Different names...same snake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedDevil

There are mmore, but had no time to dig further.

Clutch 44
Clutch 51
Clutch 8
Clutch 5
Clutch 16
Clutch 17

---

Ok. But this is being bred back to a platty daddy and not a butter. I understood it as breeding a butter to a lesser. My bad.

for the last time people cinnys and blacks are not the same snake when there mixed with other morphs they look totally different, not to mention cinnys and blacks dont look anything alike either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUPERBALLS

for the last time people cinnys and blacks are not the same snake when there mixed with other morphs they look totally different, not to mention cinnys and blacks dont look anything alike either

---

Quote:

---

They are visually different and genetically the same.

---

This can be found in Adam's post http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=41039

Both Black Pastel & Cinnys produce a Super (Black Patternless BP) both produce Pewters and Silver Bullets.

Black Pastels produce Silver streak
Cinnys Produce Sterling Pastel

How visually different?

This is a Black Pastel

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p..._M1_0507_1.jpg

I am sure someone will post a Pic of a Cinny for comparison

Yeah, they look a bit different, and so do their crosses, but hardly enough for me to say they are different morphs.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/...6513f8a7_o.jpg

I know, the picture sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I don't think enchi's are pastels at all. I think they are a totally different morph. I also don't think you can state your theories as facts when there is absolutely no way to prove them.

---

Your right, there's no way to prove it. OH WAIT... except for that one time, that one guy produced a super from breeding a Black x Cinny... :rolleyes:

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...8&postcount=16

Once again... simply because they "look different" doesn't mean they are. Blacks and Cinny's are the same exact morph, just different alleles. As are the different Pastel lines. Look at the incredible difference between a Lemon and Graziani? The Lemon's are high contrast, high yellow, little blushing. Graziani's are low contrast, more brown and high blushing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Your right, there's no way to prove it. OH WAIT... except for that one time, that one guy produced a super from breeding a Black x Cinny... :rolleyes:

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...8&postcount=16

Once again... simply because they "look different" doesn't mean they are. Blacks and Cinny's are the same exact morph, just different alleles. As are the different Pastel lines. Look at the incredible difference between a Lemon and Graziani? The Lemon's are high contrast, high yellow, little blushing. Graziani's are low contrast, more brown and high blushing.

---

Cinny's and blackbacks are obviously compatable. There have been plenty of people that have produced a cinny x black super, but they do produce different phenotypes when bred and isn't that really what matters most in this hobby? I consider that a different morph, but we may just be arguing about terminology.

Do you consider Mohave's to be "the same exact morph" as lessers?

Since you mentioned the Enchi's, how many supers pastels have been produced by breeding an enchi to any of the standard pastel lines??? Do you think Enchi's are "the same exact morph" as all of the standard pastel lines?

I don't believe their is any difference at all between any of the standard pastel lines. They all come from W/C pastels that someone attached thier name to. They all produce relatively the same supers/crosses. I think the differences that can sometimes be seen between the lines are all the result of selective breeding and not them being different alleles. But these are just my opinions and I am certainly no geneticist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

Cinny's and blackbacks are obviously compatable. There have been plenty of people that have produced a cinny x black super, but they do produce different phenotypes when bred and isn't that really what matters most in this hobby? I consider that a different morph, but we may just be arguing about terminology.

---

Now their just "compatible". No offense, but your argument is suddenly changing. I fully qualified what I meant, and you argued until I posted an example. The genetics of a Black and Cinny are nearly identical, in both phenotype and genotype. The only difference is relatively subtle... they both have a single gene, at one loci, that both have abnormal alleles.

If you want to argue different phenotypes mean completely different morphs fine... but the fact that we refer to the Pastel as "lines" (Graziani line, Bell line) suggests the practice you are preaching isn't widely accepted within the industry.

Quote:

---

Do you consider Mohave's to be "the same exact morph" as lessers?

---

They have the exact same characteristics I mentioned above. They are the same morph, with different phenotypes.

