butter/lesser

So I was at the petstore today and I saw a " butter/lesser" ball python, and he was severely malnurished so I had ti get him. when I brought him home he was 45 grams. The lady sent he hadn't eaten in a month so I decided to assist feed. Anyway he obviously cannot be a butter/ lesser without being a blue eyed Lucy, correct? I believe he is just a butter, but input would be http://ball-pythons.net/gallery/file...8/imag1236.jpg

They meant butter or lesser, obviously they did not know hence the label, really does not matter since it's the same thing. ;)

Butter and lesser and essentially the same. The super form of the two is a BEL.

No. Butter is not lesser. And lesser is not butter. They are in the same complex but different genes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

Butter and Lesser are the same genetic mutation.
They are called two different things because they are two different bloodlines of the *SAME* gene. Even their original founders have stated that they're the same.

Like saying Lemon pastel vs Citrus pastel. Still a pastel gene in the end regardless of bloodline. Same difference here regarding Lesser-Butter.

So, any ideas on him being a butter or a lesser?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kylearmbar

So, any ideas on him being a butter or a lesser?

---

yes he is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kylearmbar

So, any ideas on him being a butter or a lesser?

---

Yes, he is a Butter or Lesser. What do you want him to be? BAM! That's what he is! Magic...:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sho220

yes, he is a butter or lesser. What do you want him to be? Bam! That's what he is! Magic...:d

---

lol, shazamm!!

He's a Blesser.
Or a Letter.

Tisk tisk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

No. Butter is not lesser. And lesser is not butter. They are in the same complex but different genes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

Unfortunately you are incorrect. They are the same gene, different lines.

But butter being a separate line, doesn't that make it separate from lesser. Making it a separate gene?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

But butter being a separate line, doesn't that make it separate from lesser. Making it a separate gene?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

No not a different gene, just a different line

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Hmm. Im quite confused now. I guess I have studying to do lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

Hmm. Im quite confused now. I guess I have studying to do lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

being a different line just means a different animal was taken out of the wild. It's like all the different lines of pastel, they are all the same gene, but all originate from different animals.

Like all the axanthics?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

This is the way I look at morphs that are similar. A lesser bred to a Mojave makes a bel. A butter bred to a Mojave makes a bel. A super lesser is a bel. A super butter is a bel. A super Mojave looks different than a bel.

If lesser and butter produce the same super, and when bred to each other make the same super, how can they not be the same thing? I would go farther with other morphs too but I don't wana attract too much hate.

In my books, lesser and butter are the same gene with two different origins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

Like all the axanthics?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

no axanthics are different morphs, they are not compatible, which for that you obviously need different animals taken out of the wild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

Hmm. Im quite confused now. I guess I have studying to do lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

Think of it as this: a mother snake has two identical babies. One baby went to the USA and was given the name Lesser. The other went to the UK and was given the name Butter. They are both the same set of genes yet were given different names and thus began a different line of the same gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

But butter being a separate line, doesn't that make it separate from lesser. Making it a separate gene?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

Different Lines = Different Bloodline/Family/Pedigree

Same mutation though.

Example, German line of Doberman Pinschers vs American line. Two different lineages, but same breed of dog.

Just think of the Kardashians...there are different lines of Kardashian, but they're all the same basic mutation...except for Bruce...he looks like he might be het for scaleless...:confusd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sho220

Just think of the Kardashians...there are different lines of Kardashian, but they're all the same basic mutation...except for Bruce...he looks like he might be het for scaleless...:confusd:

---

bahahahaha

I did this so I wouldn't have to keep typing my answer to this question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tannerrrtx

But butter being a separate line, doesn't that make it separate from lesser. Making it a separate gene?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

---

As others have said, nope. Presumably all of the morphs in the BEL complex are mutations of the same gene: mojave, butter/lesser, mystic, phantom, het russo, etc. All of these have the same gene affected, it's just affected in different ways to give the various morphs. These different mutations are called alleles. So the BEL complex is just made up of different alleles of a single gene.

Yes, it can get complex. Read some of the genetics tutorials and find some online youtube lectures on mendelian genetics to get a good understanding. Especially if you ever want to breed, a fundamental basic understanding of genetics is extremely helpful, and I would say, necessary if you want to be a competent breeder.

what really should drive it home is that we have 3 combinations that have the same genetic issue.

super butter: sometimes small eyes / bug eyes. but many are healthy.
super lesser: sometimes small eyes / bug eyes. but many are healthy.
lesser butter: sometimes small eyes / bug eyes. but many are healthy.

no other combinations in the BEL complex show that issue.

now WHAT CAN YOU DEDUCE FROM THIS, THINK HARD, GET YOUR DEDUCTIVE SKILLS ONLINE. No other BEL combos are known to exhibit this genetic issue. FOCUS, what does it mean when lesser butters not only look like super lessers or super butters, but even have the same genetic issues? And when no other BEL combos have that issue?

