King of Dinkers update...

Sorry to hear the little one died but it's still thrilling to know that it's reproducible. Lots of good things to look forward to next year. :gj:

Sorry to hear this but glad that you have the opportunity to try again this next season. Also I agree with getting it jarred.

Any baby dead in the egg sucks. Im sorry.

sorry to hear that dave

i was rooting for you

Congrats on proving it out dave. Really stinks that the little one didn't make it. Never what anyone wants to see. Best of luck for next year!!

That's just heart breaking! I lost my whole clutch this year that I had been waiting four years for, it was so tough. Good luck next year!

What a bummer. Time to make more.

Out of curiosity, was the King of Dinkers baby from the clutch out of the spider, or another related female?

That's a bummer, Dave. At least you know it's genetic now - I'd call that a successful year.

What in the Sam Hill is that male snake you got there? What where its parents? I want one that pattern but darker on the colors. Other than that the pattern is out of site.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

:( sorry to hear but I'm glad you made connections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well at least you can reasonable call it genetic now. Just curious, but have you given any thought as to what you might name the gene once you have everything all proved out and in order? Considering the developments this season, it seems like more of a true morph than a simple dinker, which means we'll need something better to call it than just the king of dinkers (though something keeping that kingly theme would be fitting)!

Looks like a leopard gecko and a bull snake boned.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daigga

Well at least you can reasonable call it genetic now. Just curious, but have you given any thought as to what you might name the gene once you have everything all proved out and in order? Considering the developments this season, it seems like more of a true morph than a simple dinker, which means we'll need something better to call it than just the king of dinkers (though something keeping that kingly theme would be fitting)!

---

What exactly do you mean here? a dinker is an unproven animal and once proven is considered a genetic mutation aka morph.

I would call it the "Bull Leopard Morph" but I still wanna know what it's parents were cause some of its pattern could be something genetically unique and some of the appearance could just be influenced by other morphs. I guess what I am thinking is how much of it is its own genetic qualities and what parts are just a combination of other morphs.

Maybe you should just be breeding it to plain normal females and seeing what the "non normal" half of the clutches produce.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtrdeath87

Maybe you should just be breeding it to plain normal females and seeing what the "non normal" half of the clutches produce.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

---

if you follow his page on FB, you'll see that dave knows what's he doing.

Dave, did you get pictures of the baby dinker while it was on the egg?
if yes, can you show it to us that would be awesome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtrdeath87

I would call it the "Bull Leopard Morph" but I still wanna know what it's parents were cause some of its pattern could be something genetically unique and some of the appearance could just be influenced by other morphs. I guess what I am thinking is how much of it is its own genetic qualities and what parts are just a combination of other morphs.

---

if you find the original thread, which I am unable to do at this moment due to lack of time, you would see the original pairing. also you would know that the genes that were involved in the pairing would make it impossible to produce this animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtrdeath87

I would call it the "Bull Leopard Morph" but I still wanna know what it's parents were cause some of its pattern could be something genetically unique and some of the appearance could just be influenced by other morphs. I guess what I am thinking is how much of it is its own genetic qualities and what parts are just a combination of other morphs.

---

Please go back to page one and start from there. SMH

Pics of the baby ?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T&C Exotics

What exactly do you mean here? a dinker is an unproven animal and once proven is considered a genetic mutation aka morph.

---

I meant that since it's looking very likely that this will prove out to be a genetic mutation that it needs a morph name and was curious if there were any ideas about what that would be at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T&C Exotics

if you find the original thread, which I am unable to do at this moment due to lack of time, you would see the original pairing. also you would know that the genes that were involved in the pairing would make it impossible to produce this animal.

---

I think what he is asking is, is this a simple 1 gene recessive animal? Is it a combo, possible being influenced by the pastel or special genes as well. We at least know it has mojave in it since one of the parents was a super mojo. What would the gene look like when isolated?

So let's say the op named the new recessive gene "monster". The original dinker would be AT LEAST monster mojave, but also possible be monster mojave special or monster mojave special pastel.

