# Ball Pythons > BP Morphs & Genetics >  Super Calico

## m00kfu

It's been proven.   :Good Job:  As if I didn't have enough reason to want one before now...

http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=1560175,1560175

----------


## Hardwikk

What exactly is a "Super Calico" (besides a type of portable machine-gun)? Whatever it is it sure looks hot!

----------


## littleindiangirl

And they're crazy white!!  :Very Happy:

----------


## m00kfu

> What exactly is a "Super Calico" (besides a type of portable machine-gun)?


Why, it's the super form of the calico of course!  :Wink:

----------


## Hardwikk

> Why, it's the super form of the calico of course!


But what is the Calico?

----------


## littleindiangirl

> But what is the Calico?


http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ner...ll-python.html

----------


## TooManyToys

It's always hard for me to tell how they are going  to look until after the first shed.

----------


## Fearless

Does anyone know what line they proved out?

----------


## Spaniard

Sweet, now I can look foward to the Super Calico x Pastel cross  :Smile:

----------


## casperca

Sweet!

----------


## TheMolenater2

Thats pretty sweet looking!

----------


## West Coast Jungle

Cant wait to se a better picture after it sheds(all that pink should turn white), that animal is gonna be smokin :Good Job: 

Glad I added one of those to the collection :Wink:

----------


## PythonWallace

That's a sweet looking snake right there. I think everyone needs to slow down until I have a new job. I'm falling behind on all the cool stuff.

----------


## Fearless

> I think everyone needs to slow down until I have a new job. I'm falling behind on all the cool stuff.


Glad im not the only one

----------


## NextWorldExotics

Im very happy they proved! I had a feeling they would. It was Doug's line.

Cant wait to make me a super!  :Very Happy: 

This is the Guide i just did on Calicos
http://www.nextworldexotics.com/hgcalico.htm

----------


## Mikkla

Wow! Very cool! And I just bought a calico male today  :Smile:

----------


## sg1trogdor

> Cant wait to se a better picture after it sheds(all that pink should turn white), that animal is gonna be smokin
> 
> Glad I added one of those to the collection


You have a clali?  I didnt know that.,

----------


## patb201985

*smoking Super !*

----------


## Thor26

woah thats cool :Good Job:

----------


## Maurice Tebele

I can't see the picture!!!! Someone please repoast it! Soon, I'm dieing !! :Please: !! 

Do it for the banana-> :Dancin' Banana:

----------


## Sarin

Link wont work for me!! I want to see. :p

----------


## West Coast Jungle

> Link wont work for me!! I want to see. :p


Its almost two years old

----------


## Sarin

Haha. I hate it when old threads get dug up! And I can't believe I've never seen a Super Calico!

----------


## Superb Exotics

Is this a Super?

http://www.dwherp.com/Wright08.JPG

-Superb Exotics

----------


## Maurice Tebele

Someone please find a pic of a super calico and show us!!!! :Please:  :Please:

----------


## dr del

Aw C'mon,

It took me less than 30 seconds to go to google, select images and enter "super calico"+"ball python" and find these three images;

http://livingartreptiles.tripod.com/...g.w300h225.jpg

http://www.dwherp.com/Wright08_2.JPG

http://www.dwherp.com/Wright08.JPG

If you're not going to try why should we?  :Razz: 


dr del

----------


## bads15

those are all lovely babies. what i cant seem to find are pics of a super calico adult. or of adult super sugars. those i would like to see.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> those are all lovely babies. what i cant seem to find are pics of a super calico adult. or of adult super sugars. those i would like to see.


Well that would be because according to the first post in this thread, it was proven in the middle of 2008, so the first one wouldn't even be a year and a half old right now.

----------


## Maurice Tebele

> Aw C'mon,
> 
> It took me less than 30 seconds to go to google, select images and enter "super calico"+"ball python" and find these three images;
> 
> http://livingartreptiles.tripod.com/...g.w300h225.jpg
> 
> http://www.dwherp.com/Wright08_2.JPG
> 
> http://www.dwherp.com/Wright08.JPG
> ...


 ow that hurtz :Tears:

----------


## dr del

:Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   :Petting:   :Thumbs up:

----------


## rab21w

So wait a sec here. The first BP I ever bought was a normal for 25 bucks, I asked the lineage and he said it was a result of his butter x calico breeding. So even though she looks normal is there special blood that be flowing in them veins?

----------


## snakesRkewl

> So wait a sec here. The first BP I ever bought was a normal for 25 bucks, I asked the lineage and he said it was a result of his butter x calico breeding. So even though she looks normal is there special blood that be flowing in them veins?


Butter to Calico can make normals, they are both co-doms.

----------


## broadude

didn't notice the date on the thread......lol

----------


## OhhWatALoser

My turn to do a huge thread bump.......yea that is kinda fun.  :Very Happy: 

My question, any updates on this? Did someone actually prove it to be a homozygous calico? or were more produced? I think I have seen heterozygous calicos that were more extreme, was it just a variation of the calico? or was it a homozygous?

----------


## MS2

Everything I have seen said the Calico was a dominate gene. No super forms??

----------


## interloc

That's what I thought too but I hadn't seen this thread before. Someone get a hold of Ralph. If anyone would know, it would be him. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> Everything I have seen said the Calico was a dominate gene. No super forms??


This seem to be a common misconception in the ball python world. To truly be a dominant gene, it needs to look the same in heterozygous and homozgyous(super) form, there are only 3 genes I know of that can make that claim. The rest of what we call dominant, we have an unknown homozgyous form. When we call them dominant, we are more just saying they are not recessive. It is why I suggested the use of the term "unproven dominant". 

There no reason to think there is no super form of any gene right now, just many are not proven. Which is what sparked my curiosity rereading this thread, 4 or so years later, maybe something has come up? Also say that animal was proven homozygous, would of guys say it looks like some of the nicer examples of the heterozygous calicos we have seen? or is there differences where we would call it inc-dom/co-dom?

----------


## Solarsoldier001

> This seem to be a common misconception in the ball python world. To truly be a dominant gene, it needs to look the same in heterozygous and homozgyous(super) form, there are only 3 genes I know of that can make that claim. The rest of what we call dominant, we have an unknown homozgyous form. When we call them dominant, we are more just saying they are not recessive. It is why I suggested the use of the term "unproven dominant". 
> 
> There no reason to think there is no super form of any gene right now, just many are not proven. Which is what sparked my curiosity rereading this thread, 4 or so years later, maybe something has come up? Also say that animal was proven homozygous, would of guys say it looks like some of the nicer examples of the heterozygous calicos we have seen? or is there differences where we would call it inc-dom/co-dom?


I was wondering this exact thing. I wonder if it could be 


Sent from iPhone 5 using tapatalk  :Smile:

----------


## OctagonGecko729

As far as I know it is just a dominate gene, there is no super form but calicos can vary in visual quality significantly such as pieds do. There are also at least 3 lines of calicos which all look significantly different from each other.

----------

_MS2_ (12-09-2012)

----------


## Pythonsofthewest

The link won't work for me but I do have a question and some input.  Has this super calico been bred out or is this just a high white calico that someone is calling a super calico? Calico is pretty polymorphic from what I have seen and the only way I'm going to believe that a calico is a "super" is if this bad boy or girl has been bred and produces nothing but calicos until then it's just a high white calico in my opinion.

----------


## snakesRkewl

I keep getting told there is no dominant traits in ball pythons

Super spiders, super pinstripes, super calico and all those "dominant" traits must have a super form.
But there's no proof since they all die in the egg, during development of the follicle, or after hatching.
Good luck getting any proof on the calico, we can't even figure out the spider or pinstripe genes  :Razz:

----------


## OctagonGecko729

If that were the case wouldn't people who are dealing with so called dominant traits end up having significantly reduced production of viable hatchlings? Whether it be less eggs, more infertile eggs, dead in the egg, or dead shortly after hatching (such as the pearl). I'm new to BPs but I have not come across any evidence which suggests that all these dominant traits are actually co-dom and that the super form is fatal.

