black pastel x cinnamon = ???

black pastel x cinnamon = ???

Thanks!

25% supers
25% cinnies
25% black pastels
25% normals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FIREball

25% supers
25% cinnies
25% black pastels
25% normals

---

yep yep. It's like the lessersxmojo mojoxbutter butterxlesser, they all make a BEL, but some combos clean them up a bit. I can't remember if the cinnyxblackpastel or the blackpastelxblackpastel is a cleaner/darker black.

Crossing them like that also helps to lower the chance or kinks or funny noses in supers that are sometimes found in black pastel lines that have been overly inbred.

Is the 8-ball(cinny x black pastel) considered a super?
It's a combo morph not a super if I'm not mistaken.
Same with BEL's made of mojo x lesser, butter x lesser, etc.

It would still be considered a super form because those genes both exist on the same allele so they are technically the same but different, just like the BEL complex genes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LizardofOzz

Crossing them like that also helps to lower the chance or kinks or funny noses in supers that are sometimes found in black pastel lines that have been overly inbred.

---

Do you have proof of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

Is the 8-ball(cinny x black pastel) considered a super?
It's a combo morph not a super if I'm not mistaken.
Same with BEL's made of mojo x lesser, butter x lesser, etc.

---

when bred to a normal they cant make more supers or normals, just cinny and black pastels, same with a mojoxlesser BEL, only lessers and mojos. combo morphs like say a bubblebee bred to a normal can make bees, pastels, spiders, and normals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo Serpent

It would still be considered a super form because those genes both exist on the same allele so they are technically the same but different, just like the BEL complex genes.

---

I'd like to see proof of this as well. Everyone likes to throw concepts like gene location (allele) around, and the only way to prove it would be to prove that without any doubt you could NEVER produce a Cinny Super Black Pastel or a Black Pastel Super Cinnamon.

Oh and to define my own terms we'd need to see breeding of Cinny Black Pastels together only producing supers (Black Cinnys, Super Cinnys and Super Blacks) and all of their offspring when bred to any snake would always be only one of the two traits. I think 100 snakes produced this way would remove any reasonable doubt.

Alternatively we could map the genetics of ball pythons out and prove it that way.

Similar to the whole Lucy Complex and Lucys being produced from Phantom crosses, even though the Phantom's super is entirely different. Again we'd need to see if it were possible to produce a Super Phantom BEL the offspring of which being Phantoms and BELs and the offspring of the BELs being Phantoms and whatever the other morph was that was in the Super Phantom BEL.

I'm not trying to be a nay sayer, but there needs to be solid evidence to support claims of traits existing on the same gene locus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Do you have proof of this?

---

As the snakes go, no. However I just want to say that on a general genetics level it is usually better to increase the line. Certain mutations appear over time (and we've formed some cool ones but it's not those that I speak of) and if you continue breeding within a set line without bringing in diversity then you increase the likelihood that negative traits will appear (Hemophilia is the commonly quoted example).

However there does exist an issue in this, you can breed with a line that has kinks and end up having that deformity exist in your own pre-existing line. The goal of creating more genetic diversity is to reduce negative recessive traits (or even dominant) however some offspring may still have this and it may not be lost. Through diversity you can introduce even new issues (sickle cell anemia being a decent example of this).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxylepy

I'd like to see proof of this as well. Everyone likes to throw concepts like gene location (allele) around, and the only way to prove it would be to prove that without any doubt you could NEVER produce a Cinny Super Black Pastel or a Black Pastel Super Cinnamon.

Oh and to define my own terms we'd need to see breeding of Cinny Black Pastels together only producing supers (Black Cinnys, Super Cinnys and Super Blacks) and all of their offspring when bred to any snake would always be only one of the two traits. I think 100 snakes produced this way would remove any reasonable doubt.

Alternatively we could map the genetics of ball pythons out and prove it that way.

Similar to the whole Lucy Complex and Lucys being produced from Phantom crosses, even though the Phantom's super is entirely different. Again we'd need to see if it were possible to produce a Super Phantom BEL the offspring of which being Phantoms and BELs and the offspring of the BELs being Phantoms and whatever the other morph was that was in the Super Phantom BEL.

I'm not trying to be a nay sayer, but there needs to be solid evidence to support claims of traits existing on the same gene locus.

---

Ever heard of dilute genes?

The Phantom/Mystic seem to be a dilute version of the het BEL gene and thus when combined with another het BEL makes a BEL, but when combined with another dilute het BEL make a completely different super.

As far as crossing the cinny and black pastel its been done and the super looks the same as the super of the black pastel or the cinny. Same gene different lines, IMO.

Right good point. It wouldn't be a "dilute gene" that's again a term that has no real definition in genetics (as far as my experience goes as a bio major) and is a term used to describe what we have encountered (or someone else did with other animals). Yeah there is no reason I should have said that they can't be on the same locus because of the super, that happens all the time in genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo Serpent

Same gene different lines, IMO.

---

i agree with this. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h00blah

i agree with this. :gj:

---

As do I. But I don't like considering anything so black and white (haha super cinnamons and lucys) as things do occur that challenge belief from time to time and when you really believe something then there is a good chance you will resist the change in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxylepy

As do I. But I don't like considering anything so black and white (haha super cinnamons and lucys) as things do occur that challenge belief from time to time and when you really believe something then there is a good chance you will resist the change in the face of overwhelming evidence.

---

i am quite stubborn, but i love to learn. if i am proven wrong, i will gladly accept it as a learning experience :gj:
after all, "if you admit you're wrong, you're right."

Cinnamons have clear bellies, Black pastels do not. Very similar gene, and they must be alleles on the same locus to produce the super as they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

Do you have proof of this?

---

Not necessarily, but after many clutches with the outcrossed animals showing fewer defects than the inbred ones it would stand to reason that it is true.