Butter Het Cajun -- at 4 months

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jglass38

After going back and reading your post about the mother, I am completely confused. If you believe it is a recessive trait which you seem to indicate by calling all the babies "het cajun" than why would you refer to it as possibly codominant? Do any of the babies in the clutch look like the mother?

---

That's what I was wondering.

...dont know...but I think you may be jumping the gun on this one by calling them hets...breed a male back to mommy, or two of the kiddos back with eachother...if you get more cajuns....then yes those were hets! :gj::salute:

Not to answer anything for Bill, but we sold him that female from Ian G's private collection that we had bought a large # of animals from. We bought her from Ian and as, and sold her to Bill as a c.h het red. By proving her out.... getting babies that look like the mother on their own and with the butter combo he proved her to be a het red type animal. Since she is not from Woods line... het red.... Mike Cole's line... lace black back, etc he named her a descriptive name (Cajun) as she does have a deep reddish burgundy color to her, and called the babies what they were, which I believe in respect to Cory/Snake keeper, he called "hets" to show similarity to the het red line but also show a difference in the lines.

Not speaking for Bill, but it seems to be what is the case in this situation, in my opinion it was the right decision, relate it to the closest known morph, but also make it known as a seperate line... kind of like butter and lesser.

That said, Bill I will be expectiong one of those bad buys in the next group ..... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnjreptiles

That said, Bill I will be expectiong one of those bad buys in the next group ..... :)

---

Should read bad boys, not bad buys.

If these are het. cajun......has a cajun been produced yet?

they are friggin sweet

Wow!! What a beautiful pair!! Your lucky :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnjreptiles

Not to answer anything for Bill, but we sold him that female from Ian G's private collection that we had bought a large # of animals from. We bought her from Ian and as, and sold her to Bill as a c.h het red. By proving her out.... getting babies that look like the mother on their own and with the butter combo he proved her to be a het red type animal. Since she is not from Woods line... het red.... Mike Cole's line... lace black back, etc he named her a descriptive name (Cajun) as she does have a deep reddish burgundy color to her, and called the babies what they were, which I believe in respect to Cory/Snake keeper, he called "hets" to show similarity to the het red line but also show a difference in the lines.

Not speaking for Bill, but it seems to be what is the case in this situation, in my opinion it was the right decision, relate it to the closest known morph, but also make it known as a seperate line... kind of like butter and lesser.

That said, Bill I will be expecting one of those bad boys in the next group ..... :)

---

Could not have put it any better. Thanks Josh.:) I would add that it is my understanding that all morphs that have Supers are "visual hets". But, unlike simple recessive animals, co dominant animals don't require the gene to be present in both animals being bred to produce a visual morph.

I guess my thinking/naming could be wrong if the gene in question turns out to be "only" dominant -- thereby not producing a Super. That is possible, but highly unlikely. After all, how many dominant morphs are there???? Spider, Pinstripe, and ???? -- even Granites are proving to be codom and a few have some pretty sweet super forms IMHO.

I feel as though I need to defend my position -- that's cool... I am very conservative about naming a morph. Over a quarter of my collection is captive hatched and I have proven 3 (each of the 3 has had multiple clutches to rule out any question for me at least) other animals -- the first almost a year ago -- that I am keeping under wraps at this point because I believe that one should have "some" idea what they are working with--what it "does" -- Super? Combo with other morphs? etc..

I posted these snakes because they were combined with an established morph(Butter). My other proven snakes have only been bred to normals -- they are all males.

If you knew me, you would know I have 2 BIG pet peeves in the hobby/business of reptiles -- breeders who don't update their website more than TWICE A YEAR!!!!! -- and snakes that have PUBLICLY accepted names before they are PROVEN GENETIC!!!! Example???? I will not utter even a name because that would be rude, and I WOULD BE AS SHOCKED AS THE BREEDERS WHO OWN THEM IF THESE ANIMALS DO NOT PROVE GENETIC -- but that is not the point.

Let's play the "Which 2 POSSIBLE morphs game"!!
How many clues before you guess correctly -- be honest.:colbert:

The 2 animals I am thinking of have received A LOT of attention over the last couple years. They deserve every bit of it because they are SWEET!!! They are VERY similar in appearance but have different names. Anybody???

