Might be a new Morph

And I know you will be surprised, but I have NOT named it yet!
Has a Desert look to it.

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps8313efda.jpg
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps87fe98c4.jpg

Not knocking it at all but a lot of these 'new' gene snakes seem to look really similar to a normal.

What I want to know is around how often new super visible color/pattern gene snakes pop up. Things like GHI, Banana, Pied, Clown, etc...

I know there's not a solid answer but on average maybe?

Again, great looking snake :D

What exactly does the gene do?? How have you proved it out?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Doesn't look like any desert I've ever seen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigIan

Not knocking it at all but a lot of these 'new' gene snakes seem to look really similar to a normal.

What I want to know is around how often new super visible color/pattern gene snakes pop up. Things like GHI, Banana, Pied, Clown, etc...

I know there's not a solid answer but on average maybe?

Again, great looking snake :D

---

It's true. There are a lot of new "co-dominant morphs" that I would scarcely or never recognize from a normal. Too many of them to name but play around with the big morph list on World of Ball Pythons and I don't think it'll take you long to get question marks above your head. I think a lot of them actually have a much more legitimate case for being called het for whatever the "super" form is, and the "super" be considered a recessive morph. Just have the subtle differences be accepted as genetic markers. We see it in the het pied and het red axanthic, so it's not like this doesn't happen already. To me, that would clean things up quite a bit. But that's just my 2 cents FWIW.

I never thought much of her until I saw Chris over in the UK hatch out his Splatter Balls. It just so happened that I had a clutch hatching from this big female that looked similar to his hatchlings. So, I held back a male, sold the female hatchling (should have kept her) as a dinker, and eventually bred the male back to the original female. This is the result of that breeding. Three have shed now, and look pretty promising. Cool head patterns....not all new morphs are going to be Pieds or Clowns.

Dave

looks like normal to me? what is so special?

Looks cool Dave. Hold onto that thing and keep on breedin' bro!

Looks normal... Since you didn't give us any history on it I'm guessing it's not proved out but just a weird looking "Dinker" ? Definitely doesn't look desert either..

I'm not sure Desert is a good comparison, but I think I see what you mean. It wouldn't surprise me if you were on to something. Looks like something more than a normal to me. Either that, or it's a really nice normal that would be great for line breeding...Good luck Dave. I'd be interested to see what you find out...

If we dismissed all "normalish" looking dinkers we would have missed out on quite a few cool supers and combos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Green

If we dismissed all "normalish" looking dinkers we would have missed out on quite a few cool supers and combos.

---

Exactly.
I've produced some stellar looking specters and some that look very normal like.
What they produce, even the normalish looking ones, is pretty spectacular imo.

Hope you are on to something new here. Def looks like something going on there other than just normal. Once you get a female, hopefully you will prove it out! I wonder if the person who bought your female as a dinker is reading?

So what are the comparison points that make it different than a normal?

I do see the usefulness of dinker normals, I'm curious to see the specific cues the OP is seeing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

They are very bright and clean, I'd be very interested to see how this gene turns out in combos. A lot of new genes look like this, not much more than a normal and then you combine it and wham, you get something like the atomic fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Green

If we dismissed all "normalish" looking dinkers we would have missed out on quite a few cool supers and combos.

---

Not dismiss. Like I said, just refer to them as het with markers, and define the super as a recessive morph, examples = het pied and het red axanthic. I'm just saying we don't need 500 "morphs" when 250 of them are barely discernible. We should save the cool names for the cool phenotypes, and call the hets what they are. If it's something that really stands out, like pastel or lesser, that's one thing. But I think something like disco which is essentially invisible to anyone other than the most experienced breeders should be called a het disco, whereas the super disco should be the disco morph and considered recessive rather than co-dominant. That's not dismissing, it's just cleaning up the ever-growing morph list and eliminating the clutter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

Not dismiss. Like I said, just refer to them as het with markers, and define the super as a recessive morph, examples = het pied and het red axanthic. I'm just saying we don't need 500 "morphs" when 250 of them are barely discernible. We should save the cool names for the cool phenotypes, and call the hets what they are. If it's something that really stands out, like pastel or lesser, that's one thing. But I think something like disco which is essentially invisible to anyone other than the most experienced breeders should be called a het disco, whereas the super disco should be the disco morph and considered recessive rather than co-dominant. That's not dismissing, it's just cleaning up the ever-growing morph list and eliminating the clutter.

---

Then it would be classified incorrectly, an inc-dom morph just needs a intermediate heterozygous form, doesn't matter how subtle. A recessive wouldn't have a marker if it is truly recessive.... yea we already have enough misclassified genes. As for disco they are a few shades lighter than a normal ball python, hardly need experience to see that. and red axanthics are inc-dom, not many people will argue that. het red axanthic is very visual.

As for this morph the thing is quite a few shades lighter than a normal, I wouldn't call it desert. The color is might be similar but lacks the cleanliness of the desert which is it's most sought-after trait for most. I don't see it being a game changer right now, but they probably said the same thing about the orange dream. Good luck with the project.

But if het red axanthic is co-dom, why is it correct to call it "het red axanthic" and the super "red axanthic" but it would be incorrect to call a disco a "het disco" and the super one "disco", if they are the same type of gene? And still we have the het pied which is reasonably visible although variably subtle.

I guess the subtle markers are just a little confusing since normals are so variable. My Cleo (bottom left pic) has a crazy reduced pattern and is almost as light as my fire girl. Yet, she's just a normal by anyone's opinion here. As opposed to Kay (top second from left), who is as normal as they come. Hard to believe one is as normal as the other. Yet some differences that are more subtle are considered a co-dom morph.

