wanted to share my favorite ball with you guys

Here she is the sweetest , most curious girl i have in my racks. I plan to make a terra for her after she lays.

Guess her morph .

[IMG]http://s18.postimg.org/anfffxn11/mme...8801145177.jpg[/IMG]

any ideas

Nice looking girl!
Normal? Can't really tell on my tiny phone screen lol

I'm to new to pythons and morphs to even begin to hazard a guess, but I did want to chime in to say how beautiful she is.

No she is not a normal , her morph is some what subtle but as i said i love her for her comportement.

From that picture alone I would say normal.
Who did you get her from?
What were you told she was?

this girl is very represnetative of her morph, easy to reckonize for people whom own one. It s not a very uncommon morph give you a little more time to guess before telling you. if i tell you where she is from you will instantly know what she is.

Yellow belly? I just can't tell from this picture lol

It s not a YB nor in the YB complex. i would have post a belly picture. Honestly a side picture may say more about her put this shot should be enough to know what she is. Any way she is not a genetic bomb but in all my balls she is buy far the best pet !!! My friends don t understand why when i arrive the snake room ii open her rack first, before checking for eggs or for my OD fire spider boy which is more stunning in term of colors.

I give up then

i will post more pictures of her tomorrow, i m sure some one here knows.

GHI? The picture is too small.

click on the pictures!!!!:D you will see she is far away from the GHI look

Leopard comes to mind.

I want to know!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Leopard? BBW?

Its Hidden Gene Woma!!
maybe enchii but im sure is one of this!!

none of you is right guys... i don t know how you can see enchi or leopard.....:rolleye2: i will post other pictures in 5 hours.

[IMG]http://s9.postimg.org/qag3ug3e3/mmex...8914352469.jpg[/IMG]

side picture should give you an idea

specter

not a specter, i don t have adult specter but i can post my 700gr girl picture in a few days

Hmm... Fire?

It looks like it's in the BEL complex. Honey?

yes bel complex but not honey

How could u tell its in Bel complex @CHKadii ? I'm just trying to learn more:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been too long out of university to remember my genetics clearly any more. Isn't a 'complex' a family of alleles that produce a certain trait?

A BEL from a mojave x mojave or lesser x lesser or lesser x mojave. Lesser and mojave (phantom, mocha, russo, and what ever I am forgetting) are part of the BEL complex. But correct me if I am wrong, a BEL (blue eyed leucistic) complex isn't a morph just a group of morphs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MARV

How could u tell its in Bel complex @CHKadii ? I'm just trying to learn more:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It's hard to properly explain what to look for. If you do an image search and compare mojaves to mystics and/or butters, take a look at their pattern more so than their colors. A typical part of their pattern includes rosettes along their sides (aka "alien heads" or "doughnuts") that look like molars or upside down guitar picks. They're generally smoother in appearance - not many thin squiggles or hooks coming off of them like with pastels. Sometimes you do see a rosette pattern "drip" up to the spine. When the patterns on each side connect over the back, it kind of looks like a horse's bit. Occassionally the patterns are free floating, like doughnuts, and other times they get thin towards the bottom of the pattern and extend down to the belly.

The holes or negative spaces in the side patterns can range from circles, triangles, hearts, and figure 8's, but the size of the holes is usually pretty consistent to the size of the side pattern, almost like the pattern was drawn on with a thick marker. On cleaner individuals (I see it most often with butters/lessers), the patterns don't have any holes at all.

"Underneath" the patterns, the base color is generally very smooth with blushing more common than defined "flames." some blushes go all the way up to the spine pattern as if the pattern had a dark outline, and others just have some blushing at the bottom of the side patterns.

The colors further define the morphs; mojaves have a green/grey look to them with a yellow spinal stripe. Mystics are typically darker and more of a brown/buckskin coloring. Butters have a creamier tan/yellow look. Specials seem to have bright tan/golden patterns on a brown base. Some BEL type snakes have sort of silvery eyes, but not all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

I have been too long out of university to remember my genetics clearly any more. Isn't a 'complex' a family of alleles that produce a certain trait?

A BEL from a mojave x mojave or lesser x lesser or lesser x mojave. Lesser and mojave (phantom, mocha, russo, and what ever I am forgetting) are part of the BEL complex. But correct me if I am wrong, a BEL (blue eyed leucistic) complex isn't a morph just a group of morphs?

---

That's the gist of it, but I think technically (as far as ball python morphs) it refers to different morphs that have the morph gene sitting on the same locus. I suppose it's where you bring in the "acts like super" definition, because a mojave x butter is very different than a crystal or Mystic potion, as is an ivory from a super stripe. It'd be hard to define what the "certain trait" is for each complex.

Mystic?

@Chkadii really appreciate for your explanation which is so detailed .This definitely would help me as a future reference . I hope I have chance to see more morphs in person to study them better as sometimes it's hard to see the true quality of the animals in photos. I m going to look up for the comparison between the bel complex now:) Ty again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

not a mystic: mystic and phantom are darker than that girl: she is a Het. Russo.
thanks for the guessing game. i loved to shared her pictures and will do more after she lays.

