll be an interesting topic of its own.
New thread: Keys Corns
The argument that a new name will drive newbies away in droves was your argument, not mine. I personally think that the average human being with enough intellect to be able to read will have enough to understand one more name when it's applied to a pattern that was previously unnamed. I happen to have a bit more hope that perhaps your "average joe" would want to learn about the morphs and the terminology involved and perhaps a taste will even spark a bit more interest to learn more. It'd be nice to be able to explain bloodreds to them with a term for the pattern and a lively discussion on the selective hypererythristic breeding in some lines.
The below quote just hit me wrong, perhaps I read it the wrong way? I would think any of us average Joes would find it insulting that anyone would believe they couldn't learn or understand a word and its meaning.
And besides, high-powered words and meanings?
What makes "diffuse" a high-powered word? ...Or its meaning, for that matter. It's in the dictionary; it's not just a chemistry term. Personally, I think it applies, but that's just me. It may not be the prettiest term or catchiest phrase, but it's descriptive.
Entry Word: diffuse
Function: verb
Text:
1
Synonyms
SPREAD 1:circulate, disperse, disseminate, distribute, propagate, radiate, strew
Related Word: extend; expand
Contrasted Words: compact, consolidate, center, centralize, focus
Antonyms: concentrate
2
Synonyms
INTERFUSE 2: infuse, interlard, intersow, intersperse, intersprinkle
As I've said before, I'm not saying we should rename bloodreds at all. I believe I've typed that more than a few times. I just feel the pattern itself deserves a name. Bloodreds will still be bloodreds and pewters will still be pewters on the table. If I want to lose a few sales at the table because I personally don't feel some of my bloods deserve the bloodred name and I want to be as honest with the customer as possible, I doubt that'll hurt anyone but myself. That way I can go home at night and feel I've represented my animals as accurately as possible with as little doubt to my meaning as possible. Besides, as Darin said, I doubt I'll ever sell enough animals to make a difference to anyone.
(And before I get someone jumping at my previous statement... NO, this is not some personal attack at anyone or an insinuation that I don't know how so and so can sleep as night, the dirty rat, I'm good, they're shady yadda yadda blah blah blah...it was simply a statement of my own personal morals and what I feel I should do ethically to live within them. My choice, my belief, no aspersions cast.)
On a side note re: Keys corns. I don't claim any expertise in this realm at all, but I'll throw this out there for someone to educate me on the subject:
The Keys corns have blank bellies, do they not? Or most do at any rate, at least to my understanding.
(from Rich's description: The Upper Keys Corn is kind of hard to describe. In some instances it looks like something inbetween a hypomelanistic corn and a regular Miami Phase corn. There is usually very little contrast between the blotches and ground color. And often the abdomen can be pretty much patternless.)
If you breed a Keys corn with a bloodred, what do you get?
In the F2?
If you breed a Keys to an Okeetee, what do you get (belly pattern-wise and 'other-wises')?
In the F2?
Has it been proven, or are we sure that the Keys corns aren't carrying the pattern trait of bloodreds?
I ask because I don't know. To me in the pictures, they look like not-very-red bloodreds. :shrugs:
In fact, let me just cut and paste this to a new thread, I think it'll be an interesting topic of its own.
New thread: Keys Corns
My first reaction to this is that I would call it a Milksnake phase or banded belly....why? How is this different than with bloodred? Milksnake/banded does not imply color + pattern, it's simply the name of the pattern. If bloods were originally called "diffuses" and then bred for red and the term "bloodred" was coined for those choice individuals, then these whole books of threads would not exist, and we'd call it the diffusion belly or whatever.
Additionally, I will admit ignorance where ignorance is due. I haven't worked with milksnake phased corns. I vaguely recall something about milk snake phased corns having motley in them, not sure which came first, the blank belly or the motley being added in. Help me out, here, I'd like to know.
(From Rich's site: Several years ago I bred an amelanistic motley into my Milk Snake Phase line with two projects in mind: (1) Produce motleys that will exhibit much more contrast between the blotches and the ground color, perhaps something akin to a Miami Phase Motley, and (2) Work towards getting the Milk Snake Phase to look much more like something you would really think of when someone thinks 'Milk Snake'. That, of course, being a completely banded corn snake with very high contrast color.
...
