Leucistic Question

I have another question about ball python genetics, I think I stumped a few people on my last thread! Does anyone know if black eye leucistics (super fires) can breed, or are they infertile?

I know that super forms of some genes can cause the animal to be infertile, and I have not heard of anyone breeding a black eye leucistic yet. I was wondering if leucistic x fire would work? I believe this would produce all fires and leucistics.

Any insight into this would be appreciated, thank you

yes they can breed just fine, and yes a lucy x fire would produce fires and lucys.

what genetics make them infertile?

Breeding a super form in any paring will yield NO normals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

yes they can breed just fine, and yes a lucy x fire would produce fires and lucys.

what genetics make them infertile?

---

I have mainly been into boas and the super forms of the jungle and motley, from my understanding, have yet to reproduce. In fact, I have not seen evidence of the super motley even surviving into adulthood. Check out this link http://superiormorphs.wordpress.com/...oas-infertile/ It's from 2008, but I believe it still applies. I was not sure if the Super form of some BPs act the same way as in boas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

Breeding a super form in any paring will yield NO normals.

---

Yep, that is what i would like from this kind of pairing, all of the little ones would be more marketable than normals :)

I don't think there is any evidence to date of any ball morphs being infertile. Even ball hybrids can reproduce. Now, will there ever be a point at which morphology interferes with fertility?...that's a good question.

I think the closest thing you'll find regarding fertility issues would come up researching the caramel gene. If you search the forum for female caramel albino infertility a few interesting threads come up with questions regarding females not being able to produce fertile clutches or slugging out consistently. From what I understand they DO lay fertile clutches but it seems they are usually small and have a large ratio of slugs to fertile eggs. However, I've had mixed success with regular morphs and normals too. So, does the caramel gene effect fertility? I don't think there is enough organized data to prove it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pals BP

I have mainly been into boas and the super forms of the jungle and motley, from my understanding, have yet to reproduce. In fact, I have not seen evidence of the super motley even surviving into adulthood. Check out this link http://superiormorphs.wordpress.com/...oas-infertile/ It's from 2008, but I believe it still applies. I was not sure if the Super form of some BPs act the same way as in boas.

---

I havn't herd anything like that about ball pythons, closest thing I've herd is super jag carpets, which are lucys, do not survive, longest one lived out of the egg was about a day as far as i know.

as far as the super motley boa.... something Brian talked about in the last snakebytes... the columbians dont seem to thrive, but the argintines seem to do fine....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjmitchell

as far as the super motley boa.... something Brian talked about in the last snakebytes... the columbians dont seem to thrive, but the argintines seem to do fine....

---

Hmm, I did not know that...any pictures of Argentine super motley adults available?...and are they able to breed?

I have heard that Woma balls babys can have some genetic defects...Is that true?I have never heard that about ifertility in some morphs...Im a little confused!:confused:

AFAIK, the only "woma" problem is not with the womas that most people have, but with NERD's "hidden gene" woma (which is NOT in any way related to the more common woma). The homozygous ("super") form of that is called the pearl, and they die shortly after hatching.

Female caramel albinos are rumored to be infertile. After reading through the thread below, it sounds to me as though, as jsmorphs alluded to, they are capable of producing fertile eggs but that they tend to lay a very high proportion of slugs. You can't call them infertile with even a few good eggs, but in my mind, I would consider them subfertile until proven otherwise. I would need a whole lotta pictures of caramel females sitting on 4+ egg clutches with NO slugs to start believing otherwise.

http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...ad.php?t=20146

That's just my line of thought, though, based solely on reading that one thread (in which, unlike other, more "speculative" threads, a number of folks have come forward with numbers and pictures). Others may feel they need more evidence one way or the other to form a conclusion, which is also perfectly logical.

IMO, it isn't reason to avoid the caramels -- I really like the morph, in fact just bought a male who hasn't even arrived yet -- but it was enough to make me re-think and alter my original game plan with them.

I haven't heard even any rumors of other morphs being infertile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

AFAIK, the only "woma" problem is not with the womas that most people have, but with NERD's "hidden gene" woma (which is NOT in any way related to the more common woma). The homozygous ("super") form of that is called the pearl, and they die shortly after hatching.

