Different names...same snake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

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.

---

Um, what kind of scientific testing are you using to form your Hypothosis? You seem to feel your opinion has been proven to be fact when I don't see that as the case. Are you a geneticist? I would love to see some of the research you have done. No one even knows what genes are responsible for all of the various morphs out there, but I am supposed to take the word of a 26 year old as absolute truth???

I do actually believe you could make a lemon look more like a graziani and vice versa through selective breeding. Have you done the experiment you proposed to me to prove they won't become more similar in appearance as you stated or are you just "hypothosizing by the seat of your pants"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

Um, what kind of scientific testing are you using to form your Hypothosis? You seem to feel your opinion has been proven to be fact when I don't see that as the case. Are you a geneticist? I would love to see some of the research you have done. No one even knows what genes are responsible for all of the various morphs out there, but I am supposed to take the word of a 26 year old as absolute truth???

---

I'm not going to argue with you anymore on the issue... whether your 9 or 900. You seem to think you know something the rest of the industry doesn't. I'm okay with that, you won't be the last one. But before you go blasting my "hypothesis" on Pastels, you may take a moment to think about it. I'm only repeating knowledge bestowed by folks who know a great deal more about genetics than either of us... you, my friend, are the one that seems to think he's qualified to make determinations completely in the face of available knowledge.

But rest assured, if you start spreading such "theories" on this forum, or any other, you need to expect to be called out on it. If Ad hominem attacks are going to be your defense to everything... well than, I'm assuming you won't be around long ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

I'm not going to argue with you anymore on the issue... whether your 9 or 900. You seem to think you know something the rest of the industry doesn't. I'm okay with that, you won't be the last one. But before you go blasting my "hypothesis" on Pastels, you may take a moment to think about it. I'm only repeating knowledge bestowed by folks who know a great deal more about genetics than either of us... you, my friend, are the one that seems to think he's qualified to make determinations completely in the face of available knowledge.

But rest assured, if you start spreading such "theories" on this forum, or any other, you need to expect to be called out on it. If Ad hominem attacks are going to be your defense to everything... well than, I'm assuming you won't be around long ;).

---

How exactly did I attack you? I am saying I don't agree with your theories, and you don't agree with mine. Where is the attacking? Saying that I will not take the word of a 26 year old as absolute truth is not an attack it is common sense. You said "I'm only repeating knowledge bestowed by folks who know a great deal more about genetics than either of us". I don't know of one BP breeder that is a geneticist and I don't think any ball python breeder would claim to understand everything about BP genetics (aside from you assuming you are actually a BP breeder). The difference between you and I is that I stated in many threads that these were my opinions. You on the other hand seem to believe your unproven theories are facts and become condecending towards people who don't agree with you.

But rest assured, I will be around as long as I choose to be. Or at least until you become a MOD. :)

The correct terminality for multiple mutant allele groups is something I'm interested in. It doesn't help that even among geneticists terminology seems to vary from group to group. Then you throw in our snake terms like "morph" and "super" and it gets even more confusing.

I've certainly not done the experiments but at this point I'm thinking it's fairly safe to say that lesser and mojave are examples of distinctly different alleles of the same gene. Not only do they pass the compatibility test but so far all the results of breeding the cross animals I've heard of (like MKR's mojave X lesser males to normals) have produced the two parent types and no normals or combos.

Also, in spite of a fair amount of outbreeding the two lines and their combos and supers seem to be remaining distinct. That's not to say that the darkest lesser and the brightest mojave will always be distinguishable but they do seem to have their own ranges.

So if mojave and lesser are different mutations of the same gene does that qualify them as different "morphs"? What does the word morph mean? If it just refers to a distinctly different appearance and doesn't imply any particular degree of genetic separation (like being a different gene locus) then perhaps mojave and lesser classify as different morphs.

Regardless of the terminology I think some of the other examples from this thread are going to be harder to sort out.

The enchi X regular pastel for example. Just because the combo may produce a "super" (another vague term) looking animal doesn't mean they are compatible. When I first saw the pewter produced by jungle pastel X cinnamon pastel I thought that indicated some sort of compatibility. But later breedings have produced animals with more than two copies of the two combined proving that pastel and cinnamon are separate genes and likely not even on the same chromosome. One quick test for the enchi X regular pastel will be what it produces bred to a normal. If there are any normals then enchi and regular pastel are not the same gene and probably on different chromosomes.