Maybe seeing the snakes in person would help as opposed to pictures (as is true of the fire a lot of times), but some of it still seems really confusing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

But if het red axanthic is co-dom, why is it correct to call it "het red axanthic" and the super "red axanthic" but it would be incorrect to call a disco a "het disco" and the super one "disco", if they are the same type of gene? And still we have the het pied which is reasonably visible although variably subtle.

I guess the subtle markers are just a little confusing since normals are so variable. My Cleo (bottom left pic) has a crazy reduced pattern and is almost as light as my fire girl. Yet, she's just a normal by anyone's opinion here. As opposed to Kay (top second from left), who is as normal as they come. Hard to believe one is as normal as the other. Yet some differences that are more subtle are considered a co-dom morph.

Maybe seeing the snakes in person would help as opposed to pictures (as is true of the fire a lot of times), but some of it still seems really confusing to me.

---

HRA wasn't named in keeping with the general naming style of most ball morphs. The het form is a visual, like all inc dom morphs. It would be equivalent to calling a pastel a "het pastel" and calling a super pastel just "pastel". Hope that helps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

HRA wasn't named in keeping with the general naming style of most ball morphs. The het form is a visual, like all inc dom morphs. It would be equivalent to calling a pastel a "het pastel" and calling a super pastel just "pastel". Hope that helps!

---

Exactly my point. That's why it's strange that either it doesn't get changed or the door is open to do that with other, more subtle co-dom morphs.

I suppose it's not a big deal, really. I'm just curious as to what the rules are, if there are any, and what is grounds for bending, breaking, or changing them. That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

But if het red axanthic is co-dom, why is it correct to call it "het red axanthic" and the super "red axanthic" but it would be incorrect to call a disco a "het disco" and the super one "disco", if they are the same type of gene? And still we have the het pied which is reasonably visible although variably subtle.

I guess the subtle markers are just a little confusing since normals are so variable. My Cleo (bottom left pic) has a crazy reduced pattern and is almost as light as my fire girl. Yet, she's just a normal by anyone's opinion here. As opposed to Kay (top second from left), who is as normal as they come. Hard to believe one is as normal as the other. Yet some differences that are more subtle are considered a co-dom morph.

Maybe seeing the snakes in person would help as opposed to pictures (as is true of the fire a lot of times), but some of it still seems really confusing to me.

---

It is called het red axanthic because the guy who made it called it het red axanthic, nothing more to it. You can call something w/e you want, it has nothing to do with the classification.

It isn't incorrect to call it het disco, all your are saying is heterozygous disco, which it is. it will just be misinterpreted because of the goofy lingo we have. just saying disco implies the heterozygous, you are not specifying heterozygous or homozygous. Saying super implies the homozygous.

A morph isn't a morph until it is proven out, the OP breed two dinkers together and made that. Of course nothing is set in stone but its reasonable to think that is the homozygous version of the gene. Even if the OP dinkers are subtle, obviously they could pick them out to make that animal. so it visual in someway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

I suppose it's not a big deal, really. I'm just curious as to what the rules are, if there are any, and what is grounds for bending, breaking, or changing them. That's all.

---

There is no board of ball python naming, the person who makes it calls it what they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

Exactly my point. That's why it's strange that either it doesn't get changed or the door is open to do that with other, more subtle co-dom morphs.

I suppose it's not a big deal, really. I'm just curious as to what the rules are, if there are any, and what is grounds for bending, breaking, or changing them. That's all.

---

THERE ARE NO RULES!!! Lol the only rule is that if you discover it, you get to name it. It doesn't matter if there's no rhyme or reason. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to get everyone to use a standardised nomenclature. We can't even use the correct terms for inc dom, co dom and recessive, let alone the individual morphs. You're fighting an uphill battle, my friend.

Darn, OWAL beat me to it!

Not fighting, just trying to learn. But that pretty much tells me what I was trying to find out. :)

The first few pics show the cool one after it shed. The last two or so show the cool pink one
before its first shed, along with a sibling.
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...psdc180429.jpg
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps1d6f882e.jpg
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps3a808702.jpg
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps71e0cf04.jpg
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...psd0e6a96a.jpg

Ohhhh, so the pink isn't shed. That's neat.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Cool. Yeah that one is pretty wild-looking compared to the normal.

These guys look promising to me

I guess there is a possibility that they are in fact a new line of Splatter. I am still seeking out advice and information from Chris over in the UK, the originator of the Splatter Ball. The Splatter is very unique in one way, it produces three variances, not just two like a regular Co Dom. With say a Sulfur, you get a Sulfur and Super Sulfur. With the Splatter, you get Splatters, Super Splatters and a Yellow Splatter. The Yellow is the odd one, looks as good or better than a Super but does not produce all Splatters like a Super would. Should be a fun couple of years trying figure this one out.

Dave

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...pscd799f8d.jpg
This is one I am convinced looks like a Splatter.

This is the nice reduced one.
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps701390d3.jpg

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps884a06b0.jpg

I don't know much of anything..but what I do know is as soon as I saw the pic I thought normal???but very good looking at that.

You said it yourself.

Dave

Looks like a fun project, good luck Dave!

There is so much variation in normals and morphs, the only way to know for sure if you have something special is to prove it out. I had a clutch this year where every hatchling is dark and the black has a satin-like sheen to it. The pinstripe that was in the clutch also shows the darker tones. I may eventually play with this, but for now, the normals are just normals.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5555/osj2.jpg

pair the same adults up this year, and see what happens.

Dave