Different names...same snake?

After reading this I must say...if any of you are interested in the Noble Prize then discover the story between Ball Pythons variations...will be a life long journey, but your name will go down in history. Just as Mendel did with peas and flowers.

if they look different and there offspring is different then there differnt,:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

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.

.

---

This is a long thread....I'll need to read through it more throughly when I have the time. But the bickering almost makes teaching the summer school kids I am dealing with right now see like a walk in the park......lol

If two recessive phenotypes are incompatible, i.e., that is they complement to restore the normal phenotype then we know they are of two different gene loci. This is the classic complementation test. If they fail to complement then they are the same gene. You have your stuff backwards jhall. Do a search on here of complementation. And we really don't need molecular genetics to confirm that......do that enough times get the same results and it is scientific evidence. Remember all scientific knowledge is tentative at best.

As far as morph....I think it should be used to describe any phenotype that looks different and is heritable in a predictable pattern. Morph= Morphological

Even if two different phenotypes result from alleles of the same gene, then I have no problem with a black pastel being a seperate morph from a cinnamon pastel. White clover plants have a set of alleles that control the number of leaves. All the alleles are of the same gene loci and form what is called an allelic series. Many of the genotypic combination produce a unique number of leaves. Each one is a different phenotype. I realize that this is much more clear cut than a black pastel and cinnamon phenotypically, but i trust the Hunter's guide people, the Nerds, the 8balls--ie. the experts on the look and feel of ball pythons when they say a black is different than a cinnamon. I simply haven't develop the eye that they have when it comes to distinguishing between certain morphs.

If we did actually prove out using molecular genetics (since that's what it would take to convince most people apparently) a spider with a homozygous dominant genotype SS, would we name this a seperate morph? No.....because it does not look different.

Morph means heritable phenotype different from normal pattern and color ball python. The heritability should be simple to predict in a somewhat simple Mendelian-like fashion. That simple.

Superpastels are a different morph than a pastel because they are visually different than the line of pastel they came from. Most superpastels of any line are brighter than the the regular pastels. This is why super should be a phenotypic term and not a genotypic term.

Finally, Selective breeding to lighter, better looking normals is going to make any pastel line look brighter over time because it selects for the best modifier genes. So a well-established line that is continually outcrossed to normal is probably going to lose much of its brightness. Look at it this way selective breeding is not going to increase the rate of mutation to make the lemon pastel allele an allele that codes for a brighter yellow. Instead selective breeding will select genes that allow that yellow to shine through better.

There might be some true mutational differences between the lemon allele at the pastel locus and granzi allele at that same locus that makes them look somewhat different. But you would notice this almost off the bat without much selective breeding. With enough mixing of cinnamons and black pastel perhaps we will discover that nature did its own selective breeding and that most of the difference is due to modifier genes in their respective lines. But as long as we keeping getting animals that can be distinguished as cinnamons (Cc) and black pastels (Bb) from a crossing a cinnamon black pastel (CB) to a normal then they should be classified as a separate morph.

Oh and remember there were a lot of genetics done before 1953. Breeding experiment do give scientific evidence. Maybe not as technological sophisctaed but it is scientific evidence in every sense of the term.

Hope my :2cent: helped.

Quote:

---

but i trust the Hunter's guide people, the Nerds, the 8balls--ie. the experts on the look and feel of ball pythons when they say a black is different than a cinnamon. I simply haven't develop the eye that they have when it comes to distinguishing between certain morphs.

---

It's been a long exhausting day so I'm going to have to catch up on this thread tomorrow. I take issue with the claim that any of them have said the Blacks and Cinnys are different. Do they have different phenotypes? Yes, that is clearly visible. But the are the same in that the genes being affected to create said phenotypes are at the same loci.

Which has been the thrust of my argument. When I hear "they are different morphs", it indicates there is a substantial genetic variation. You'll notice, before the Cinnys and Blacks were crossed, the folks who thought breeding them would produce a double heterozygous cinny/black called them "different morphs." And now, we in fact know they are complimentary but they are still "different morphs." My argument, is using such vague terms to describe morphs will only confuse the issue more. Albino's and Mojave's are different. Grazi's and Lemons are different.

Had pfan simply qualified what he meant by different, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:

---

As far as morph....I think it should be used to describe any phenotype that looks different and is heritable in a predictable pattern.

---

Well, clearly there's a lot of differing opinions on what should and shouldn't be a morph. You describe the genetic definition, why not use the Zoologoical definition and call any abnormal behavior a morph? A spinning Spider completely different than a non-Spinner? I'm trying to classify what I think the "industry" defines a morph as. While my interpretation may be wrong, that's how I see it.

And your definition is interesting, but I question whether is adequate. Using your definition, predictable selective breeding would qualify as its own morph. Look at the reduced Clown... that's very predictable. By that definition, assuming the hypothesis that Pastels lines are actually selective breeding of the same genotype, it would be appropriate to call each line a different "morph".

I have no idea. I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep and I think I'm going to let this continue without my input until I have a chance to read it over again on a decent amount of sleep. Perhaps that's what is clouding my understanding a bit as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

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.
:P.

---

I actually said I thoughtbButters and lessers were the same in my original post. I did not bring up mohaves because I assumed everyone already considered them different morphs. And do you really think I did not know cinny x black can produce a super? BHB has been doing it routinely for a few years now. If I remember correctly I think I even saw one at his table in Daytona last year. I just don't think that makes them the same exact morph. Compatible yes, the same no. Just as I don't believe the mohave is the same morph as a lesser even though they are compatible and make a somewhat similar super compared to a lesser x lesser super. Again, we may just mainly be arguing about terminology(the use of the word morph).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Well, clearly there's a lot of differing opinions on what should and shouldn't be a morph. You describe the genetic definition, why not use the Zoologoical definition and call any abnormal behavior a morph? A spinning Spider completely different than a non-Spinner? I'm trying to classify what I think the "industry" defines a morph as. While my interpretation may be wrong, that's how I see it.

---

They all spin...Some not as bad as others but they are all a little off. Ask any of the big breeders. But I understand the point you are trying to make with the example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

They all spin...Some not as bad as others but they are all a little off. Ask any of the big breeders. But I understand the point you are trying to make with the example.

---

Now there's a YouTube Herp video I'd like to see.......I'd like to see this Spider Morph "Spinning" and the different severities of it.

Hi Mendel,


If you check out this post here Allison re-shares the video she made of "loopy".

While he is a normal patterned Bp the behaviour is the same and apparently his is quite severe but there are even worse examples.

If you look at the rest of the thread I put links to the previous threads made about loopy which should give you some of the background.


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Now there's a YouTube Herp video I'd like to see.......I'd like to see this Spider Morph "Spinning" and the different severities of it.

---

It's not a video but check out this thread...
http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/fo...?TOPIC_ID=9716
Page 8 has some crazy pics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi Mendel,


If you check out this post here Allison re-shares the video she made of "loopy".

While he is a normal patterned Bp the behaviour is the same and apparently his is quite severe but there are even worse examples.

If you look at the rest of the thread I put links to the previous threads made about loopy which should give you some of the background.


dr del

---

Del thanks for providing this link.....it nice to see what "spinning" was firsthand.:colbert2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

It's not a video but check out this thread...
http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/fo...?TOPIC_ID=9716
Page 8 has some crazy pics

---

I was never able to access that site....registered and never got a password.:(