As far as the different pastel lines, do they really maintain difference in appearance through outbreeding? Why is there so much controversy as to who is selling legitimate lemons if they always look different than non lemons? I think at this point we can be confident that the regular pastels (i.e. non enchi and non cinnamon pastel) are the same gene but if there are actually different mutations of that gene (a multiple mutant allele group) I don't know. The differences in the lines could still be selective breeding to add other genes to enhance appearance. It would indeed be a hard one to put to the test. Same for black vs. cinnamon pastel.

Quote:

---

So if mojave and lesser are different mutations of the same gene does that qualify them as different "morphs"? What does the word morph mean? If it just refers to a distinctly different appearance and doesn't imply any particular degree of genetic separation (like being a different gene locus) then perhaps mojave and lesser classify as different morphs.

---

That depends. The industry itself has determined how it wants to use the word "morph", and that differs from both genetics and zoology. The problem with this theory of making phenotypes determine whether they are different morphs, is that we haven't been doing that to this point. A Ghost is a Ghost whether it's orange or blue. An Axanthic is an Axanthic whether it's a TSK or VPI.

But a Butter and a Lesser are "different". Why? Because a few people want it that way? You can't make distinctions part of the time, and not make them others. If a Butter and Lesser are "different" why isn't a Butter x Butter Lucy different? Why isn't a Lesser x Butter Lucy a different morph? Or Butter x Lesser...

Am I alone or does anyone else see the absurdity in that?

Quote:

---

The enchi X regular pastel for example. Just because the combo may produce a "super" (another vague term) looking animal doesn't mean they are compatible.

---

No it isn't. "Super" is used to describe the homozygous form of a co-dominant morph. How is that vague?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

You on the other hand seem to believe your unproven theories are facts and become condecending towards people who don't agree with you.

---

Not condescending, I simply corrected something you said. You came back and said "I knew that, but they are still different." Honestly it was a rather silly argument. The only "theory" I gave was that Enchi's is simply another Pastel line. And I even admitted that's a hunch. However, you've made a wide-variety of claims that completely counter accepted theories within the industry.

Most discuss the Theory of Gravity as fact too... is that a problem for you? I've said from the beginning that I believe your theories are wrong. If that hurt your feeling, my apologies. But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories. So, don't expect I'll be the only one to call you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

That depends. The industry itself has determined how it wants to use the word "morph", and that differs from both genetics and zoology. The problem with this theory of making phenotypes determine whether they are different morphs, is that we haven't been doing that to this point. A Ghost is a Ghost whether it's orange or blue. An Axanthic is an Axanthic whether it's a TSK or VPI.

But a Butter and a Lesser are "different". Why? Because a few people want it that way? You can't make distinctions part of the time, and not make them others. If a Butter and Lesser are "different" why isn't a Butter x Butter Lucy different? Why isn't a Lesser x Butter Lucy a different morph? Or Butter x Lesser...

Am I alone or does anyone else see the absurdity in that?



No it isn't. "Super" is used to describe the homozygous form of a co-dominant morph. How is that vague?



Not condescending, I simply corrected something you said. You came back and said "I knew that, but they are still different." Honestly it was a rather silly argument. The only "theory" I gave was that Enchi's is simply another Pastel line. And I even admitted that's a hunch. However, you've made a wide-variety of claims that completely counter accepted theories within the industry.

Most discuss the Theory of Gravity as fact too... is that a problem for you? I've said from the beginning that I believe your theories are wrong. If that hurt your feeling, my apologies. But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories. So, don't expect I'll be the only one to call you out.

---

I said in the begining that I believed Butters and lessers were the exact same thing. It is Mohaves and lessers/butters that I said were different. My feelings are not hurt. What I consider condescending is your repeated use of "once agian..." and :rolleyes: . I really don't think my theories "fly in the face of commonly accepted theories". There are many people out there that believe the Cinny's and Blacks are different, as well as many that think all of the lines of pastels are the same. I read a post from Graziani last year either on KS or Graziani's web site in which he said that he selectively breed's his pastels to try to produce higher blushing. So I did not just make up the selective breeding thing. If he can breed to produce more blushing why is is "absurd" to think he could breed them to produce less blushing or higher yellow? But we are never going to agree on any of this so continuing this argument is pretty pointless.

Since you brought it up, I also think VPI "axanthics" and TSK "axanthics" are totally different morphs since they are not compatable in any way. I am a little surprised you don't feel this way as well based on you previous compatability arguments? What makes you think they are the same other then phenotypes? As we all know from your other posts you can not make genetic determinations based on phenotypes. I don't think they are the same gene or alleles but that is an argument for another day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Most discuss the Theory of Gravity as fact too... is that a problem for you? I've said from the beginning that I believe your theories are wrong. If that hurt your feeling, my apologies. But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories. So, don't expect I'll be the only one to call you out.