Coloration is variable with some looking like what you would expect from a Candy Cane Motley. Others will have light orange backgrounds with darker saddles with no lateral blotching to speak of. The abdomen is generally nearly patternless, sometimes with a light flecking of translucent marks or completely white at the anterior and more heavily marked with larger translucent blotching in the posterior. )
I know Don has banded corns...are these similar to/same as/totally different than milk snake phased corns? What are their bellies like?
carol
Down with the sickness
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(That’s fine and kudos to you but really, you are only scaring the average Joe with the high-powered words and meanings. If we keep it as simple as possible, we will all enjoy the hobby together.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to add, this wasn't a quote from me. I don't think diffuse is a high powered word. LOL. I just think the arguement is equal for using either word. I guess what is left is the debate over which is more confusing, adopting a new name or keeping one that still has ties to blood leaneage.
I am not an expert on Keys corns, but my two have completely patternless bellies. Albeit, they are infused with a rosy color and are not the white/red contrast bellies bloods have. However, I only have two. I have some keys outcrosses and their bellies resemble blood outcrosses, actually they are a little more dramatic. I'll try and find some pics.
I honestly read every thread with an open mind without having it made up already. I hope others do the same. So when I throw out these ideas, it is for people to think about them non-defensively and tell me why they agree or disagree.
One other thing I was thinking is, I believe we will have to keep reintoducing our "Blood Morphs" into original Bloodred stock to keep the desirable pattern "look" going strong. This happens with other animals/plants as well. You may get something really great from one line, but if you separate it for too long, you end up with something not so great. Sometimes you luck out and get something better, but this doesn't seem to be the trend with the Blood pattern. So why not continue to pay tribute to the line that will be critical in keeping this going?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(That’s fine and kudos to you but really, you are only scaring the average Joe with the high-powered words and meanings. If we keep it as simple as possible, we will all enjoy the hobby together.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to add, this wasn't a quote from me. I don't think diffuse is a high powered word. LOL. I just think the arguement is equal for using either word. I guess what is left is the debate over which is more confusing, adopting a new name or keeping one that still has ties to blood leaneage.
I am not an expert on Keys corns, but my two have completely patternless bellies. Albeit, they are infused with a rosy color and are not the white/red contrast bellies bloods have. However, I only have two. I have some keys outcrosses and their bellies resemble blood outcrosses, actually they are a little more dramatic. I'll try and find some pics.
I honestly read every thread with an open mind without having it made up already. I hope others do the same. So when I throw out these ideas, it is for people to think about them non-defensively and tell me why they agree or disagree.
One other thing I was thinking is, I believe we will have to keep reintoducing our "Blood Morphs" into original Bloodred stock to keep the desirable pattern "look" going strong. This happens with other animals/plants as well. You may get something really great from one line, but if you separate it for too long, you end up with something not so great. Sometimes you luck out and get something better, but this doesn't seem to be the trend with the Blood pattern. So why not continue to pay tribute to the line that will be critical in keeping this going?
carol
Down with the sickness
Milksnake Phase does have a color phase attached to it. The colors should be that of a Miami phase, or like an Eastern Milksnake. I will have some animals that have the dorsal pattern and ventral pattern, but will not be Miami colored. What will I sell them as? I plan on selling them as Milksnake Phase (gold variety), but heck maybe I'll just bite the bullet and sell them as normals with Milksnake phase influence. I think I'll just let thier looks sell them and not try to get to sidetracked worrying about what to call them.
As far as belly on those guys... Some Milksnake Phase that are proven NOT motley (crossed with motley = some babies with patterned bellies) have pattern-less bellies. Some Milksnake Phase that LOOK motley have some pattern on thier bellies. Some of course look motley and have clean bellies, and I still cautiously apply the name "motley". They also have differences dorsally besides the banding that I am starting to notice. I am confidant that when out crossed I could end up with some animals that don't look like Milksnake Phase on top, but have patternless bellies. When that happens I suspect none of you would support a name for that, then again I probably wouldn't either.
As far as belly on those guys... Some Milksnake Phase that are proven NOT motley (crossed with motley = some babies with patterned bellies) have pattern-less bellies. Some Milksnake Phase that LOOK motley have some pattern on thier bellies. Some of course look motley and have clean bellies, and I still cautiously apply the name "motley". They also have differences dorsally besides the banding that I am starting to notice. I am confidant that when out crossed I could end up with some animals that don't look like Milksnake Phase on top, but have patternless bellies. When that happens I suspect none of you would support a name for that, then again I probably wouldn't either.
Oh, and yes, Carol, my apologies. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that you had made that comment and I neglected to go back and verify. LOL, I nearly went cross-eyed finding it again, but it was Mike's quote. My bad to misquote you, but my statement regarding the quote still stands. 
