SilverTongue
Friend Of Gaia
YAAAAAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOO!!! I GOT 2 OUT OF 3 ON THAT SNAKE DOES ME GET A PRIZE??? 
-
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.
What if... (this thread is brain food)
- Thread starter Serpwidgets
- Start date
Something else to consider...
Another idea... assume for a moment that bloodred actually
was three independantly sorting recessive traits, of any
given variance of codominance. If, then, a normal were
crossed with a bloodred, one might expect a whole mass
of hatchlings all showing a bit of their blood ancestry and all
het for each of those three traits. Now this is where it
gets interesting -- if you bred any two of those
hatchlings together, you should not be able to expect
1/4 bloods. In fact, the ratio should be somewhere nearer
1/64, though a larger number would show any two of the
traits and an even larger number would show one trait (i.e.
plain belly but normal markings.)
But in practice, breeding two blood "hets" together actually
does get you about a quarter bloods -- doesn't it? So
either there is not, in fact, more than one trait at work in
bloods, or they must not be independantly sorting. More than
that, not only must all the traits be on the same chromosome,
they must be so close together that crossing over never
(or rarely) occurs, otherwise you'd get situations like the
one above, when a particular known blood outcross is unlikely
(or even unable) to produce "real" bloods no matter what it
is crossed with.
Has anyone even heard of a blood X normal F1 which, when
bred to a blood, produces lots of plain bellies and/or
fading saddles, but never actual bloodreds? You'd expect at
least one such problem snake if the trait were polygenetic to
show up sometime, somewhere, no matter how closely
packed the traits were. Am I missing something?
I think my tentative vote is for a single simple recessive
trait, possibly somewhat codominant or codominant based on
the presence of other influencing genes and/or environment.
Cool!
Cheers,
TS
Another idea... assume for a moment that bloodred actually
was three independantly sorting recessive traits, of any
given variance of codominance. If, then, a normal were
crossed with a bloodred, one might expect a whole mass
of hatchlings all showing a bit of their blood ancestry and all
het for each of those three traits. Now this is where it
gets interesting -- if you bred any two of those
hatchlings together, you should not be able to expect
1/4 bloods. In fact, the ratio should be somewhere nearer
1/64, though a larger number would show any two of the
traits and an even larger number would show one trait (i.e.
plain belly but normal markings.)
But in practice, breeding two blood "hets" together actually
does get you about a quarter bloods -- doesn't it? So
either there is not, in fact, more than one trait at work in
bloods, or they must not be independantly sorting. More than
that, not only must all the traits be on the same chromosome,
they must be so close together that crossing over never
(or rarely) occurs, otherwise you'd get situations like the
one above, when a particular known blood outcross is unlikely
(or even unable) to produce "real" bloods no matter what it
is crossed with.
Has anyone even heard of a blood X normal F1 which, when
bred to a blood, produces lots of plain bellies and/or
fading saddles, but never actual bloodreds? You'd expect at
least one such problem snake if the trait were polygenetic to
show up sometime, somewhere, no matter how closely
packed the traits were. Am I missing something?
I think my tentative vote is for a single simple recessive
trait, possibly somewhat codominant or codominant based on
the presence of other influencing genes and/or environment.
Cool!
Cheers,
TS
Kat
I'm talkin' to YOU.
From what I've seen of the bloodreds, there IS a single genetic trait involved, but there's also some selective breeding.
Why? Because while you can get approx 1/4 bloodreds out of the F2 generation, they don't always look as nice as the original generation bloodred.
From what I've seen (and I think the point that Serpwidgets is trying to make) is that bloodred is a combination of a recessive gene and selective breeding, just like candycane is a combo of amelanism and selective breeding.
There ARE snakes out there that have the bloodred plainbelly, but lack some of the other distinguishing charactaristics of what we think of when someone says 'bloodred'. (Serpwidget's Mary is an example.... she's not red at all!) Ergo, the main bloodred traits and the bloodred coloration are not linked to the same source. At this point in time, the 'gene + selective breeding' seems to fit that model more than 'it's just a gene and that's it' does.
Why? Because while you can get approx 1/4 bloodreds out of the F2 generation, they don't always look as nice as the original generation bloodred.
From what I've seen (and I think the point that Serpwidgets is trying to make) is that bloodred is a combination of a recessive gene and selective breeding, just like candycane is a combo of amelanism and selective breeding.
There ARE snakes out there that have the bloodred plainbelly, but lack some of the other distinguishing charactaristics of what we think of when someone says 'bloodred'. (Serpwidget's Mary is an example.... she's not red at all!) Ergo, the main bloodred traits and the bloodred coloration are not linked to the same source. At this point in time, the 'gene + selective breeding' seems to fit that model more than 'it's just a gene and that's it' does.
I agree with Kat on this one. (Thanks Kat, saved me a lot of typing, LOL.)
I have personally (read this as jmho, not an expert on anything
) come to think of the 'good' blood reds as corn snakes carrying the 'bloodred' pattern mutation and expressing the hard work of many generations of selective breeding for low contrast reds.The 'bloodred' pattern seems to be a simple recessive with variable expression in the heterozygous form. Bloods tend to have the broadened head pattern/grey heads, blurred/smeared side bars, and plain bellies with variable amounts of peppering/color encroaching from the sides.
By my observation, I've noticed that the blood 'hets' that I've produced have shown some blood pattern influence in that their bellies tend to have a white line down the center, a clear zone-if you will. The head patterns of these tend to have an abundence of freckles/speckling noticiable and I see more 'scream masks' --those wide head markings with freckles in the shape of a mask. I realize these findings don't hold true everywhere, but that's what I've seen here.
I think the theory that bloodreds are a combo of enhanced reds, lowered contrast, and an allellic pattern trait is a valid hypothesis. That brings up the question, should we have a name for this bloodred pattern?
The diffusion gene?
The smudge gene?
The blending gene?
The __________ gene?
LOL, it kind of begs an official term for the pattern if the theory holds true, especially when the caramel bloods, amber bloods, lavender bloods, and opal bloods start hitting the public.
Just some ramblings.
Hurley
You better duck with this one...
...if Don S. reads this one. LOL. He strenuously opposed the name of Bloodred (preferring the name blood) up until a year or so ago when he switched to the term bloodred on his site since the entire corn world seemed like they were going to go by bloodred.
Faded has already been taken AFAIK.
What's the opposite of contrast...where's my thesaurus...
It seems to me the pattern is one of stretching of the melanin. The head patterns appear pulled apart, the outlines of the saddles seem to diffuse, the sides stretch and smear.
Stretching, pulling....how about taffy corns? (Also ducking.)
...if Don S. reads this one. LOL. He strenuously opposed the name of Bloodred (preferring the name blood) up until a year or so ago when he switched to the term bloodred on his site since the entire corn world seemed like they were going to go by bloodred.
Faded has already been taken AFAIK.
What's the opposite of contrast...where's my thesaurus...
It seems to me the pattern is one of stretching of the melanin. The head patterns appear pulled apart, the outlines of the saddles seem to diffuse, the sides stretch and smear.
Stretching, pulling....how about taffy corns? (Also ducking.)