---

BTW, I think there may have been just a little more SCIENTIFIC research done to prove the theory of gravity then there has been on Ball python genetics. I am sorry if I don't accept a few herpers theories/guesses a scientific fact. I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

That depends. The industry itself has determined how it wants to use the word "morph", and that differs from both genetics and zoology. The problem with this theory of making phenotypes determine whether they are different morphs, is that we haven't been doing that to this point. A Ghost is a Ghost whether it's orange or blue. An Axanthic is an Axanthic whether it's a TSK or VPI.

But a Butter and a Lesser are "different". Why? Because a few people want it that way? You can't make distinctions part of the time, and not make them others. If a Butter and Lesser are "different" why isn't a Butter x Butter Lucy different? Why isn't a Lesser x Butter Lucy a different morph? Or Butter x Lesser...

---

What I'm asking and still not sure on is how the industry currently defines "morph". I'm not following your argument on this. All the slight phenotype variations of ghosts are the same morph because they are compatible? Yet the incompatible axanthic lines are the same morph because they look similar? If a morph is just a group of similar phenotypes then are butter and lesser the same morph or a distinction made part of the time? Where do you draw the line as to if two animals are the same morph or not?

1. Some phenotype similarities?
2. Genetically compatible?
3. No consistent phenotype differences in lines?

The axanthics only meet #1, is an SK line axanthic and a VPI line axanthic the same morph?

The ghosts (with the possible exception of some of the newer lines) also meet #2. Are you saying the different color phases of ghosts are the same or different morphs?

Not sure if butter/lesser or cinnamon/black pastel meet #3. If the do, should each pair be considered the same morph or is morph a forth level of grouping, “whatever the market decides”?

I've not even gotten to the point of suggesting where I think the line should be drawn on the definition of "morph", I'm just trying to figure out if there is any consensus (and I'm suspecting not) as to where it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

However, you've made a wide-variety of claims that completely counter accepted theories within the industry.
...
But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories.

---

Ours is a very young industry. There aren't a lot of widely accepted theories and I would argue that even if something is accepted in this industry that doesn't hold much weight. We should be questioning what we think we know and discussing it all the time. There is lots yet to be agreed on and probably lots to be corrected. I think trying to move back in line with definitions from older disciplines would be a good start. For example, ball python breeders seem to have developed their own definition of “het” that is narrower than the established use in genetics in general. Should we accept the status quo or hope to improve our industry by avoiding mis-educating the newbies into the established industry usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

No it isn't. "Super" is used to describe the homozygous form of a co-dominant morph. How is that vague?

---

It's less vague if you limit it to co-dominant morphs. Usages like "the super spider looks just like the regular spider" would then be incorrect as that statement would imply that the spider mutation is completely dominant (not co-dominant) to normal and would be using super as a synonym for homozygous. But again, I'm not sure there is an industry consensus to your definition of "super" even though it sounds good to me.

So, are you going to wait to label the unique ball(s) recently produced by enchi X regular (I think it was some sort of lemon) pastel as a super until it can be proved that it's homozygous for a mutation of a single gene? If enchi and regular pastel are separate genes the combo could still stand out but when bred to a normal could produce some normals and some combos mixed in with the two types. But if the combo bred to normals only produces large numbers of enchi's or lemons with no normals and no combos that would only indicate that the two "morphs" are at least linked by being on the same chromosome and quite possibly the same gene. If the evidence by that time supports them being different versions of the same gene (both lines consistently produce different looks through lots of outbreeding) I don't think the combo would technically be homozygous (as two DIFFERENT mutant alleles) so it could not still be called a super within your definition.

By the way, is there a name for combos of two mutant alleles (like the lesser X mojave leucistics) if it's not super? It’s an important concept that’s new to the ball python community, not a combination of unrelated mutant genes (like pewter) but not homozygous for a single mutation of the common gene (like a super pastel).

None of the three of are going to set an industry-wide definition for the word "morph" and all that encompasses. But I'm going to bring up a point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I think cinny's and balck pastels are different morphs. The pewters look different.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I don't think enchi's are pastels at all. I think they are a totally different morph.

---

Let's assume Enchi's are an entirely different gene for a moment. The above is what I took issue with. Cinnys and Black's are morphs whose abnormal genes occur at the same loci, but are simply different versions of it. According to the assumption, Enchies and Pastels have entirely different genes at work.

