Number of Morphs

I'm just wondering, if and when the butters are decided to be the same morph as the lessers (seems obvious to some, and not to others...), how many morphs on the morph list would combine? And if the Sugar = Calico, why are they listed separately? Just wondering... It just seems that if we keep listing doppelganger morphs, the number of morphs gets greatly exaggerated. Oh well, doesn't really matter much, just seems weird to list so many morphs twice.

Cinny/black pastel
Candy/banana/coral glow

Those are just a few off the top of my head.

It cant be the same morph if you get different results. Take the cinny and the black for example. What they produce are different. Both supers are different, the sterling and the silver streak are different, when combined with the pied gene also different etc. Now are they close? Maybe but still different. Now butters and lessers are alot closer to eachother then the cinny is to the black. Its all about subtle differences in the morphs nowadays. Look at all the different variants of pastels. Lemons, blondes, jungles, citrus etc, then you have all the different lines from grazianni, bell, stonewashed, etc. Its all about variants. All these subtle morphs are building blocks for combos. Thete are so many more subtle morphs then thete ever was before and thete will be more. The key is selective breeding to unlock the potential for combos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

It cant be the same morph if you get different results. Take the cinny and the black for example. What they produce are different. Both supers are different, the sterling and the silver streak are different, when combined with the pied gene also different etc. Now are they close? Maybe but still different. Now butters and lessers are alot closer to eachother then the cinny is to the black. Its all about subtle differences in the morphs nowadays. Look at all the different variants of pastels. Lemons, blondes, jungles, citrus etc, then you have all the different lines from grazianni, bell, stonewashed, etc. Its all about variants. All these subtle morphs are building blocks for combos. Thete are so many more subtle morphs then thete ever was before and thete will be more. The key is selective breeding to unlock the potential for combos

---

I agree. Cinnies and black pastels look different to me.
Butters/lessers....theyre the same. Ive seen darker and creamier colored examples of both morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike41793

I agree. Cinnies and black pastels look different to me.
Butters/lessers....theyre the same. Ive seen darker and creamier colored examples of both morphs.

---

Ditto.

I don't think the number of morphs is greatly exaggerated though lol. There's tons of different combos, and more are going to be made or found :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h00blah

Ditto.

I don't think the number of morphs is greatly exaggerated though lol. There's tons of different combos, and more are going to be made or found :P

---

There's going to be a lot more to come in the next few years...And it will just continue to grow beyond that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike41793

I agree. Cinnies and black pastels look different to me.

Butters/lessers....theyre the same. Ive seen darker and creamier colored examples of both morphs.

---

I agree with both those statements. The only thing I would say is MAYBE they are two different lines, or the such. (I believe I said that right :P)

I agree that there are differences between cinnys and black pastels. But do they not stem from the same WC parent?

And I would say that "greatly exaggerated" was an overstatement. There are way too many other combos. However, I do think the list would reduce noticeably if butter/lesser was considered the same; Candy/Banana/coral glows; phantom/mystic; sugar/calico; etc.

Does the list designate a Firefly (lemon pastel x fire) differently from a Firefly (jungle pastel x fire)? Or differently from a Firefly (graziani pastel x fire); Firefly (_______ pastel x fire)? Nope.

Anyway, I only bring this up as a question of curiosity. Not really trying to prove something, but rather just stating my observation on it.

When working with different lines of the same morph such as pastels for example, it comes down to variants of the offspring. A sterling made from bell line pastel or a sterling made from a lemon may look different be would be variants of the same morph therefore it have to be named as such. If a cinnamon and a black both came from the same wild caught animal then it would be that way throughout the breedings and its not. Both different morphs. Now blacks i think have more variants then cinnies. The blackest super forms of the black pastel comes from outbacks line imo. Those things are jet black

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Osborne

Candy/banana/coral glow

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClarkT

Candy/Banana/coral glows

---

I think you guys want to be grouping the candy with toffees, not CG's and bananas.