Quote:

---

Since you mentioned the Enchi's, how many supers pastels have been produced by breeding an enchi to any of the standard pastel lines??? Do you think Enchi's are "the same exact morph" as all of the standard pastel lines?

---

The Enchi's are a hunch... I could be wrong on them, but I'm willing to bet someone produces a Super from a Enchi/Lemon crossing. The difference between you and I, is if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it instead of covering all the bases.

Quote:

---

I don't believe their is any difference at all between any of the standard pastel lines. They all come from W/C pastels that someone attached thier name to. They all produce relatively the same supers/crosses. I think the differences that can sometimes be seen between the lines are all the result of selective breeding and not them being different alleles. But these are just my opinions and I am certainly no geneticist.

---

And any geneticist would disagree with you wholeheartedly. First of all the absuridity of that merits ignoring it altogether. While there are some "new lines" that people bring in, that are quite likely share the same alleles as one of the major lines, the differences between the major lines are by no means subtle. A Lemon and Graziani have more contrasted phenotypes than a Black and Cinny, yet you claim the former is "selective breeding" and the latter is "different morphs".

It seems to me your "opinions" differ drastically from accepted beliefs in the ball python industry, and genetics and biology. Given that, you are more than welcome to believe whatever you want... it's a free country :D. If you want to claim that Boa's and Ball's are the same snake, hey you can do that too. Just realize, when you do, you'll probably be called on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA_Ball_Pythons

How visually different?

This is a Black Pastel

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p..._M1_0507_1.jpg

I am sure someone will post a Pic of a Cinny for comparison

---

Here's a cinny:

http://www.superiorserpents.com/PubPics/CM02s1.jpg

I have known Cinny's and Black have been compatable for quite some time. It is not something you just taught me. I just don't believe that just because they are compatable they should be considered the same morph. Same goes for the Mohave and lesser.

My beliefs on standard pastels may be different from most. I could buy 5 different CH pastels next season. Should I name each of those a different line pastels? Where the naming of the pastel comes in, to me anyway, is when the gene from the W.C founder is refined (selectively bred) by the breeder to produce the desired look of the animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I have known Cinny's and Black have been compatable for quite some time. It is not something you just taught me. I just don't believe that just because they are compatable they should be considered the same morph. Same goes for the Mohave and lesser.

---

Well, I can only go based on what I see. You never once qualified your claim... you said they were different morphs, without any indication you realized that it was the exact same gene at work.

The term "compatible" is used throughout the industry to compare different bloodlines. For example, the different lines of Pastels are compatible. The different lines of Axanthics aren't compatible. For you to say they are compatible but aren't the same morph is akin to saying they are smart but not intelligent. It simply doesn't make any sense.

Outside of the industry the term "compatible" has a LOT of different meanings, especially in microbiology and genetics. My argument is simple: your distinction would confuse most newcomers, and really, it's a confusing distinction to me.

Quote:

---

My beliefs on standard pastels may be different from most. I could buy 5 different CH pastels next season. Should I name each of those a different line pastels? Where the naming of the pastel comes in, to me anyway, is when the gene from the W.C founder is refined (selectively bred) by the breeder to produce the desired look of the animal.

---

Okay... I'll bite. Your understanding of selective breeding has a thorn here. There are literally thousands of CBB Pastels, bred to a wide variety of normals. Yet, the phenotype contrasts between the Lemon and Graziani (have to use these two... they are my favs :D) are extraordinary.

If you were correct, we'd see a wide variety of Grazi's that look identical to Lemons. We don't.

It seems to me you're trying to reinvent the wheel all over the place. You are reinventing terms for blood lines, reinventing genetics for blood lines... it's just kind of silly. Instead of making these huge assumptions, why don't you test them? Buy a very pretty lemon, and a very pretty graziani.

Then over the next 3 or 4 years, breed them to similar looking normals. If your "theory" is correct, over 3 or 4 years the offspring from each should look more and more alike. They won't... but if you are going to theorize at least do so with some semi-scientific testing, instead of hypothosizing by the seat of your pants.