If they are all four "different morphs" how do we differentiate between the circumstances? The industry has used specific terms to describe relationships since it was necessary to do so. Now, I'm going to ignore the hypothesis that Pastels are all the same alleles and it's a matter of "selective breeding." Namely, because the term itself implies that the breeding was done with intent, and each of the lines were brought in as WC's.

Back to my point, if you want to argue different alleles at the same loci should still be considered "different morphs" than the discussion of breeding lines is moot. The fact that we still use them (albeit, with less enthusiasm these days it seems) suggests that the industry itself has decided different alleles at the same loci are "Lines", while alleles at different loci are "Morphs". I'm not inventing anything here... the big boys made these determinations in the 90s with Pastels.

If you all want to reinvent definitions, I'm okay with that. Really I am. None of us here has the clout to define anything in this industry, so it's really moot. But, referring back to my Cinny/Black and Pastel/Enchi example above, pfan said effectively the same thing about both pairs. Cinnys and Blacks are different. Pastels and Enchis are different. However, he qualified that much latter, and only after he was shown a Super Black/Cinny. And than, a moment later, said Lessers and Butters were the same, but Lessers and Mojaves are different.

Sorry, but I call that the most non-descriptive naming convention I've ever heard. I'll be honest, I have no idea what the heck "different" is supposed to mean, given that his examples cover a wide-variety of differences in both genotype AND phenotype.

So a few comments on direct quotes:

Quote:

---

What makes you think they are the same other then phenotypes? As we all know from your other posts you can not make genetic determinations based on phenotypes.

---

Two reasons. First of all, I'm a little confused as to what part of my posts indicate you can't make any determination of genetics based on phenotypes. Can you make a scientific evaluation? No. Can you make an educated guess? Sure. If anything, it's your posts that suggest genetic determinations can be made by the seat of your pants, based on nothing more than conjecture, as I've clearly pointed out in previous comments.

And incompatibility doesn't mean different loci, it simply means incompatibility. Genetics has a wide variety of examples of animals that are complementary (same loci, different alleles producing all wild-type offspring). Furthermore, from my reading, it would be an extremely rare for 1 phenotype to be produced from 2 different alleles, on two different loci. I think there's a potential possibility that there are 2 different genes at work, perhaps on the same chromosome, which may explain the incompatibility, however, I usually succumb to Occam's Razor here.

Why make assumptions when we simply don't know? And given that there are two identical phenotypes, the easiest assumption is that the alleles are incompatible with one another. At least, IMHO, that is the hypothesis that requires the least assumption.

Quote:

---

BTW, I think there may have been just a little more SCIENTIFIC research done to prove the theory of gravity then there has been on Ball python genetics. I am sorry if I don't accept a few herpers theories/guesses a scientific fact.

---

You are exactly right. That being said, those "herpers" you are speaking of have more experience than you, me and Randy combined. So your age not being a factor, I'm not going to swallow the theories of some anonymous someone on a forum somewhere, when they contrast with the theories of a great deal of people, that have a great deal more experience and more importantly, their reputations on the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

All the slight phenotype variations of ghosts are the same morph because they are compatible? Yet the incompatible axanthic lines are the same morph because they look similar?

---

You are oversimplifying. The Axanthics are, and will remain, a big unknown. Since they are incompatible, in reality, all we can do is assume. IMHO, it requires a great deal more assumption to determine Axanthics have different genetics entirely, but identical phenotypes, than it does to assume they are incompatible alleles. In the same characterization that we assume an animal is dominant, unless we can breed them together producing a homozygous animal with a different phenotype than it's heterozygous counter-part. Which is why Spiders are referred to as Dominant, they appear to be homozygous fatal, so we just can't know.

Again, unless someone wants to fund the Ball Python Genome Project, we have to rely on a little assumption. However, the assumptions addressed by most major breeders are widely accepted practices among geneticists and biologists. And, most importantly, they conform to scientific principles such as Occam's Razor.

Quote:

---

By the way, is there a name for combos of two mutant alleles (like the lesser X mojave leucistics) if it's not super?

---

Well, as you said that's a relatively new frontier for the industry. Perhaps Super would be picked up, although I hope not, as I think that would lead to the same type of confusion as the "same/different" argument pfan made earlier. But again, I don't have clout in the industry, and as such, the decision is going to be made without my input, and for the sake of clarity among the industry as a whole, I'll conform to it.

That was long-winded :P.