Revisit: sugar/calico same or different?

I read a post here the bulk of it from 2009 about this issue.
There was post about supers and crosses between the two.
There wasn't any results at the time.
Its been a couple of years did any of this prove out. Is it the same or like the BEL complex?
I see there is an abundance of calicoes and not much available in sugar any reasons?
Also there is a big breeder saying that people are selling calicoes as sugars because they demand a higher price and are the same anyway?


any thoughts?

IMO same. The crosses look the same as well.

Seems Sugars tend to throw more high white, but that could just be from the Sample size.

I think they are the same except most Sugars out there have Genetic Black Back attached as well...which helps with combos and bringing in higher whites.

I think its the same genetic mutation, but different lines. With that said, I think Sugars tend to look a little more distinct. Better imo.
Hooblah is a great description of both. I didn't really realize until he pointed out the differences.

A quality sugar looks better than a quality calico imo.

Most Sugars tend to be black back with bolded alien heads. The pattern is wider and more reduced.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Don't mean to jump in but is there a real super? To me it looks the same just high white from what I saw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingPythons

Don't mean to jump in but is there a real super? To me it looks the same just high white from what I saw.

---

Good point. Hope someone can shed light on this.

http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/a...BF186235DB.jpg

Calico and super??
To me it looks like a calico and a A+ calico.
To me this seems to be a lie. The gene to me is dominant hands down.

I feel strongly that they are different. I also think they combo differently. You can really tell when looking at pastel sugars vs pastel calicos, and I noticed that enchi sugars and enchi calicos have pattern differences as well. The side patterns of sugars tend to be connected and FAT - the side patterns of calicos seem to be full of thinner aliens.

A good quality sugar should have no dots and a black back. A good quality calico should have tons of orange and rich blacks. Anoer trait I noticed was the amount of blushing in sugars' backs. Waaay more blushed than most calicos I've seen.

In Wilbanks' latest video, he also states that calicos and sugars are different.

Remember though, there CAN be sugars that kinda look like calios, but I've rarely seen a calico that can be confused with a sugar..

I had never considered the Black back idea, but it makes sense.

I still chalk up the differences to line breeding and not a different morph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I had never considered the Black back idea, but it makes sense.

I still chalk up the differences to line breeding and not a different morph.

---

Well remember, there ARE different lines :gj:. F&F calico, nwe, bubblegum, sugar, and vpi off the top of my head :P. sugar seems to be my favorite. Vpi has that sugar look, but it's just a name. Go for whatever line you like :gj:. I prefer the blackback line but I have the rich blacks/high orange line aka calico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h00blah

Well remember, there ARE different lines :gj:. F&F calico, nwe, bubblegum, sugar, and vpi off the top of my head :P. sugar seems to be my favorite. Vpi has that sugar look, but it's just a name. Go for whatever line you like :gj:. I prefer the blackback line but I have the rich blacks/high orange line aka calico.

---

Bubble gum? Is that the TSK line?

if there was a super we would know about it by now. i vote just dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QTEpythons

Bubble gum? Is that the TSK line?

---

It is my understanding that it's another word for calico but it's reserved for the super orangey calicos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creepin

if there was a super we would know about it by now. i vote just dominant.

---

I really dislike this argument lol. Sable spiders were supposed to be lethal. Spider x woma was also supposed to be lethal. People still aren't sure if there's a super spider or not. It seems to be widely accepted that there is no super form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h00blah

I really dislike this argument lol. Sable spiders were supposed to be lethal. Spider x woma was also supposed to be lethal. People still aren't sure if there's a super spider or not. It seems to be widely accepted that there is no super form.

---

i still don't understand why people say they are "unsure" there is a super spider or not. lol with all the years the spider mutation has been around and the number of people that breed them, i think if there was ANY possibility there was a super spider, with the mass production of that gene, a lot of people would have spiders that threw nothing but spiders.. and the community would know this. since it hasn't been done yet, one could only assume there is no super. i don't get why people are "unsure." people aren't "unsure" the desert females can lay viable clutches.. it's a widely accepted fact.. but that's only because the consequences are disastrous, so people tend to steer away. i think it's a relatively valid argument. lol the calico morph has been around longer than the banana/coral glow, and even with the sex linked issues with the bananas (which would cause more time to create a super), we already have a super banana. if there was a super calico, i believe someone would notice that 100% of the offspring from their animal were calicos, they would cash in on that, and the community would know by now.