Is this a 2, 3 or 4 gene animal were seeing?

That's gonna be the fun part of this while experiment. Isolating the new gene
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Instead of quoting everyone I'll just try and answer all the questions here. If I miss yours please feel free to follow up.

This all started when I was building a group to produce Crystals and Crystal combos. The Dinker was created from a Pastel Special x Super Mojave breeding. I produced three Crystals and the Dinker. I also had a few other clutches fathered by the Pastel Special and kept them all as my knowledge of the adults made me think they could be related so I've been thinking recessive from the beginning. None of the siblings or half siblings look unusual.

The Dinker has produced 14 babies for me so far and those babies all look typical except the one that I'll call Dinker 2.0 for now. There are three ways that I thought this could be genetic so I tried to prove/disprove each this season and even though it's only been three clutches I feel pretty confident that it's recessive. Also, the original Dinker has Mojave in him and before this season possibly Pastel. It can't have Special in him or else he would be a Crystal. Out of 14 babies he hasn't produced one Pastel so at this point it looks like he is a Mojave plus the new gene. I can also reasonably rule out dominant unless I had horrible odds and went 1 for 14. In addition, since it came from the Crystal line I thought maybe it's a gene that needs to be combined with Mojave to reproduce itself. I produced 10 Mojaves or Phantoms that all look typical so I can pretty reasonably rule that out as well. The Dinker 2.0 came from breeding him back to the original Super Mojave.

I didn't breed him to any Normals as I wanted to use virgins so I can be 100% confident that there was no sperm retention from prior breedings. I simply didn't have any Normal virgins. Since his mother was a Super Mojave and I was after Crystals a lot of the half siblings are Mojaves or Mojave combos. I do have some that will be ready next year, and a few are pastels and a spider so hopefully I can isolate the gene next season.

Here is the photo of Dinker 2.0...

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/p...nker%202.0.jpg

Thanks for clarifying all that I appreciate it. Yes I could have gone back and read everything and looked for other posts but I am lazy. I figure you would be proud and want to talk about your snake and wouldn't mind. Funny how everyone else who is completely uninvolved is more annoyed than the person I posed the questions to. Lol don't get upset guys, no reason to be jealous just face facts it has nothing to do with you guys so what do you care. Getting annoyed with me does not make you 'involved' it just makes you look like jerks. I joined the conversation late and didn't feel like reading 18 pages so sue me. But again thanks for all the clarification Dave.

Thanks Dave for the recap!
I'm so sorry the baby didn't make it. It was beautiful.
Can't wait to see what next year holds!

Dave, thank you for the courage to share. Our hearts go out to you.

Thank you for sharing, Dave, it's really fascinating. I'm so sorry about losing the baby. I hope you have better luck next year! Please keep us updated!

I'm gutted that he didn't make it. :tears: I've been following this thread for a while now and was really hoping you would have better luck proving it out, though it does seem like it's recessive after all. Good luck in the next breeding season getting a few more answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtrdeath87

Thanks for clarifying all that I appreciate it. Yes I could have gone back and read everything and looked for other posts but I am lazy. I figure you would be proud and want to talk about your snake and wouldn't mind. Funny how everyone else who is completely uninvolved is more annoyed than the person I posed the questions to. Lol don't get upset guys, no reason to be jealous just face facts it has nothing to do with you guys so what do you care. Getting annoyed with me does not make you 'involved' it just makes you look like jerks. I joined the conversation late and didn't feel like reading 18 pages so sue me. But again thanks for all the clarification Dave.

---

I'm really sorry if I came off rude and hope you accept my apology. I replied without thinking of what I was saying or how it came out. your question was a good one and I should have either not replied to you or waited until I had time to direct you to the info.

No worries

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Thank you Dave for the update and I'm really sorry about the unfortunate outcome. On the positive note, I'm really glad you were able to prove the mutation genetic! I should also mention it's really refreshing to have someone be so open and transparent with their project- particularly with all the drama and negative things going on with the ball python community. Good luck Dave and I'm sure you will have many MANY cool combinations in the future!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Green

Instead of quoting everyone I'll just try and answer all the questions here. If I miss yours please feel free to follow up.