---

NERD hatched a pearl with no problem what so ever, I was told they still have to do more breedings to figure out exactly what they did to make it right, heres a pic i took of it...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...r/DSCN0716.jpg

another all white snake.. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pals BP

I have another question about ball python genetics, I think I stumped a few people on my last thread! Does anyone know if black eye leucistics (super fires) can breed, or are they infertile?

I know that super forms of some genes can cause the animal to be infertile, and I have not heard of anyone breeding a black eye leucistic yet. I was wondering if leucistic x fire would work? I believe this would produce all fires and leucistics.

Any insight into this would be appreciated, thank you

---

Big Gunns knows for 100% fact that there is no problem with Super Fires.:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

NERD hatched a pearl with no problem what so ever, I was told they still have to do more breedings to figure out exactly what they did to make it right, heres a pic i took of it...

---

Iiiinteresting. I guess it's definitely possible the lethal gene is a recessive that's linked tightly to the HGW, and they finally hit a homozygous HGW that isn't homozygous lethal gene ... I had thought that pearls had at least some pattern and color, though, and that little guy is an all-white snake. :confused:

Did Kevin tell you what breeding produced that little guy? I'm not doubting you or him, just thinking -- it seems like so many NERD breedings now involve 5-6 gene combo animals; maybe that guy is actually some other obscure combination of white-snake-makers and not really homozygous woma ...

I wouldn't assume any gender of any morph can reproduce until proven. Likely most will turn out like the older mutations albino and piebald where we now have reports of them reproducing but there might be a few reproductive dud morphs. No particular reason to suspect most morphs but you just don’t know for sure until it’s proven to be ok.

Big Guns, can you confirm both male and female black eyed leucistics have reproduced so we can cross them both off the unproven list?

I'm working with a new line of chocolates but am years away from being able to confirm anything about either gender of super chocolate. Likely most all but the newest morphs have been proven by now but without clutch by clutch info from big breeders other than RDR we’ll have to wait for smaller breeders to grow up most projects and report the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunns

Big Gunns knows for 100% fact that there is no problem with Super Fires.:gj:

---

Pals BP thinks this is just super!...lol.

I assume you have bred males and females, or know someone who has? Could you shed a little more light on this? Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subdriven

another all white snake.. lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

Iiiinteresting. I guess it's definitely possible the lethal gene is a recessive that's linked tightly to the HGW, and they finally hit a homozygous HGW that isn't homozygous lethal gene ... I had thought that pearls had at least some pattern and color, though, and that little guy is an all-white snake. :confused:

Did Kevin tell you what breeding produced that little guy? I'm not doubting you or him, just thinking -- it seems like so many NERD breedings now involve 5-6 gene combo animals; maybe that guy is actually some other obscure combination of white-snake-makers and not really homozygous woma ...

---

Its not a white snake, the base color is off-white and the pattern is a shade of yellow, the picture doesn't show it well, but you can still see its not a white snake. it doesn't look like a ivory or russo BEL at all.

no he did not tell me what produced it, they said it was a pearl tho, thats all i needed to hear.

But it's not just a Pearl. It has survived because there was another gene added to the mix, if I remember correctly.

It looks to still be a baby so was it acting different than other pearls at that age and that is why they are hoping it will survive longer?

Several years ago they thought a lesser pearl would survive but I thought I heard later that it didn't. Suppose it's possible another mutation might compensate but seems very unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

But it's not just a Pearl. It has survived because there was another gene added to the mix, if I remember correctly.

---

They don't know, thats why they have to do more breeding to figure out what fixed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

It looks to still be a baby so was it acting different than other pearls at that age and that is why they are hoping it will survive longer?

Several years ago they thought a lesser pearl would survive but I thought I heard later that it didn't. Suppose it's possible another mutation might compensate but seems very unlikely.

---

I think it was MA Balls that did a couple videos, which shows Kevin going around showing off a bunch of snakes. He pulls out a pearl and you can see exactly what it does, the snake I took a picuture of was acting 100% normal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

Breeding a super form in any paring will yield NO normals.