And interesting re: the milk snake bellies. What's the current thought on that? When the checkers are there, are they normal? Normally placed? Limited to the sides or caudal half or anything in particular? Any freckles like the "bloodred bellies"? Clean sides like motleys? A look all their own?
Just curious. It was never a morph I was interested in and I neglected to study up, so count me in for making up lost time.
Just curious. It was never a morph I was interested in and I neglected to study up, so count me in for making up lost time.
For reference sake, the term "Milk Snake Phase" came from a particular individual I hatched out in 1984 from Miami Phase stock. Very uniformly patterned and very much resembling the Coastal Plains Milk Snakes my friends and I in Maryland were always out searching for. The original specimen did not have a patternless abdomen, but some outcrossed lines began to develop pure white bellies in some instances.
I bred this line into the Motley gene pool to try to do two things: (1) make the blotches much larger, forming saddles, or hopefully complete dorsal bands, and (2) increase the contrast between the blotch coloration and the ground color, which was lacking in the typical Motleys I had.
What I got eventually was non-descript babies that were hard to sell that became gorgeous looking adults that I didn't want to get rid of but just couldn't think of a firm reason to keep them.
As for the Upper Keys corns, bear in mind that there seems to be quite a bit of variability in those critters, so there are no hard and fast rules that we can use to apply to them as a group. There is the additional problem that certainly ANY corn snake coming out of the Keys is called an "Upper Keys Corn" no matter which key it actually was collected from because the populations in the lower keys are protected in Florida. So getting true locality data from the original source will be problematic, for certain.
Now, I know I bred Upper Keys to Blood Red a year or three ago, but darned if I can remember what I got for results. I'll have to research my records, I guess.
I bred this line into the Motley gene pool to try to do two things: (1) make the blotches much larger, forming saddles, or hopefully complete dorsal bands, and (2) increase the contrast between the blotch coloration and the ground color, which was lacking in the typical Motleys I had.
What I got eventually was non-descript babies that were hard to sell that became gorgeous looking adults that I didn't want to get rid of but just couldn't think of a firm reason to keep them.
As for the Upper Keys corns, bear in mind that there seems to be quite a bit of variability in those critters, so there are no hard and fast rules that we can use to apply to them as a group. There is the additional problem that certainly ANY corn snake coming out of the Keys is called an "Upper Keys Corn" no matter which key it actually was collected from because the populations in the lower keys are protected in Florida. So getting true locality data from the original source will be problematic, for certain.
Now, I know I bred Upper Keys to Blood Red a year or three ago, but darned if I can remember what I got for results. I'll have to research my records, I guess.
carol
Down with the sickness
Here is a pic of a non-motley individual, the checks in the pic are all that he has, the rest of his belly is clean. I am not claiming that this is anything proven simple recessive. Just sort of a "what if". What if I get white bellies in otherwise "not different enough dorsally to be called anything other than normal" babies?
Here are some other thread that I think have belly pics.
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10715
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6731
The question has been asked "Why didn't Rich, Don, and everyone else who have been breeding bloodreds tell us it behaved like a simple recessive?" I think we all may have gone over board when we figured out that it almost did behave that way. We need to take a step back and see the wisdom in being on the cautious side. I doubt thier motive was to hide anything.
Here are some other thread that I think have belly pics.
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10715
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6731
The question has been asked "Why didn't Rich, Don, and everyone else who have been breeding bloodreds tell us it behaved like a simple recessive?" I think we all may have gone over board when we figured out that it almost did behave that way. We need to take a step back and see the wisdom in being on the cautious side. I doubt thier motive was to hide anything.
Attachments
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
"The question has been asked 'Why didn't Rich, Don, and everyone else who have been breeding bloodreds tell us it behaved like a simple recessive?' "
Well, I think if you ask some of the people who would obviously be included on that list (I'll let your own imagination specify to whom it is that I am referring here) what they think about the bloodred morph, I believe (because I have spoken with LOTS of the "big name" people first hand on this very issue, for hours at a time) you will find that they ARE willing to say certain things about bloodreds.
Many people who breed these animals on a larger scale are willing to agree that:
1) The red coloration is a result of line breeding and is inheritable, but not in any sort of a "simple" fashion as outlined by Mendelian genetics.
2) The "bloodred belly" trait appears to work in a "simple" way, but that it is probably co-dominant with the wild type, rather than being a simple recessive gene.