You decide. Take the two hemispheres you have and rub them together and figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Apple Herps

As others have said, nope. Presumably all of the morphs in the BEL complex are mutations of the same gene: mojave, butter/lesser, mystic, phantom, het russo, etc. All of these have the same gene affected, it's just affected in different ways to give the various morphs. These different mutations are called alleles. So the BEL complex is just made up of different alleles of a single gene.

Yes, it can get complex. Read some of the genetics tutorials and find some online youtube lectures on mendelian genetics to get a good understanding. Especially if you ever want to breed, a fundamental basic understanding of genetics is extremely helpful, and I would say, necessary if you want to be a competent breeder.

---

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

---

There is no evidence of any of the morphs in the BEL complex not being the same gene, I mean gene as in the real definition not the laymen way we normally use it. They are all alleles which by definition is a variation of the same gene. The only morphs we know of that appear to be even being remotely close but not alleles are leopard and pied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

---

All evidence points to mutations on the same gene. The BEL complex is just a bunch of different alleles. Not different genes. I am unaware of any evidence to the contrary.

And if you disagree, please enlighten us to how it makes sense for it to be a bunch of different genes that are linked rather than a bunch of alleles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

I am very sorry but i have to say it as i see it: This is not true and it implies that you do not really understand evolution by natural selection. And also you do not really understand evolution driven by human / artificial selection. The different morphs in the BEL complex are on the same chromosome and they are close to each other or even all at the same place. But they do different things. Its not the same gene. It is just all located at roughly the same place on one chromosome.

---

If they're not affecting the same gene... Can you have a snake that is a super lesser super butter super mojo? If the answer is 'no', then they are affected the same gene, just as with corn snakes and ultra & amel, motley & stripe, and hypo & strawberry.

There is one more piece of evidence that butter and lesser are the exact same mutations. The Daddy's
Platty daddy and butter daddy. Both have been produced, both are the same, both are produced in the exact same way, and neither have been produced using any other member of the bell complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

There is no evidence of any of the morphs in the BEL complex not being the same gene, I mean gene as in the real definition not the laymen way we normally use it. They are all alleles which by definition is a variation of the same gene. The only morphs we know of that appear to be even being remotely close but not alleles are leopard and pied.

---

my definition of gene is something like: a piece of DNA that does something.

and my definition of two genes being the same: the two pieces of DNA are the same, i mean, identical.

i dont see how two pieces of DNA that clearly and consistently do different things could be the same.

these are laymens terms, but am i wrong? if yes, how? DNA is digital information, in the case of binary code they are the same if they are the same, lol, i mean, when two strings of binary are identical they are identical. and with DNA its similar.

What am i missing, what do you mean, how could the definition of gene be different, and how could the definition for "the same" be different?

i really dont get it and would like to know. also im 100% certain that if you sequence snake genomes and pinpoint the location of the BEL genes and sequence some het russos and some lessers, they will have a different sequence of DNA at this place, and the fact that they are in the same place doesnt change the fact that the code just isnt the same.

XYZ is the same as XYZ. and VWX is different to XYZ. now you say VWX and XYZ could be the same. and i get a brain freeze, it doesnt compute, but then i know you are an absolute expert.


EDIT: okay, if you have one gene, and it mutates, lets say just a point mutation, one base pair is off, then its different. because 1234567890 is not identical to 1234467890. and if a diferent snake gets a different mutation, lets say its then 1234667890, that will be different from either of the other two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

my definition of gene is something like: a piece of DNA that does something.

and my definition of two genes being the same: the two pieces of DNA are the same, i mean, identical.

i dont see how two pieces of DNA that clearly and consistently do different things could be the same.

---

Before I answer that, how do you define allele? What you call a gene is what I think most would call a DNA Sequence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

these are laymens terms, but am i wrong? if yes, how? DNA is digital information, in the case of binary code they are the same if they are the same, lol, i mean, when two strings of binary are identical they are identical. and with DNA its similar.