Both the animals have, in my opinion, produced "visual hets" -- although many people would consider them "normal looking". Both animals wild-caught imports owned by WELL KNOWN and respected breeders -- one of them does NOT reside in the U.S.A.. More clues??? O.K. One of the animals is a female and the other a male -- the same could be said of the breeders!:D

One of the breeders is sure enough that their animal will prove that they have released some of the offspring with a written guarantee for a full refund should they not prove. I think that rocks!!! -- stand behind your animals. Anyone who hasn't come upon the animals names by now can find out with a little research I am sure.

These 2 animals are important because they illustrate what I feel is a double standard when discussing/evaluating larger breeders and smaller ones. As a beginning/smaller/unknown breeder I have animals on the ground and not a few people I bet are/will be suspect about the genetics of my animals. It is not really about the humans who put the animals togehter, but rather the ANIMALS.

As for the genetic "scaleprint" of the Cajun I would ask one ? of the doubters. Find a "plain old Butter" that looks like the animals in my post.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Buchman

Could not have put it any better. Thanks Josh.:) I would add that it is my understanding that all morphs that have Supers are "visual hets". But, unlike simple recessive animals, co dominant animals don't require the gene to be present in both animals being bred to produce a visual morph.

I guess my thinking/naming could be wrong if the gene in question turns out to be "only" dominant -- thereby not producing a Super. That is possible, but highly unlikely. After all, how many dominant morphs are there???? Spider, Pinstripe, and ???? -- even Granites are proving to be codom and a few have some pretty sweet super forms IMHO.

I feel as though I need to defend my position -- that's cool... I am very conservative about naming a morph. Over a quarter of my collection is captive hatched and I have proven 3 (each of the 3 has had multiple clutches to rule out any question for me at least) other animals -- the first almost a year ago -- that I am keeping under wraps at this point because I believe that one should have "some" idea what they are working with--what it "does" -- Super? Combo with other morphs? etc..

I posted these snakes because they were combined with an established morph(Butter). My other proven snakes have only been bred to normals -- they are all males.

If you knew me, you would know I have 2 BIG pet peeves in the hobby/business of reptiles -- breeders who don't update their website more than TWICE A YEAR!!!!! -- and snakes that have PUBLICLY accepted names before they are PROVEN GENETIC!!!! Example???? I will not utter even a name because that would be rude, and I WOULD BE AS SHOCKED AS THE BREEDERS WHO OWN THEM IF THESE ANIMALS DO NOT PROVE GENETIC -- but that is not the point.

Let's play the "Which 2 POSSIBLE morphs game"!!
How many clues before you guess correctly -- be honest.:colbert:

The 2 animals I am thinking of have received A LOT of attention over the last couple years. They deserve every bit of it because they are SWEET!!! They are VERY similar in appearance but have different names. Anybody???

Both the animals have, in my opinion, produced "visual hets" -- although many people would consider them "normal looking". Both animals wild-caught imports owned by WELL KNOWN and respected breeders -- one of them does NOT reside in the U.S.A.. More clues??? O.K. One of the animals is a female and the other a male -- the same could be said of the breeders!:D

One of the breeders is sure enough that their animal will prove that they have released some of the offspring with a written guarantee for a full refund should they not prove. I think that rocks!!! -- stand behind your animals. Anyone who hasn't come upon the animals names by now can find out with a little research I am sure.

These 2 animals are important because they illustrate what I feel is a double standard when discussing/evaluating larger breeders and smaller ones. As a beginning/smaller/unknown breeder I have animals on the ground and not a few people I bet are/will be suspect about the genetics of my animals. It is not really about the humans who put the animals togehter, but rather the ANIMALS.

As for the genetic "scaleprint" of the Cajun I would ask one ? of the doubters. Find a "plain old Butter" that looks like the animals in my post.;)

---

...you can't blaim the 'doubters' here when you dont clairfy all of this in your FIRST post...;)

...when you post an animal and label it 'het for cajun' ...those (including myself) whom arent familiar with this trait will search for it, and when we dont find any visuals of 2nd generation or later cajuns...things start to smell fishy....

...so with an animal and clutch like this, I would better explain the history of the animals as Josh (jnj) did for ya...or else you will get us 'doubters' ;):gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerhart

...you can't blaim the 'doubters' here when you dont clairfy all of this in your FIRST post...;)

...when you post an animal and label it 'het for cajun' ...those (including myself) whom arent familiar with this trait will search for it, and when we dont find any visuals of 2nd generation or later cajuns...things start to smell fishy....

...so with an animal and clutch like this, I would better explain the history of the animals as Josh (jnj) did for ya...or else you will get us 'doubters' ;):gj:

---

...hehe I dont know why I said clutch...guess I was looking ahead! :P