---

Yay supers!:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I wouldn't assume any gender of any morph can reproduce until proven. Likely most will turn out like the older mutations albino and piebald where we now have reports of them reproducing but there might be a few reproductive dud morphs. No particular reason to suspect most morphs but you just don’t know for sure until it’s proven to be ok.

Big Guns, can you confirm both male and female black eyed leucistics have reproduced so we can cross them both off the unproven list?

I'm working with a new line of chocolates but am years away from being able to confirm anything about either gender of super chocolate. Likely most all but the newest morphs have been proven by now but without clutch by clutch info from big breeders other than RDR we’ll have to wait for smaller breeders to grow up most projects and report the results.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pals BP

Pals BP thinks this is just super!...lol.

I assume you have bred males and females, or know someone who has? Could you shed a little more light on this? Thanks

---

Both males and females are not infertile. Where does crap like this get started anyway? Oh wait........for a second there BG forgot all about the internet forum "experts".:D

If BG says it.....nuff said.;):D Hope that's enough "light" for yah.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunns

Both males and females are not infertile. Where does crap like this get started anyway? Oh wait........for a second there BG forgot all about the internet forum "experts".:D

If BG says it.....nuff said.;):D Hope that's enough "light" for yah.:D

---

I don't think Randy was trying to start rumors; I think that all he was getting at is just that for most mutations, we don't know what, on a chemical level, is really going on to cause the aberrant pattern that we see and breed for. For all we know, whatever mutation causes the unusual color or pattern could also cause a problem with fertility.

Do I think that most of them will be infertile or subfertile? No, not at all. So far, I can only think of two out of the dozens of morphs that have seemingly substantiated reports of fertility issues. I certainly don't think it would stop me from investing in a new morph if I thought it was promising. But it is always a possibility (just as it's always a possibility that the homozygous form will be lethal, or that there will be some other defect associated with the desirable morph gene).

I think it all depends on how you look at it -- just like you can look at an unproven morph or dinker as "It isn't a morph until it's proven" or, the more optimistic outlook, "It isn't a normal until proven normal," you can look at any new morph as "It isn't fertile until proven fertile" or "It isn't infertile until proven infertile." Glass is either half empty or half full type of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

I don't think Randy was trying to start rumors; I think that all he was getting at is just that for most mutations, we don't know what, on a chemical level, is really going on to cause the aberrant pattern that we see and breed for. For all we know, whatever mutation causes the unusual color or pattern could also cause a problem with fertility.

Do I think that most of them will be infertile or subfertile? No, not at all. So far, I can only think of two out of the dozens of morphs that have seemingly substantiated reports of fertility issues. I certainly don't think it would stop me from investing in a new morph if I thought it was promising. But it is always a possibility (just as it's always a possibility that the homozygous form will be lethal, or that there will be some other defect associated with the desirable morph gene).

I think it all depends on how you look at it -- just like you can look at an unproven morph or dinker as "It isn't a morph until it's proven" or, the more optimistic outlook, "It isn't a normal until proven normal," you can look at any new morph as "It isn't fertile until proven fertile" or "It isn't infertile until proven infertile." Glass is either half empty or half full type of thing.

---

Big Gunns wasn't saying anyone was "starting rumors". BG does know that threads like this is how it starts though. Something is posted like this...all the "experts" chime in....BINGO...... Lucy's are infertile. Happens all the time on the net. Most people(BG included) are lazy. They read the first couple posts on a thread and then comment. What they should do is look through the thread for BG posts, then comment. This would solve all the worlds problems(prolly cause more really):D

Very true. That would be a very sneaky (and mean) way for a rival breeder to start a nasty rumor -- "Hey, has anyone proved out ZYX mutation as fertile yet? I've never seen pictures of females on eggs ..."

No actual accusations, so it isn't exactly libel ...... But it does plant some (unfounded) seeds of doubt in people's heads.