This all started when I was building a group to produce Crystals and Crystal combos. The Dinker was created from a Pastel Special x Super Mojave breeding. I produced three Crystals and the Dinker. I also had a few other clutches fathered by the Pastel Special and kept them all as my knowledge of the adults made me think they could be related so I've been thinking recessive from the beginning. None of the siblings or half siblings look unusual.

The Dinker has produced 14 babies for me so far and those babies all look typical except the one that I'll call Dinker 2.0 for now. There are three ways that I thought this could be genetic so I tried to prove/disprove each this season and even though it's only been three clutches I feel pretty confident that it's recessive. Also, the original Dinker has Mojave in him and before this season possibly Pastel. It can't have Special in him or else he would be a Crystal. Out of 14 babies he hasn't produced one Pastel so at this point it looks like he is a Mojave plus the new gene. I can also reasonably rule out dominant unless I had horrible odds and went 1 for 14. In addition, since it came from the Crystal line I thought maybe it's a gene that needs to be combined with Mojave to reproduce itself. I produced 10 Mojaves or Phantoms that all look typical so I can pretty reasonably rule that out as well. The Dinker 2.0 came from breeding him back to the original Super Mojave.

I didn't breed him to any Normals as I wanted to use virgins so I can be 100% confident that there was no sperm retention from prior breedings. I simply didn't have any Normal virgins. Since his mother was a Super Mojave and I was after Crystals a lot of the half siblings are Mojaves or Mojave combos. I do have some that will be ready next year, and a few are pastels and a spider so hopefully I can isolate the gene next season.

Here is the photo of Dinker 2.0...

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/p...nker%202.0.jpg

---

So, attempting to wrap my poor brain around all of the information...

The gene for KingDinker is probably recessive, which would mean he is homozygous for KingDinker. He threw a homozygous when bred back to mom, so mom has to have at least one gene, with the dad giving another copy of the gene...

So in total, you would have in your possession 3 animals who definitely have the KingDinker gene right now... with any offspring from KingDinker himself ALSO carrying at least one copy of the gene each(hets).

Do you still have KingDinker's dad?

Also, I wonder if mom actually is also KingDinker but it's being masked by the super mojave white washing it out?

Fascinating and I can't wait to see more updates. Thank you so much for sharing the whole process with us all. Sorry about the stillborn baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

So, attempting to wrap my poor brain around all of the information...

The gene for KingDinker is probably recessive, which would mean he is homozygous for KingDinker. He threw a homozygous when bred back to mom, so mom has to have at least one gene, with the dad giving another copy of the gene...

So in total, you would have in your possession 3 animals who definitely have the KingDinker gene right now... with any offspring from KingDinker himself ALSO carrying at least one copy of the gene each(hets).

Do you still have KingDinker's dad?

Also, I wonder if mom actually is also KingDinker but it's being masked by the super mojave white washing it out?

Fascinating and I can't wait to see more updates. Thank you so much for sharing the whole process with us all. Sorry about the stillborn baby.

---

Not necessarily, we all know that alleles come in pairs and recessives are displayed when both alleles have the same mutation. Well, that's not necessarily the complete truth. Recessives are displayed when ALL alleles at the locus are displaying the mutation, sometimes there is only one. I've read of a condition known as partial monosomy where half of the gene pair can get skipped. If it happens at a locus where the gene has a mutation, then the mutation is displayed because there is no 'normal' half to cover for it. I often wonder if that's how 'spontanious' mutations happen.

I guess to know for sure, we'd have to know the parentage of the parents to see if there is a possibility that the dad could carry the gene too.

Or breed it out. Breed mom to a normal which would reveal if she throws a recessive mutation all by herself that she doesn't show visually. Same for dad.

