Different lines compatible?

[JohnNJ]

I was looking at some of Brian's BPs at the White Plains show yesterday and someone asked a question about whether the snake he was holding was "compatible" with snakes from another "line."

I'm not a breeder but I am curious. Are there compatability issues with certain lines or morphs and what are they?

Thanks.
JohnNJ

[Spaniard]

There are compatability issues with some of the Anxanthic lines and well as some hypo lines. My head is too foggy to remember which lines tho...

[mason]

There are a few yes, some lines of hypo don't gel with other lines, some axanthic lines are not compatible (TSK and VPI for example) off the top of my head that's about all I can think of. It's certainly never a problem with things like albino, pied, clown and Genetic stripe.


For example if you had two incompatible lines of axanthic (both still axanthic, both genetically reproducable) and bred them together you'd get double-het normals..

[JohnNJ]

For example if you had two incompatible lines of axanthic (both still axanthic, both genetically reproducable) and bred them together you'd get double-het normals..

So some lines, when bred to an incompatible line, do not produce what they normally should. Does that carry down to the offspring?

Are these issues documented somewhere?

Thanks.

[PythonWallace]

So some lines, when bred to an incompatible line, do not produce what they normally should. Does that carry down to the offspring?

Are these issues documented somewhere?

Thanks.

There are basically different genes that produce the same, or similar, phenotypes, or appearances. In the example of VPI and TSK axanthics, they are both called axanthics, but in reality they are as different as spiders and pinstripes, or Enchi pastels and vanillas. It gets confusing because they get named as soon as they are proven to have a certain appearance, but before they are proven compatible. So even though they end up being called a new line of a certain mutation, they are different morphs with different genetics.

Most lines of most mutations are compatible, but there are a few lines of a few mutations that are not the same. Most hypo, or ghost, lines are compatible, but there are a couple of recessive mutations that produce a similar phenotype that were given the name xx hypo, but they were proven to not be the same genetics at play, so they are not really hypos in the original sense of the name, just like Enchi pastels are not really pastels in the true sense of the name.

[Spaniard]

I know butterscotch and orange ghost hypos are compatible with each other, but blue ghosts and green ghosts are not compatible with anything but themselves.

The TSK and VPI Axanthic non compatibility is pretty common knowledge but I'm not sure if anyone has documented their breeding efforts on it.

[PythonWallace]

I know butterscotch and orange ghost hypos are compatible with each other, but blue ghosts and green ghosts are not compatible with anything but themselves.

The TSK and VPI Axanthic non compatibility is pretty common knowledge but I'm not sure if anyone has documented their breeding efforts on it.

This is a little off topic, but it seems counter productive, or bad marketing to name an incompatible, and different mutation altogether, a different line of an existing morph. If a buyer is looking for a recessive animal that will clean up a project, they have to go with a hypo or ghost. But since most hypos are compatible, and blue and greens are only compatible with themselves, most people will go with compatible lines to be safe. But if the incompatible lines were given different names altogether, like a spirit ball or something, that would offer an entire new morph option, and more people would probably decide to go with the rarer spirit ball than to decide on an incompatible line of the hypo phenotype. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.

[mason]

This is a little off topic, but it seems counter productive, or bad marketing to name an incompatible, and different mutation altogether, a different line of an existing morph. If a buyer is looking for a recessive animal that will clean up a project, they have to go with a hypo or ghost. But since most hypos are compatible, and blue and greens are only compatible with themselves, most people will go with compatible lines to be safe. But if the incompatible lines were given different names altogether, like a spirit ball or something, that would offer an entire new morph option, and more people would probably decide to go with the rarer spirit ball than to decide on an incompatible line of the hypo phenotype. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.

that would mean (sticking with the VPI/TSK axanthic thing) that when they both proved (phenotypically) to produce the same look (an axanthic appearing animal) both breeders should ahve tested their compatibility with each other to prove they were the same genotypically speaking then argued over who gets to call thier axanthic and who doesn't.


It just means there are multiple "lack yellow pigment" switches in ball pythons. both are phenotypically axanthic (just as green ghosts are phenotypically hypo). no line has more right to use the word "axanthic" than the other. Buyer beware, do your research, know what you're buying.

[JohnNJ]

Buyer beware, do your research, know what you're buying.

Other than asking experienced people here, where would you do research on which lines are not compatible?

[Spaniard]

Ask the breeder you are considering buying from, they should know what is compatible and what isn't with the traits they are working with. You could try giving a call to the bigger breeders who work with them as well, most tend to be very helpful even if you are not buying from them.