Has there ever been any ball python morph that has problem with fertility? caramel albino is it isn't it? And even information on that seems to be sketchy. so 1 out of over 100 morphs possibly might have fertility issue, so is that less than 1% of morph going to make you doubt?

This thread:

http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...ad.php?t=20146

Also this one:

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...-on-Eggs-Photo

... Shows the reason I think it's entirely possible that caramel female subfertility (though, clearly, not complete infertility) is a distinct possibility.

There are also "rumors" of desert females being too small to breed successfully, but I don't know enough about that to comment with any authority. (Seems to me like if you want to know about deserts, Pro Exotics would be the ones to ask since they seem to have a ton of wicked cool desert stuff going.)

So, yes, it would seem it's 1 - 2 morphs out of several dozen base morphs discovered so far. (Both females so far, too .....) Really not bloody many at all when you think about it!

I remember when I first got into breeding chinchillas a few years ago, the breeder I got mine from told me that the more mutation genes an animal had, the less likely it was to be fertile, and that my double co-dom female only had a 25% chance of fertility. :rolleyes: Well, so far, I have found that to be complete and utter nonsense, and can count a grand total of two animals (out of several dozen) that have proven to be infertile or subfertile. Still, though, there's always the possibility ... Hell, I have a normal female (ball python) who's on "strike two" for fertility at the moment! (Meaning, if I don't get eggs this season, she's going to a "pet home" ...)

It did take us a long time to hear about the possible problems with caramels (both high kinking and high slug rates). Although I'm still optimistic that with shared information both problems can be solved. If breeders like Mark and Bill can avoid the kinks and Sean and Brian can get good eggs consistently we just need to figure out what the variables are so we can all reproduce their success and the caramel mutation can move past these issues. Maybe it is outbreeding like most seem to think or some accident of environment or nutrition (my wacko theory) that can overcome these negative tendencies.

Are there other mutations with problems? I don't know. I'm probably being paranoid after the spider and caramel late disclosures. I give people a lot of credit to read the full threads, understand them, and decide for themselves. But I have seen rumors take off before from people apparently not understanding the difference between a question on a possibility and a proven fact. I realize it takes a long time for new morph females to mature and breed in enough numbers to happen for someone who'll bother to post pics so I'll just keep watching for them.

I like your nutrition theory re: kinking. I don't know if I think that's the answer or not, but it's a neat and different way of looking at the problem that I definitely appreciate.

I'll do a lit search today ('cos it's snowing, and that's a great thing to do when you're snowed in) and see if I can find out some other effects of enzymes downstream from tyrosinase in the melanin pathway that might be relevant. I think it must be a pleiotropic effect of the caramel mutation (and not a very tight linkage) because more than one founder animal has been brought in from the wild, and as far as we know, all lines kink. :(

My thought (and sincere hope!) is that very careful selection, careful outcrossing and very selective line breeding can decrease the percentage of caramels that kink, and/or the severity of the kinking, if not eliminate it entirely. I theorize (and please feel free to refute this) that most all genes with variable expressivity and/or incomplete penetrance can have their effects modified by other modifier genes.

For example, from what I've been reading about "piebald" horses and cattle, it's possible to select for certain patterns of piebald spotting (such as only on the head -- "medicine hat" -- in horses, and white "belting" in cattle). It requires generations of careful selection to "fix" those modifier genes (just like anything involving multiple genes), but it seems it can be done.

I'm also hopeful about the caramel because I've read in multiple places that some lines (Malsin/Upscale in particular) kink much less than others. Maybe it's just a rumor ... But I think it's possible that it's founded in some sort of experience, and that makes me hopeful. :)

Re: other lines with problems, the only one that really comes to mind is the sable ... Seems it is okay on its own, but gets much worse (sometimes even lethal) when combined with other mutations:

http://97.74.202.209/reptileradio/sh...ad.php?t=21957

That thread talks about the champagne sable, and I know I've read in a few other direct accounts that sable spiders do not survive.

That's one where I'll be foregoing the gene entirely and going with its "sister mutation," the chocolate, because my favorite combos with that gene are the spider, bumblebee or spinner chocolates, and you can't make those with sable!