I haven't heard of that happening in a ball python before. Granted, I'm not exactly in any inner circles or up to date on all the breeding projects. Heck, I haven't even heard of some of the newer morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

So, attempting to wrap my poor brain around all of the information...

The gene for KingDinker is probably recessive, which would mean he is homozygous for KingDinker. He threw a homozygous when bred back to mom, so mom has to have at least one gene, with the dad giving another copy of the gene...

So in total, you would have in your possession 3 animals who definitely have the KingDinker gene right now... with any offspring from KingDinker himself ALSO carrying at least one copy of the gene each(hets).

Do you still have KingDinker's dad?

Also, I wonder if mom actually is also KingDinker but it's being masked by the super mojave white washing it out?

Fascinating and I can't wait to see more updates. Thank you so much for sharing the whole process with us all. Sorry about the stillborn baby.

---

I think you're right but 14 babies is still a pretty small sample. However, everything has fallen in line as if it's recessive. I do have Dinker's dad as well as all the babies he's produced. He's fathered four clutches so far and one more is hatching now. I haven't seen anything unusual and I've kept them all thinking they may be 50% hets. I was lucky enough to hatch the Dinker before I sold any of the father's offspring. Some of those 50% het females will be ready to breed this coming season. As far as mom goes she didn't produce all Dinkers so she appears to be a Het. Also, if you notice the Dinker has a very thin eye stripe and mom does not. I did hatch a super mojave along with the Dinker 2.0 so I'm anxious for her to shed and see how she looks under a black light. Fun Stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Green

I think you're right but 14 babies is still a pretty small sample. However, everything has fallen in line as if it's recessive. I do have Dinker's dad as well as all the babies he's produced. He's fathered four clutches so far and one more is hatching now. I haven't seen anything unusual and I've kept them all thinking they may be 50% hets. I was lucky enough to hatch the Dinker before I sold any of the father's offspring. Some of those 50% het females will be ready to breed this coming season. As far as mom goes she didn't produce all Dinkers so she appears to be a Het. Also, if you notice the Dinker has a very thin eye stripe and mom does not. I did hatch a super mojave along with the Dinker 2.0 so I'm anxious for her to shed and see how she looks under a black light. Fun Stuff!

---

Exciting! With any luck that super mojave is a super dinker mojave. ;)

I hadn't noticed the eye stripe. Are there any other photos of Dinker floating around? I don't think I've seen any except for the original post in this thread.

Edit: I see the eye stripe now on the baby! :)

Any updates on the babies? Have they hatched yet?
This is so exciting!

You must have not read the last couple pages

Do you think the parent might have been super Mojave pinstripe. Cus it looks like a busy jigsaw

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

So i just read through 19 pages and went through the ups and downs with you and everyone following. This is the coolest thing i have read about ball pythons. I have always heard of people trying to prove genes out but this really puts it into perspective. Thank you for sharing.

I am really sorry about the baby ball. Although it had to be refreshing to see the pattern passed on at least! Good luck will be looking for updates!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chwkgirl

Do you think the parent might have been super Mojave pinstripe. Cus it looks like a busy jigsaw

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

---

I don't think it looks like a jigsaw at all. I know both parents history and there is no pinstripe in their lineage and she hasn't produced any pinstripes. The Dinker himself has now produced 17 babies without a pinstripe.

Dave you are doing such good work. I can't wait till all the pieces are solved for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's kewl.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Is there any update on this project?

Wonderful reading really simp, y put genetic terms for a newbie like me. Thanks for sharing Dave and huge good luck wit the coming season xx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirensong26

Is there any update on this project?

---

It's moving along. Breeding started a little late here but things are progressing nicely. It doesn't look like mom will go this year so I'm dealing with a group of 50% het females and I'll need some luck. Hopefully I'll have a few to show off this fall.

Good luck!

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

Good Luck! I want to see a bunch of little King of Dinkers crawling around!

all hail the king of dinkers!:bow::bow::bow: :snake:

Dave,

What a beautiful snake, I wish you all the luck.

I can't wait to see what you produce from him.

Brian