3) The red coloration of a bloodred may indeed be lost as one continues to outcross these animals (just like the okeetee and miami morphs will do), but that this trait will consistantly show up throughout the generations in predictable numbers and percentages.
Now, I will allow those individuals to whom I have spoken over the last couple of years about this (and there are a few of them) identify themselves, or not. I am simply pointing out that rather than asking "Well, why didn't they tell us about this," perhaps we should be asking, "Well, did we ever directly ask them about it in the first place?"
Well, I think if you ask some of the people who would obviously be included on that list (I'll let your own imagination specify to whom it is that I am referring here) what they think about the bloodred morph, I believe (because I have spoken with LOTS of the "big name" people first hand on this very issue, for hours at a time) you will find that they ARE willing to say certain things about bloodreds.
Many people who breed these animals on a larger scale are willing to agree that:
1) The red coloration is a result of line breeding and is inheritable, but not in any sort of a "simple" fashion as outlined by Mendelian genetics.
2) The "bloodred belly" trait appears to work in a "simple" way, but that it is probably co-dominant with the wild type, rather than being a simple recessive gene.
3) The red coloration of a bloodred may indeed be lost as one continues to outcross these animals (just like the okeetee and miami morphs will do), but that this trait will consistantly show up throughout the generations in predictable numbers and percentages.
Now, I will allow those individuals to whom I have spoken over the last couple of years about this (and there are a few of them) identify themselves, or not. I am simply pointing out that rather than asking "Well, why didn't they tell us about this," perhaps we should be asking, "Well, did we ever directly ask them about it in the first place?"
Serpwidgets
New member
IF it is shown that the trait is heritable in a simple Mendelian fashion, AND that the trait is independent from the currently known Motley/Stripe/Diffuse traits, then yes I would support a separate name.carol said:
Serpwidgets
New member
Using the term "het" for this trait is the only accurate description. Breeding something homozygous for the pattern to a normal is like "DD X dd" which gives "Dd." The pairing of different alleles is the definition of "het." However you want to think of the pattern being expressed or not expressed or what mechanism you think it has or does not have, they are still het. They are not "outcrossed" nor are they "just 'from' some line." They are heterozygous.carol said:
The fact that certain het specimens are not likely to produce "patternless, solid red snakes" is one of the reasons why I believe it is a bad idea to use the same name for the results of selective breeding, and a simple pattern trait. They are het for something, but they cannot produce what they are being called het for.
Instead of using a technically incorrect (and confusing) description of the offspring, some of us are opting to choose a term that will allow us to accurately describe what it is we are producing. Instead of trying to invent a whole new type of genetics and a whole new set of inheritance rules to describe a mystical trait, we are applying the same simple set of rules that have been known since the 19th century, and doing so in a way that is consistent with the results that have been reported over and over again.
I don't agree that the pattern will necessarily be lost with further "outcrossing." I've bred a pair of normals het motley together and got one motley that looked "less motley" than either parent, and another motley that had connected circles all the way down to the vent. I believe a certain amount of variability is to be found in any pattern trait, except maybe leucism.
It makes sense that if the first ones were selectively bred toward one extreme end of the trait's expression, then "outcrossing" them will tend to make it look "weaker" in further generations. If the first striped corns had been selectively bred toward perfect striping, they would appear to "lose something" in the process of outbreeding, too.
The first picture in this thread http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11408 shows an amel motley that, were it not identified as such, I would have never guessed it was a motley. It's still a motley though, and it can still probably produce some nice, motley-patterned offspring. I'm sure if you were to take animals like this and selectively breed the "least-motley" of them together, eventually you could considerably reduce the amount of "mutant pattern" showing up in that bloodline, too.
OTOH, I'm sure if you were to breed the "most connected" motleys together in a line-breeding project, you'd also be able to "improve" on the pattern. If someone is able to do that and get really awesome motleys that throw amazing babies more consistently, would that suddenly invalidate Motley itself as a trait? No, we'd still call all of them motleys.
Likewise, the offspring of motleys would still all be het for motley. If we decided to attach an additional descriptor on the "fully circled" ones, the offspring would still be het for motley, but not het for the additional selective breeding. The same convention is currently used for Rev Okeetees, Candycanes, Sunglows, Hurricanes, and a bunch of other morphs. They are het for the underlying trait, just as these are. The difference is that here, the trait was discovered last instead of first, and a lot of "mystique" developed around the morph that makes it difficult to let go.