Whoops, you're exactly right...duh. Good job! :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

When working with different lines of the same morph such as pastels for example, it comes down to variants of the offspring. A sterling made from bell line pastel or a sterling made from a lemon may look different be would be variants of the same morph therefore it have to be named as such. If a cinnamon and a black both came from the same wild caught animal then it would be that way throughout the breedings and its not. Both different morphs. Now blacks i think have more variants then cinnies. The blackest super forms of the black pastel comes from outbacks line imo. Those things are jet black

---

The first part of this I agree with. Bloodlines....same thing, different bloodlines. Again it's all about who can pee the farthest. Different locales of ball have different patterns and coloration. This will make the same morph appear differently from one example to the next. I don't buy the cinny/BP argument and never will. How can black be blacker than black? Same snakes...different lines. Calico...sugar...sprinkle....white-sided....blah blah blah. Mine is bigger than yours mentality. If you have something TRULY different then great. If not, don't try to make things more difficult.

Snakelab, this is not directed at you personally. Just my general thoughts and opinion on the subject. Folks will believe what they want and it will never be solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Osborne

. I don't buy the cinny/BP argument and never will. How can black be blacker than black?

---

when black is blacker than brown :) I've seen a few pictures of adult super black pastel that were still black. Every adult super cinny i've seen is brown.

As for candy toffee, breed a candy to a toffee or albino, see what pops out, then you will know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

when black is blacker than brown :) I've seen a few pictures of adult super black pastel that were still black. Every adult super cinny i've seen is brown.

As for candy toffee, breed a candy to a toffee or albino, see what pops out, then you will know.

---

There are also browned out super black pastels and very black super cinnies.

As for candy/toffee(same thing) being compatible with albino, doesn't mean they're the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobNJ

There are also browned out super black pastels and very black super cinnies.

As for candy/toffee(same thing) being compatible with albino, doesn't mean they're the same.

---

i have yet to see a black super cinny adult.

As for candy/toffee, if they look the same and act the same genetically, what is left to say they are different?

Here's how it actually happens:

Person A imports a wild caught new morph, proves it genetic, and names it.
Person B imports a wild caught animal that looks similar to the new morph. He proves it genetic, and names it.
Now Person A or Person B have to acquire one of each other's animals, and cross them, because until you do that, you can't be SURE they are the same.

If you assume that they are, you are a bit too likely to be wrong! Here are some examples:

Woma versus Hidden Gene Woma. HG Womas, mistaken for Womas at first, were originally believed to be carrying an extra gene that influenced their appearance and showed up in combos. It wasn't so. They weren't actually womas at all, but were a separate co-dominant morph.

Desert Ghost Versus Desert. Another morph mistaken for the other originally, and later proved to be completely different genes.

Yellowbelly Versus Het Highway--can you tell them apart? Most people couldn't, but what popped out wasn't an Ivory, it was a Highway.

In some cases, snakes have been proven to be the same morph, which is the reason why you will see them listed with two names. Banana and Whitesmoke are the same morph. Which name you use, well, that's up to you, but in general, the one with seniority will be the winner.

An example of morphs widely believed to be the same, but not yet confirmed--Ultramel and Crider.

Now, butters may be lessers. The problem with the lesser/mojave/russo complex is that these animals all produce white snakes when combined, and only the mojave x mojave really shows significant differences. We can't tell whether Butter and Lesser are the same gene by looking at their super forms, because the fact that they are identical doesn't prove anything. Super Russos don't really look any different either, but are clearly a different gene. So, butter and lesser are ambiguous.

Now, cinnamons and black pastels aren't the same--they look similar, but not identical, their super forms are different, and they act slightly differently in combos.

The different variations of the pastel jungle have been produced through selective breeding.. The morph is pastel, the variations are selectively bred--there should be no real confusion there. If you cross a selectively bred animal with one that hasn't been, you will dilute those characteristics.
That's why you see so many 'lemon pastels' that simply aren't. Just because you started with a lemon pastel, doesn't mean that's what you have 3 generations later. The pastel gene remains immutable, but the line-bred traits won't last if the selective breeding isn't meticulously continued.