----------

_eatgoodfood_ (12-10-2012),snakesRkewl (12-10-2012)

----------


## CollideOverMe

The walking thread...
 :Very Happy:

----------

layufdragonwolf (12-26-2015)

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> I keep getting told there is no dominant traits in ball pythons
> 
> Super spiders, super pinstripes, super calico and all those "dominant" traits must have a super form.
> But there's no proof since they all die in the egg, during development of the follicle, or after hatching.
> Good luck getting any proof on the calico, we can't even figure out the spider or pinstripe genes


We've been through this before.....  Pinstripe has evidence of being truly dominant and there is zero evidence to suggest a lethal homozygous form,  yet you keep repeating it is lethal. Here we have claims of a homozygous calico...might be proven by now,  hence the thread revival. 




> If that were the case wouldn't people who are dealing with so called dominant traits end up having significantly reduced production of viable hatchlings? Whether it be less eggs, more infertile eggs, dead in the egg, or dead shortly after hatching (such as the pearl). I'm new to BPs but I have not come across any evidence which suggests that all these dominant traits are actually co-dom and that the super form is fatal.


Well the spider it may be the case,  in the few people who have posted actual numbers,  there was a slug or two in the clutch.  Also somewhat recently someone posted a picture of a dead white snake that they said came from a spider x spider pairing. I just find it odd this is the first time someone publicly posted one. But then again,  I've never seen someone attempt to prove out a homozygous spider. Nothings set in stone but recent evidence isn't looking good for the homozygous spider.

----------


## snakesRkewl

> We've been through this before.....  Pinstripe has evidence of being truly dominant and there is zero evidence to suggest a lethal homozygous form,  *yet you keep repeating it is lethal.* Here we have claims of a homozygous calico...might be proven by now,  hence the thread revival.


I don't think it's lethal, I don't think it exist period  :Razz: 
Joe Ellis, let's put a name on this, is the one who is so sure that there is no such thing as a dominant trait in ball pythons.
Maybe Joe would be so nice to come explain?

I care less actually, I hope there is no super forms of these dominant traits, it will only kill the market even more for those genetics.

----------


## OctagonGecko729

> Well the spider it may be the case, in the few people who have posted actual numbers, there was a slug or two in the clutch. Also somewhat recently someone posted a picture of a dead white snake that they said came from a spider x spider pairing. I just find it odd this is the first time someone publicly posted one. But then again, I've never seen someone attempt to prove out a homozygous spider. Nothings set in stone but recent evidence isn't looking good for the homozygous spider.


Hopefully that is not the case, I'm going to be running several spider combo crosses and half sibling breeding in the next 1-4 years. I'll post the results here of course.

Where is the picture of this supposed homozygous spider that was dead? Do you know the parent morphs?

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> Hopefully that is not the case, I'm going to be running several spider combo crosses and half sibling breeding in the next 1-4 years. I'll post the results here of course.
> 
> Where is the picture of this supposed homozygous spider that was dead? Do you know the parent morphs?


The thread was on blbc ill find it when I get home,  i barely get Internet out here.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> I don't think it's lethal, I don't think it exist period 
> Joe Ellis, let's put a name on this, is the one who is so sure that there is no such thing as a dominant trait in ball pythons.
> Maybe Joe would be so nice to come explain?


I would gladly talk to him.


as for the thread I was referring to, post 13 http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...Spider-Results, now personally I think people are quick to jump to set in stone lethal homozygous, especially since this is the first one to ever be posted (that I know of), But it is no doubt damning evidence. Repeat it with another unrelated pair of spiders... I think we have our answer, even if it takes many attempts to get one to go full term.

----------

_OctagonGecko729_ (12-10-2012)

----------


## OctagonGecko729

I'm completely new to BPs as a whole. How long has the spider gene been available to the masses? In the $500-1500 range? I know Kevin does a ton of spider x spider stuff but I can't imagine he is the only one doing it on a massive scale. A homozygous spider (if lethal) would produce a 25% reduction in offspring right? So you would "statistically" always lose at least one egg. I would think that folks would have noticed that by now, that every spider x spider cross produces 1/4th reduction. Also, back to the pinstripe deal, if a homozygous pinstripe could exist wouldn't it act like a super form? All offspring would have one visual gene in them right, which has not to my knowledge ever been proven. Isn't it completely possible that spider is simply a dominant trait which has no homozygous form?

I am planning on crossing one male spider combo with two female spider combos when the females are up to size. So I'll post my findings but that won't be till January 2014 or so.


*NM all that ^...I reread your points two-three posts back, makes sense.*

----------