---

This is off topic, DNA is hardly binary, look into epigenetics, there may be the on/off switch but if it is on, there is basically a dial to control how much is expressed.

damn, now i looked it up, and im stunned to realize that unlike any other science, biology actually seems to have botched the definitions of "same" and "different".

they talk about different forms of the same gene.

my blunt response would be: if its necessary, ditch the word "gene" and instead use the word "form". different forms of the same gene with different genetic code and different results, it just blows my mind.

so, in strict biology talk, if one BP has a gene, and a second BP has a mutated, broken version of the gene that does not work, they still both have the same gene, even when the genetic code is clearly different and one is working and the other is not? Yeah a broken ferrari and a working ferrari are both ferraris, but i cannot see how they are the same. one drives, the other doesnt.

and yes, DNA is not binary, its in base 4. but its still digital and copied with very high fidelity across generations. Binary code of ones and zeros, base 4 code of CGAT, base 10 code in the form of the numbers we use, ASCII base 128 code, basically all the same. everything can be perfectly translated into everything else. Epigenetics makes things more complicated but doesnt change the code, for me epigenetics is analogous to a write-protected harddrive in a computer where certain tasks can be active or inactive, different data can be in use or not in use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

damn, now i looked it up, and im stunned to realize that unlike any other science, biology actually seems to have botched the definitions of "same" and "different".

they talk about different forms of the same gene.

my blunt response would be: if its necessary, ditch the word "gene" and instead use the word "form". different forms of the same gene with different genetic code and different results, it just blows my mind.

so, in strict biology talk, if one BP has a gene, and a second BP has a mutated, broken version of the gene that does not work, they still both have the same gene, even when the genetic code is clearly different and one is working and the other is not? Yeah a broken ferrari and a working ferrari are both ferraris, but i cannot see how they are the same. one drives, the other doesnt.

and yes, DNA is not binary, its in base 4. but its still digital and copied with very high fidelity across generations. Binary code of ones and zeros, base 4 code of CGAT, base 10 code in the form of the numbers we use, ASCII base 128 code, basically all the same. everything can be perfectly translated into everything else. Epigenetics makes things more complicated but doesnt change the code, for me epigenetics is analogous to a write-protected harddrive in a computer where certain tasks can be active or inactive, different data can be in use or not in use.

---

form = variation

Gene has it's definition changed as we learn more about genetics, but the way I see it used most is basically a gene sits somewhere on a chromosome, the same gene gets paired up with it on the matching chromosome. They are both the same gene, however can have many different variations. The mutant variations are what we are interested in :)

I guess you could spin it that way :p but I see it more as taking a single bit and changing the 1 to a decimal point number

whats the difference between gene and locus then?

i like analogies, so ill try one.

gene: John Smith lives at west abbey road 11.

different form of the gene: Jack Harkness lives on west abbey road 11. Or Betty Sue or whoever, as long as its west abbey road 11. different forms mean different pieces of code inhabit the place.

Locus: west abbey road 11. and its always the same gene on abbey road 11, it cannot be different. No matter if its Betty Sue or John Smith. Thats just different versions of the gene.

so, logically, like it would be in mathematics, would not "gene" and "locus" be rather identical? The gene and the locus are both, independent of content, defined as: west abbey road 11.

when i apply the thinking im used to from mathematics and logic, there is no difference between "gene" and "locus" anymore. both refer to a place, and what resides at that place is meaningless for both and only affects the allele.

if thats really it then i would conclude:
so there is no BEL gene complex, there just is a BEL locus. In BP breeding, we are not dealing with different genes, but merely different forms of genes. When people list the genetics of a BP they are wrong in their terminology, they are referring to different variants of the same gene, or different pieces of code inhabiting the same locus.

but what would that be other than a shift in linguistics? gene and locus are identical, and different morphs are variants on a gene or on a locus. spider is not a gene, its a variant of the normal gene that normally would be there.

its all very confusing and i dont really see the point.

there are 2 genes at each locus in ball pythons, depending on the animal, could be more. Depending on the variation of those genes, it could be homozygous or heterozygous.

Your street is the locus. Your people are genes. People are not locations, they reside at a location. Betty and Jack are heterozygous. John (Jacks identical twin) and Jack are homozygous.

So if I were to give someone a butter and a lesser, and did not tell them which was which, is there ANY way to PROVE which was which? You can use Any other animals you wish, and any number of breeding cycles.

As I understand it, the answer to that is no, which in my book, makes them the same mutation, just different origins. (2 different people found the same mutation in the wild, and if someone else found these 2 animals parents in the wild first, we would not be having this conversation, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yzguy

So if I were to give someone a butter and a lesser, and did not tell them which was which, is there ANY way to PROVE which was which? You can use Any other animals you wish, and any number of breeding cycles.

As I understand it, the answer to that is no, which in my book, makes them the same mutation, just different origins. (2 different people found the same mutation in the wild, and if someone else found these 2 animals parents in the wild first, we would not be having this conversation, right?)

---

That pretty much sums it up. :)
Until the next time someone asks lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_ladouceur

That pretty much sums it up. :)

---

This thread should be stickied with just that one response from yzguy. If someone doesn't understand that, they never will...:)

Love him,very awesome looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sho220

This thread should be stickied with just that one response from yzguy. If someone doesn't understand that, they never will...:)

---

:clap:

sent from my incubator