So, no, they aren't doing it to size each other up, or to annoy...there are real issues that need to be resolved, to determine what individual ball python morphs are, what they should be called, and how many there are.

Black pastels and cinnies both look different. The supers look different. Therefore different gene. Also black to pastel produces a different combo then cinny to pastel does. Again different gene. Theres no way to argue that. We arent talking about different lines. We are talking different gene

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

As for candy/toffee, if they look the same and act the same genetically, what is left to say they are different?

---

Of course candy and toffee are the same....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

As for candy toffee, breed a candy to a toffee or albino, see what pops out, then you will know.

---

By this post, it sounded as if you were saying they are the same as albino.

I agree there is a lot of diversity within each morph but I also agree Cinnys and Black Pastels are two different genes. I also think that it can be hard to tell the difference when looking at poor examples of each morph. And some are just miss-labeled.

I bet everyone can see the difference between good examples of each morph.

http://i859.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/IMG_3463.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobNJ

Of course candy and toffee are the same....



By this post, it sounded as if you were saying they are the same as albino.

---

No, Toffee is allelic with albino. Toffinos look essentially the same as toffees.

couple things i disagree with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

We can't tell whether Butter and Lesser are the same gene by looking at their super forms, because the fact that they are identical doesn't prove anything.

---

again as i said above, if they look the same and act the same, what else do we have to argue their different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Super Russos don't really look any different either, but are clearly a different gene. So, butter and lesser are ambiguous.

---

I havn't seen a super russo in real life without a very yellow stripe going down it's back, they look closer to ivorys with blue eyes. Yes i have seen some pictures online of white super russos, but the super form is clearly different from butter/lesser.

I am total agreement with the OP's point. It is confusing to list all these morphs as different morphs if they are not. There are too many to keep up with as it is. I would like to see a list of all major base morphs with "complexes" listed and all "morphs" that belong to that "complex" listed. For example for co-dominant morphs:

Black Pastel-Cinnamon Complex - Black Pastels, Cinnamons (would mahoganies fit this?)

Pastel complex - pastel, lemon pastel, jungle pastel, citrus pastel

blue-eyed lucy complex - mojave, lesser, butter, honey

mystic-phantom complex - mystic-phantom

I'm not trying to debate whether morph a = morph b of the same complex. That's not the point. But it would definitely help organize things.

Has anyone crossed a black pastel with a cinny to get both genes in one snake? Mating such a snake with a normal would tell us whether the two genes are compatible. If they are not compatible, they cannot be the same gene. They may not be the same gene even if compatible, but that is harder to test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Has anyone crossed a black pastel with a cinny to get both genes in one snake? Mating such a snake with a normal would tell us whether the two genes are compatible. If they are not compatible, they cannot be the same gene. They may not be the same gene even if compatible, but that is harder to test.

---

Yes, they are compatible and produce an all black/brown snake. But it's a similar situation to a Mojave x Lesser BEL. They are two different genes in the same complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fortozs

I am total agreement with the OP's point. It is confusing to list all these morphs as different morphs if they are not. There are too many to keep up with as it is. I would like to see a list of all major base morphs with "complexes" listed and all "morphs" that belong to that "complex" listed. For example for co-dominant morphs:

Black Pastel-Cinnamon Complex - Black Pastels, Cinnamons (would mahoganies fit this?)

Pastel complex - pastel, lemon pastel, jungle pastel, citrus pastel

blue-eyed lucy complex - mojave, lesser, butter, honey

mystic-phantom complex - mystic-phantom

I'm not trying to debate whether morph a = morph b of the same complex. That's not the point. But it would definitely help organize things.

---

http://www.owalreptiles.com/complexes.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Has anyone crossed a black pastel with a cinny to get both genes in one snake? Mating such a snake with a normal would tell us whether the two genes are compatible. If they are not compatible, they cannot be the same gene. They may not be the same gene even if compatible, but that is harder to test.

---

it is called an 8-ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

http://www.owalreptiles.com/complexes.php

---

Thank you so much. That is exactly what I was looking for.