So what you are saying is it is for all outward appearances is a normal? Unless heterozygous has been changed to define something else? I have always thought hets were an animal that appears to be normal but carries a recessive gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

So what you are saying is it is for all outward appearances is a normal? Unless heterozygous has been changed to define something else? I have always thought hets were an animal that appears to be normal but carries a recessive gene.

---

You are correct.

Greg

From what I understand being a het for something can slighter alter the appearance of the "normal" is that right? Like some things you can recognize based on color variations and certain patterns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goddessbaby

From what I understand being a het for something can slighter alter the appearance of the "normal" is that right? Like some things you can recognize based on color variations and certain patterns?

---

That's correct, perhaps a bit of an understatement ;)

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...ruth%203-2.jpg

no Het. russo is not a recessive trait. It was miss label because the super for is a BEL.

That makes sense. It would be so much easier if people would use genetic terms as the terms what they are supposed to be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

That makes sense. It would be so much easier if people would use genetic terms as the terms what they are supposed to be!

---

True.
Just like het red axanthic.
Being a genetics student it confuses me lol

yes, it s more a commercial label like double het. pied / lavender named as het. dreamsicle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

So what you are saying is it is for all outward appearances is a normal? Unless heterozygous has been changed to define something else? I have always thought hets were an animal that appears to be normal but carries a recessive gene.

---

This is not correct. All animals are either heterozygous (het) or homozygous. This refers to wether the gene pair at a locus are the same (homozygous) or different (heterozygous). Recessive, Dominate, Incomplete Dominate, and Codominate refer to the visual expression based on whether or not the animal is homozygous or heterozygous. In the Ball Python trade, those that use the label Codominate are incorrectly using that label, we really only deal with Recessive, Dominate, and Incomplete Dominate.

Recessive is defined as a gene where the heterozygous form looks the same as the wild type and the homozygous form looks different from the wild type (think Piebald, Albino, and Clown as examples).

Dominate is defined as a gene where both the heterozygous and homozygous look different from the wild type and look the same as each other (think Pinstripe, Spider, and Leopard as examples).

Incomplete Dominate is defined as a gene where the heterozygous and homozygous forms look different from the wild type and different from each other (think Mojave, Fire, and Pastel as examples).

It is us, who give labels that confuse things. Het Russo is accurately (genetically speaking) labeled because it has 1 Russo Gene and 1 wild type. We in the Ball Python trade have a habit of naming the heterozygous form of an Incomplete Dominate morph with the morph and the homozygous form with "Super" in front of it. Often the confusion comes in when the heterozygous form of an Incomplete Dominate morph is subtle, and at first, mistaken for the wild type visually, thus named in the same convention that we usually use for Recessive genes. Originally, Specter was called Het Supper Stripe, and Spark was called Het Puma, until people began to recognize the subtle differences between a Specter and a wild type or a Spark and a wild type. At that point, and when they were proved to be part of the Yellowbelly complex by breeding, they were renamed according to the typical pattern in the Ball Python trade. This never happened with Het Red Axanthic, nor Het Russo.

Just trying to help clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goddessbaby

From what I understand being a het for something can slighter alter the appearance of the "normal" is that right? Like some things you can recognize based on color variations and certain patterns?

---

That brings up the trickiness of classifying genes. By strict definition, a recessive gene cannot be identified in the heterozygus form. Also, as we Ball Python keepers have started to be more careful in observing our animals, we are starting to see more subtle traits that we missed early on. I believe what you are referring to are what people will call "markers". The problem is that some animals with markers prove to not be het for the recessive gene, and some animals without markers prove to be het for the recessive gene. The classic example of a marker is the "train tracks" on het Pieds. There are some het Pieds that have thick, black lines on the side of their belly near the last third of the body that look like train tracks and some het Pieds don't. Also, som non-het Pieds have the same "train track" markings. The debate about markers also brings up the question of "Where is the line between a Recessive gene, and a very subtle Incomplete Dominate gene?" Paint is a morph that some believe is so subtle in the het form, that it really should be classified as a Recessive gene, while others are confident in their ability to pick out the Paints from the wild types that they think it should remain classified as an Incomplete Dominate gene. There is not a set and established criteria for how reliably one must be able to pick out a het from a group of wild type animals in order to decide if it is a Recessive gene, or an Incomplete Dominate gene. People often feel that markers are best used for clutches that contain possible het animals, since the markers are not reliable enough to pick out the het animals from a larger group of wild type animals, but can be helpful in comparing animals from the same parents. The bottom line is that markers are not definitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philip451

That's correct, perhaps a bit of an understatement ;)

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...ruth%203-2.jpg

---

Do you think it is the het Genetic Stripe that made your girl turn dark? I think it is Genetic Stripe that she is het for based on this thread http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...7-My-dark-girl. If it is being het for Genetic Stripe that caused your girl to become dark, shouldn't others have had similar experiences with their het Genetic Stripes? Personally, I really like your dark girl, but I doubt it is the het Genetic Stripe that caused her to change colors. I think it will end up being something else that made her look so nice.

Thank you for that class on genetics. It was very helpful. :gj: