Different names...same snake?

Is a black pastel and a cinnamon pastel them same thing? I have read that they both produce pewters (and someone said 'produced black pewters')

I know there are several other morphs that are like this, have different names depending on the breeders....but I can't think of them at the moment. I'm trying to compile a list of what makes what designer morph, and if anyone can remember any of these other names, it would be helpful! ^_^

Hm....so scratch that compileing of the morphs....

http://ballpython.110mb.com/wiki/ind...ategory:Morphs

Already been done :P I figured it had but I couldn't find it, so I thought I would just make my own. Anyways, I'm still confued about the cinnamon/black pastel and what not. ^_^

check this out: http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=41039. :)

only ones I can think of are cinnamon/black and lesser/butter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mricyfire

only ones I can think of are cinnamon/black and lesser/butter

---

lesser/butter is NOT the same snake... butters are more yellow.

umm a black and cinnamon are not the same snake :oops: and when bred to other morphs they look even more different

not same snake...but same gentics

Ah, that other thread helped alot. I'm not going to mess with compileing everything, but it does help to sort it out. Thanks!! ^_^

I think Hypo and Ghosts are the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong

I'd consider lessers / butters and cinnamons / blacks to be the same thing. Who cares if one has more yellow than the other, or if one super is more black than the other? That doesn't make them different morphs. They still share the same genetics.

That's like saying a Graziana pastel is a different morph than a NERD pastel because one is typically brighter than the other, or the other typically has more blushing. Cinnamons and blacks both make the "black" patternless, and lessers / butters still make platinums and solid white leucistics. They're pretty much just different lines of the same morph. Now, if one of them ends up making a morph that can not be reproduced by the other version of it, then that would make them different morphs, but that has yet to happen with either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaun J

I think Hypo and Ghosts are the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong

---

Yes, hypos and ghosts are the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Cinnamons and blacks both make the "black" patternless, and lessers / butters still make platinums and solid white leucistics.

---

Lessers and butters may make blue eyed leucys but neither make platinums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPenn

Lessers and butters may make blue eyed leucys but neither make platinums.

---

I believe if you take the offspring of butters or lessers and breed them back to the parents than you can get platinums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPenn

Lessers and butters may make blue eyed leucys but neither make platinums.

---

There are mmore, but had no time to dig further.

Clutch 44
Clutch 51
Clutch 8
Clutch 5
Clutch 16
Clutch 17

I think cinny's and balck pastels are different morphs. The pewters look different. I do think the Lessers/Butters are the same thing. I have seen quite a few of both and I own a Lesser. I just don't see the "more yellow" that many people talk about with the butters. I certainly would not pay any more for a butter than I would for a lesser but that is just my slightly biased opinion.

This is my female that I am hoping will make me a white snake next season.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...1/DSCN0329.jpg

Beautiful Lesser, how much does he weigh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaun J

Beautiful Lesser, how much does he weigh?

---

She is around 1200g now. She has slowed down on feeding but I think I should be able to get a couple hundred more grams on her before next season.

Good luck and remember to post pictures :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I think cinny's and balck pastels are different morphs. The pewters look different.

---

Once again, you can't make a judgement on whether or not they are different genes just because they have different phenotypes. Enchi Pastels and Graziani Pastels make Bees that look different.

Realize that different alleles can have dramatic implications on the "look" of an animal, and the more diluted that allele becomes (by other genetic morphs) the more extreme the variation can become.

Cinnys and Blacks have different alleles, but they are not different morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Once again, you can't make a judgement on whether or not they are different genes just because they have different phenotypes. Enchi Pastels and Graziani Pastels make Bees that look different.

Realize that different alleles can have dramatic implications on the "look" of an animal, and the more diluted that allele becomes (by other genetic morphs) the more extreme the variation can become.

Cinnys and Blacks have different alleles, but they are not different morphs.

---

I don't think enchi's are pastels at all. I think they are a totally different morph. I also don't think you can state your theories as facts when there is absolutely no way to prove them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedDevil

There are mmore, but had no time to dig further.

Clutch 44
Clutch 51
Clutch 8
Clutch 5
Clutch 16
Clutch 17

---

Ok. But this is being bred back to a platty daddy and not a butter. I understood it as breeding a butter to a lesser. My bad.

for the last time people cinnys and blacks are not the same snake when there mixed with other morphs they look totally different, not to mention cinnys and blacks dont look anything alike either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUPERBALLS

for the last time people cinnys and blacks are not the same snake when there mixed with other morphs they look totally different, not to mention cinnys and blacks dont look anything alike either

---

Quote:

---

They are visually different and genetically the same.

---

This can be found in Adam's post http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=41039

Both Black Pastel & Cinnys produce a Super (Black Patternless BP) both produce Pewters and Silver Bullets.

Black Pastels produce Silver streak
Cinnys Produce Sterling Pastel

How visually different?

This is a Black Pastel

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p..._M1_0507_1.jpg

I am sure someone will post a Pic of a Cinny for comparison

Yeah, they look a bit different, and so do their crosses, but hardly enough for me to say they are different morphs.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/...6513f8a7_o.jpg

I know, the picture sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I don't think enchi's are pastels at all. I think they are a totally different morph. I also don't think you can state your theories as facts when there is absolutely no way to prove them.

---

Your right, there's no way to prove it. OH WAIT... except for that one time, that one guy produced a super from breeding a Black x Cinny... :rolleyes:

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...8&postcount=16

Once again... simply because they "look different" doesn't mean they are. Blacks and Cinny's are the same exact morph, just different alleles. As are the different Pastel lines. Look at the incredible difference between a Lemon and Graziani? The Lemon's are high contrast, high yellow, little blushing. Graziani's are low contrast, more brown and high blushing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Your right, there's no way to prove it. OH WAIT... except for that one time, that one guy produced a super from breeding a Black x Cinny... :rolleyes:

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...8&postcount=16

Once again... simply because they "look different" doesn't mean they are. Blacks and Cinny's are the same exact morph, just different alleles. As are the different Pastel lines. Look at the incredible difference between a Lemon and Graziani? The Lemon's are high contrast, high yellow, little blushing. Graziani's are low contrast, more brown and high blushing.

---

Cinny's and blackbacks are obviously compatable. There have been plenty of people that have produced a cinny x black super, but they do produce different phenotypes when bred and isn't that really what matters most in this hobby? I consider that a different morph, but we may just be arguing about terminology.

Do you consider Mohave's to be "the same exact morph" as lessers?

Since you mentioned the Enchi's, how many supers pastels have been produced by breeding an enchi to any of the standard pastel lines??? Do you think Enchi's are "the same exact morph" as all of the standard pastel lines?

I don't believe their is any difference at all between any of the standard pastel lines. They all come from W/C pastels that someone attached thier name to. They all produce relatively the same supers/crosses. I think the differences that can sometimes be seen between the lines are all the result of selective breeding and not them being different alleles. But these are just my opinions and I am certainly no geneticist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

Cinny's and blackbacks are obviously compatable. There have been plenty of people that have produced a cinny x black super, but they do produce different phenotypes when bred and isn't that really what matters most in this hobby? I consider that a different morph, but we may just be arguing about terminology.

---

Now their just "compatible". No offense, but your argument is suddenly changing. I fully qualified what I meant, and you argued until I posted an example. The genetics of a Black and Cinny are nearly identical, in both phenotype and genotype. The only difference is relatively subtle... they both have a single gene, at one loci, that both have abnormal alleles.

If you want to argue different phenotypes mean completely different morphs fine... but the fact that we refer to the Pastel as "lines" (Graziani line, Bell line) suggests the practice you are preaching isn't widely accepted within the industry.

Quote:

---

Do you consider Mohave's to be "the same exact morph" as lessers?

---

They have the exact same characteristics I mentioned above. They are the same morph, with different phenotypes.

Quote:

---

Since you mentioned the Enchi's, how many supers pastels have been produced by breeding an enchi to any of the standard pastel lines??? Do you think Enchi's are "the same exact morph" as all of the standard pastel lines?

---

The Enchi's are a hunch... I could be wrong on them, but I'm willing to bet someone produces a Super from a Enchi/Lemon crossing. The difference between you and I, is if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it instead of covering all the bases.

Quote:

---

I don't believe their is any difference at all between any of the standard pastel lines. They all come from W/C pastels that someone attached thier name to. They all produce relatively the same supers/crosses. I think the differences that can sometimes be seen between the lines are all the result of selective breeding and not them being different alleles. But these are just my opinions and I am certainly no geneticist.

---

And any geneticist would disagree with you wholeheartedly. First of all the absuridity of that merits ignoring it altogether. While there are some "new lines" that people bring in, that are quite likely share the same alleles as one of the major lines, the differences between the major lines are by no means subtle. A Lemon and Graziani have more contrasted phenotypes than a Black and Cinny, yet you claim the former is "selective breeding" and the latter is "different morphs".

It seems to me your "opinions" differ drastically from accepted beliefs in the ball python industry, and genetics and biology. Given that, you are more than welcome to believe whatever you want... it's a free country :D. If you want to claim that Boa's and Ball's are the same snake, hey you can do that too. Just realize, when you do, you'll probably be called on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA_Ball_Pythons

How visually different?

This is a Black Pastel

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p..._M1_0507_1.jpg

I am sure someone will post a Pic of a Cinny for comparison

---

Here's a cinny:

http://www.superiorserpents.com/PubPics/CM02s1.jpg

I have known Cinny's and Black have been compatable for quite some time. It is not something you just taught me. I just don't believe that just because they are compatable they should be considered the same morph. Same goes for the Mohave and lesser.

My beliefs on standard pastels may be different from most. I could buy 5 different CH pastels next season. Should I name each of those a different line pastels? Where the naming of the pastel comes in, to me anyway, is when the gene from the W.C founder is refined (selectively bred) by the breeder to produce the desired look of the animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I have known Cinny's and Black have been compatable for quite some time. It is not something you just taught me. I just don't believe that just because they are compatable they should be considered the same morph. Same goes for the Mohave and lesser.

---

Well, I can only go based on what I see. You never once qualified your claim... you said they were different morphs, without any indication you realized that it was the exact same gene at work.

The term "compatible" is used throughout the industry to compare different bloodlines. For example, the different lines of Pastels are compatible. The different lines of Axanthics aren't compatible. For you to say they are compatible but aren't the same morph is akin to saying they are smart but not intelligent. It simply doesn't make any sense.

Outside of the industry the term "compatible" has a LOT of different meanings, especially in microbiology and genetics. My argument is simple: your distinction would confuse most newcomers, and really, it's a confusing distinction to me.

Quote:

---

My beliefs on standard pastels may be different from most. I could buy 5 different CH pastels next season. Should I name each of those a different line pastels? Where the naming of the pastel comes in, to me anyway, is when the gene from the W.C founder is refined (selectively bred) by the breeder to produce the desired look of the animal.

---

Okay... I'll bite. Your understanding of selective breeding has a thorn here. There are literally thousands of CBB Pastels, bred to a wide variety of normals. Yet, the phenotype contrasts between the Lemon and Graziani (have to use these two... they are my favs :D) are extraordinary.

If you were correct, we'd see a wide variety of Grazi's that look identical to Lemons. We don't.

It seems to me you're trying to reinvent the wheel all over the place. You are reinventing terms for blood lines, reinventing genetics for blood lines... it's just kind of silly. Instead of making these huge assumptions, why don't you test them? Buy a very pretty lemon, and a very pretty graziani.

Then over the next 3 or 4 years, breed them to similar looking normals. If your "theory" is correct, over 3 or 4 years the offspring from each should look more and more alike. They won't... but if you are going to theorize at least do so with some semi-scientific testing, instead of hypothosizing by the seat of your pants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

but if you are going to theorize at least do so with some semi-scientific testing, instead of hypothosizing by the seat of your pants.

---

Um, what kind of scientific testing are you using to form your Hypothosis? You seem to feel your opinion has been proven to be fact when I don't see that as the case. Are you a geneticist? I would love to see some of the research you have done. No one even knows what genes are responsible for all of the various morphs out there, but I am supposed to take the word of a 26 year old as absolute truth???

I do actually believe you could make a lemon look more like a graziani and vice versa through selective breeding. Have you done the experiment you proposed to me to prove they won't become more similar in appearance as you stated or are you just "hypothosizing by the seat of your pants"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

Um, what kind of scientific testing are you using to form your Hypothosis? You seem to feel your opinion has been proven to be fact when I don't see that as the case. Are you a geneticist? I would love to see some of the research you have done. No one even knows what genes are responsible for all of the various morphs out there, but I am supposed to take the word of a 26 year old as absolute truth???

---

I'm not going to argue with you anymore on the issue... whether your 9 or 900. You seem to think you know something the rest of the industry doesn't. I'm okay with that, you won't be the last one. But before you go blasting my "hypothesis" on Pastels, you may take a moment to think about it. I'm only repeating knowledge bestowed by folks who know a great deal more about genetics than either of us... you, my friend, are the one that seems to think he's qualified to make determinations completely in the face of available knowledge.

But rest assured, if you start spreading such "theories" on this forum, or any other, you need to expect to be called out on it. If Ad hominem attacks are going to be your defense to everything... well than, I'm assuming you won't be around long ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

I'm not going to argue with you anymore on the issue... whether your 9 or 900. You seem to think you know something the rest of the industry doesn't. I'm okay with that, you won't be the last one. But before you go blasting my "hypothesis" on Pastels, you may take a moment to think about it. I'm only repeating knowledge bestowed by folks who know a great deal more about genetics than either of us... you, my friend, are the one that seems to think he's qualified to make determinations completely in the face of available knowledge.

But rest assured, if you start spreading such "theories" on this forum, or any other, you need to expect to be called out on it. If Ad hominem attacks are going to be your defense to everything... well than, I'm assuming you won't be around long ;).

---

How exactly did I attack you? I am saying I don't agree with your theories, and you don't agree with mine. Where is the attacking? Saying that I will not take the word of a 26 year old as absolute truth is not an attack it is common sense. You said "I'm only repeating knowledge bestowed by folks who know a great deal more about genetics than either of us". I don't know of one BP breeder that is a geneticist and I don't think any ball python breeder would claim to understand everything about BP genetics (aside from you assuming you are actually a BP breeder). The difference between you and I is that I stated in many threads that these were my opinions. You on the other hand seem to believe your unproven theories are facts and become condecending towards people who don't agree with you.

But rest assured, I will be around as long as I choose to be. Or at least until you become a MOD. :)

The correct terminality for multiple mutant allele groups is something I'm interested in. It doesn't help that even among geneticists terminology seems to vary from group to group. Then you throw in our snake terms like "morph" and "super" and it gets even more confusing.

I've certainly not done the experiments but at this point I'm thinking it's fairly safe to say that lesser and mojave are examples of distinctly different alleles of the same gene. Not only do they pass the compatibility test but so far all the results of breeding the cross animals I've heard of (like MKR's mojave X lesser males to normals) have produced the two parent types and no normals or combos.

Also, in spite of a fair amount of outbreeding the two lines and their combos and supers seem to be remaining distinct. That's not to say that the darkest lesser and the brightest mojave will always be distinguishable but they do seem to have their own ranges.

So if mojave and lesser are different mutations of the same gene does that qualify them as different "morphs"? What does the word morph mean? If it just refers to a distinctly different appearance and doesn't imply any particular degree of genetic separation (like being a different gene locus) then perhaps mojave and lesser classify as different morphs.

Regardless of the terminology I think some of the other examples from this thread are going to be harder to sort out.

The enchi X regular pastel for example. Just because the combo may produce a "super" (another vague term) looking animal doesn't mean they are compatible. When I first saw the pewter produced by jungle pastel X cinnamon pastel I thought that indicated some sort of compatibility. But later breedings have produced animals with more than two copies of the two combined proving that pastel and cinnamon are separate genes and likely not even on the same chromosome. One quick test for the enchi X regular pastel will be what it produces bred to a normal. If there are any normals then enchi and regular pastel are not the same gene and probably on different chromosomes.

As far as the different pastel lines, do they really maintain difference in appearance through outbreeding? Why is there so much controversy as to who is selling legitimate lemons if they always look different than non lemons? I think at this point we can be confident that the regular pastels (i.e. non enchi and non cinnamon pastel) are the same gene but if there are actually different mutations of that gene (a multiple mutant allele group) I don't know. The differences in the lines could still be selective breeding to add other genes to enhance appearance. It would indeed be a hard one to put to the test. Same for black vs. cinnamon pastel.

Quote:

---

So if mojave and lesser are different mutations of the same gene does that qualify them as different "morphs"? What does the word morph mean? If it just refers to a distinctly different appearance and doesn't imply any particular degree of genetic separation (like being a different gene locus) then perhaps mojave and lesser classify as different morphs.

---

That depends. The industry itself has determined how it wants to use the word "morph", and that differs from both genetics and zoology. The problem with this theory of making phenotypes determine whether they are different morphs, is that we haven't been doing that to this point. A Ghost is a Ghost whether it's orange or blue. An Axanthic is an Axanthic whether it's a TSK or VPI.

But a Butter and a Lesser are "different". Why? Because a few people want it that way? You can't make distinctions part of the time, and not make them others. If a Butter and Lesser are "different" why isn't a Butter x Butter Lucy different? Why isn't a Lesser x Butter Lucy a different morph? Or Butter x Lesser...

Am I alone or does anyone else see the absurdity in that?

Quote:

---

The enchi X regular pastel for example. Just because the combo may produce a "super" (another vague term) looking animal doesn't mean they are compatible.

---

No it isn't. "Super" is used to describe the homozygous form of a co-dominant morph. How is that vague?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

You on the other hand seem to believe your unproven theories are facts and become condecending towards people who don't agree with you.

---

Not condescending, I simply corrected something you said. You came back and said "I knew that, but they are still different." Honestly it was a rather silly argument. The only "theory" I gave was that Enchi's is simply another Pastel line. And I even admitted that's a hunch. However, you've made a wide-variety of claims that completely counter accepted theories within the industry.

Most discuss the Theory of Gravity as fact too... is that a problem for you? I've said from the beginning that I believe your theories are wrong. If that hurt your feeling, my apologies. But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories. So, don't expect I'll be the only one to call you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

That depends. The industry itself has determined how it wants to use the word "morph", and that differs from both genetics and zoology. The problem with this theory of making phenotypes determine whether they are different morphs, is that we haven't been doing that to this point. A Ghost is a Ghost whether it's orange or blue. An Axanthic is an Axanthic whether it's a TSK or VPI.

But a Butter and a Lesser are "different". Why? Because a few people want it that way? You can't make distinctions part of the time, and not make them others. If a Butter and Lesser are "different" why isn't a Butter x Butter Lucy different? Why isn't a Lesser x Butter Lucy a different morph? Or Butter x Lesser...

Am I alone or does anyone else see the absurdity in that?



No it isn't. "Super" is used to describe the homozygous form of a co-dominant morph. How is that vague?



Not condescending, I simply corrected something you said. You came back and said "I knew that, but they are still different." Honestly it was a rather silly argument. The only "theory" I gave was that Enchi's is simply another Pastel line. And I even admitted that's a hunch. However, you've made a wide-variety of claims that completely counter accepted theories within the industry.

Most discuss the Theory of Gravity as fact too... is that a problem for you? I've said from the beginning that I believe your theories are wrong. If that hurt your feeling, my apologies. But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories. So, don't expect I'll be the only one to call you out.

---

I said in the begining that I believed Butters and lessers were the exact same thing. It is Mohaves and lessers/butters that I said were different. My feelings are not hurt. What I consider condescending is your repeated use of "once agian..." and :rolleyes: . I really don't think my theories "fly in the face of commonly accepted theories". There are many people out there that believe the Cinny's and Blacks are different, as well as many that think all of the lines of pastels are the same. I read a post from Graziani last year either on KS or Graziani's web site in which he said that he selectively breed's his pastels to try to produce higher blushing. So I did not just make up the selective breeding thing. If he can breed to produce more blushing why is is "absurd" to think he could breed them to produce less blushing or higher yellow? But we are never going to agree on any of this so continuing this argument is pretty pointless.

Since you brought it up, I also think VPI "axanthics" and TSK "axanthics" are totally different morphs since they are not compatable in any way. I am a little surprised you don't feel this way as well based on you previous compatability arguments? What makes you think they are the same other then phenotypes? As we all know from your other posts you can not make genetic determinations based on phenotypes. I don't think they are the same gene or alleles but that is an argument for another day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Most discuss the Theory of Gravity as fact too... is that a problem for you? I've said from the beginning that I believe your theories are wrong. If that hurt your feeling, my apologies. But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories. So, don't expect I'll be the only one to call you out.

---

BTW, I think there may have been just a little more SCIENTIFIC research done to prove the theory of gravity then there has been on Ball python genetics. I am sorry if I don't accept a few herpers theories/guesses a scientific fact. I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

That depends. The industry itself has determined how it wants to use the word "morph", and that differs from both genetics and zoology. The problem with this theory of making phenotypes determine whether they are different morphs, is that we haven't been doing that to this point. A Ghost is a Ghost whether it's orange or blue. An Axanthic is an Axanthic whether it's a TSK or VPI.

But a Butter and a Lesser are "different". Why? Because a few people want it that way? You can't make distinctions part of the time, and not make them others. If a Butter and Lesser are "different" why isn't a Butter x Butter Lucy different? Why isn't a Lesser x Butter Lucy a different morph? Or Butter x Lesser...

---

What I'm asking and still not sure on is how the industry currently defines "morph". I'm not following your argument on this. All the slight phenotype variations of ghosts are the same morph because they are compatible? Yet the incompatible axanthic lines are the same morph because they look similar? If a morph is just a group of similar phenotypes then are butter and lesser the same morph or a distinction made part of the time? Where do you draw the line as to if two animals are the same morph or not?

1. Some phenotype similarities?
2. Genetically compatible?
3. No consistent phenotype differences in lines?

The axanthics only meet #1, is an SK line axanthic and a VPI line axanthic the same morph?

The ghosts (with the possible exception of some of the newer lines) also meet #2. Are you saying the different color phases of ghosts are the same or different morphs?

Not sure if butter/lesser or cinnamon/black pastel meet #3. If the do, should each pair be considered the same morph or is morph a forth level of grouping, “whatever the market decides”?

I've not even gotten to the point of suggesting where I think the line should be drawn on the definition of "morph", I'm just trying to figure out if there is any consensus (and I'm suspecting not) as to where it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

However, you've made a wide-variety of claims that completely counter accepted theories within the industry.
...
But anyone should accept responsibility if they choose to provide "theories" that fly in the face of commonly accepted theories.

---

Ours is a very young industry. There aren't a lot of widely accepted theories and I would argue that even if something is accepted in this industry that doesn't hold much weight. We should be questioning what we think we know and discussing it all the time. There is lots yet to be agreed on and probably lots to be corrected. I think trying to move back in line with definitions from older disciplines would be a good start. For example, ball python breeders seem to have developed their own definition of “het” that is narrower than the established use in genetics in general. Should we accept the status quo or hope to improve our industry by avoiding mis-educating the newbies into the established industry usage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

No it isn't. "Super" is used to describe the homozygous form of a co-dominant morph. How is that vague?

---

It's less vague if you limit it to co-dominant morphs. Usages like "the super spider looks just like the regular spider" would then be incorrect as that statement would imply that the spider mutation is completely dominant (not co-dominant) to normal and would be using super as a synonym for homozygous. But again, I'm not sure there is an industry consensus to your definition of "super" even though it sounds good to me.

So, are you going to wait to label the unique ball(s) recently produced by enchi X regular (I think it was some sort of lemon) pastel as a super until it can be proved that it's homozygous for a mutation of a single gene? If enchi and regular pastel are separate genes the combo could still stand out but when bred to a normal could produce some normals and some combos mixed in with the two types. But if the combo bred to normals only produces large numbers of enchi's or lemons with no normals and no combos that would only indicate that the two "morphs" are at least linked by being on the same chromosome and quite possibly the same gene. If the evidence by that time supports them being different versions of the same gene (both lines consistently produce different looks through lots of outbreeding) I don't think the combo would technically be homozygous (as two DIFFERENT mutant alleles) so it could not still be called a super within your definition.

By the way, is there a name for combos of two mutant alleles (like the lesser X mojave leucistics) if it's not super? It’s an important concept that’s new to the ball python community, not a combination of unrelated mutant genes (like pewter) but not homozygous for a single mutation of the common gene (like a super pastel).

None of the three of are going to set an industry-wide definition for the word "morph" and all that encompasses. But I'm going to bring up a point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I think cinny's and balck pastels are different morphs. The pewters look different.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

I don't think enchi's are pastels at all. I think they are a totally different morph.

---

Let's assume Enchi's are an entirely different gene for a moment. The above is what I took issue with. Cinnys and Black's are morphs whose abnormal genes occur at the same loci, but are simply different versions of it. According to the assumption, Enchies and Pastels have entirely different genes at work.

If they are all four "different morphs" how do we differentiate between the circumstances? The industry has used specific terms to describe relationships since it was necessary to do so. Now, I'm going to ignore the hypothesis that Pastels are all the same alleles and it's a matter of "selective breeding." Namely, because the term itself implies that the breeding was done with intent, and each of the lines were brought in as WC's.

Back to my point, if you want to argue different alleles at the same loci should still be considered "different morphs" than the discussion of breeding lines is moot. The fact that we still use them (albeit, with less enthusiasm these days it seems) suggests that the industry itself has decided different alleles at the same loci are "Lines", while alleles at different loci are "Morphs". I'm not inventing anything here... the big boys made these determinations in the 90s with Pastels.

If you all want to reinvent definitions, I'm okay with that. Really I am. None of us here has the clout to define anything in this industry, so it's really moot. But, referring back to my Cinny/Black and Pastel/Enchi example above, pfan said effectively the same thing about both pairs. Cinnys and Blacks are different. Pastels and Enchis are different. However, he qualified that much latter, and only after he was shown a Super Black/Cinny. And than, a moment later, said Lessers and Butters were the same, but Lessers and Mojaves are different.

Sorry, but I call that the most non-descriptive naming convention I've ever heard. I'll be honest, I have no idea what the heck "different" is supposed to mean, given that his examples cover a wide-variety of differences in both genotype AND phenotype.

So a few comments on direct quotes:

Quote:

---

What makes you think they are the same other then phenotypes? As we all know from your other posts you can not make genetic determinations based on phenotypes.

---

Two reasons. First of all, I'm a little confused as to what part of my posts indicate you can't make any determination of genetics based on phenotypes. Can you make a scientific evaluation? No. Can you make an educated guess? Sure. If anything, it's your posts that suggest genetic determinations can be made by the seat of your pants, based on nothing more than conjecture, as I've clearly pointed out in previous comments.

And incompatibility doesn't mean different loci, it simply means incompatibility. Genetics has a wide variety of examples of animals that are complementary (same loci, different alleles producing all wild-type offspring). Furthermore, from my reading, it would be an extremely rare for 1 phenotype to be produced from 2 different alleles, on two different loci. I think there's a potential possibility that there are 2 different genes at work, perhaps on the same chromosome, which may explain the incompatibility, however, I usually succumb to Occam's Razor here.

Why make assumptions when we simply don't know? And given that there are two identical phenotypes, the easiest assumption is that the alleles are incompatible with one another. At least, IMHO, that is the hypothesis that requires the least assumption.

Quote:

---

BTW, I think there may have been just a little more SCIENTIFIC research done to prove the theory of gravity then there has been on Ball python genetics. I am sorry if I don't accept a few herpers theories/guesses a scientific fact.

---

You are exactly right. That being said, those "herpers" you are speaking of have more experience than you, me and Randy combined. So your age not being a factor, I'm not going to swallow the theories of some anonymous someone on a forum somewhere, when they contrast with the theories of a great deal of people, that have a great deal more experience and more importantly, their reputations on the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

All the slight phenotype variations of ghosts are the same morph because they are compatible? Yet the incompatible axanthic lines are the same morph because they look similar?

---

You are oversimplifying. The Axanthics are, and will remain, a big unknown. Since they are incompatible, in reality, all we can do is assume. IMHO, it requires a great deal more assumption to determine Axanthics have different genetics entirely, but identical phenotypes, than it does to assume they are incompatible alleles. In the same characterization that we assume an animal is dominant, unless we can breed them together producing a homozygous animal with a different phenotype than it's heterozygous counter-part. Which is why Spiders are referred to as Dominant, they appear to be homozygous fatal, so we just can't know.

Again, unless someone wants to fund the Ball Python Genome Project, we have to rely on a little assumption. However, the assumptions addressed by most major breeders are widely accepted practices among geneticists and biologists. And, most importantly, they conform to scientific principles such as Occam's Razor.

Quote:

---

By the way, is there a name for combos of two mutant alleles (like the lesser X mojave leucistics) if it's not super?

---

Well, as you said that's a relatively new frontier for the industry. Perhaps Super would be picked up, although I hope not, as I think that would lead to the same type of confusion as the "same/different" argument pfan made earlier. But again, I don't have clout in the industry, and as such, the decision is going to be made without my input, and for the sake of clarity among the industry as a whole, I'll conform to it.

That was long-winded :P.

After reading this I must say...if any of you are interested in the Noble Prize then discover the story between Ball Pythons variations...will be a life long journey, but your name will go down in history. Just as Mendel did with peas and flowers.

if they look different and there offspring is different then there differnt,:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

And incompatibility doesn't mean different loci, it simply means incompatibility. Genetics has a wide variety of examples of animals that are complementary (same loci, different alleles producing all wild-type offspring). Furthermore, from my reading, it would be an extremely rare for 1 phenotype to be produced from 2 different alleles, on two different loci. I think there's a potential possibility that there are 2 different genes at work, perhaps on the same chromosome, which may explain the incompatibility, however, I usually succumb to Occam's Razor here.

.

---

This is a long thread....I'll need to read through it more throughly when I have the time. But the bickering almost makes teaching the summer school kids I am dealing with right now see like a walk in the park......lol

If two recessive phenotypes are incompatible, i.e., that is they complement to restore the normal phenotype then we know they are of two different gene loci. This is the classic complementation test. If they fail to complement then they are the same gene. You have your stuff backwards jhall. Do a search on here of complementation. And we really don't need molecular genetics to confirm that......do that enough times get the same results and it is scientific evidence. Remember all scientific knowledge is tentative at best.

As far as morph....I think it should be used to describe any phenotype that looks different and is heritable in a predictable pattern. Morph= Morphological

Even if two different phenotypes result from alleles of the same gene, then I have no problem with a black pastel being a seperate morph from a cinnamon pastel. White clover plants have a set of alleles that control the number of leaves. All the alleles are of the same gene loci and form what is called an allelic series. Many of the genotypic combination produce a unique number of leaves. Each one is a different phenotype. I realize that this is much more clear cut than a black pastel and cinnamon phenotypically, but i trust the Hunter's guide people, the Nerds, the 8balls--ie. the experts on the look and feel of ball pythons when they say a black is different than a cinnamon. I simply haven't develop the eye that they have when it comes to distinguishing between certain morphs.

If we did actually prove out using molecular genetics (since that's what it would take to convince most people apparently) a spider with a homozygous dominant genotype SS, would we name this a seperate morph? No.....because it does not look different.

Morph means heritable phenotype different from normal pattern and color ball python. The heritability should be simple to predict in a somewhat simple Mendelian-like fashion. That simple.

Superpastels are a different morph than a pastel because they are visually different than the line of pastel they came from. Most superpastels of any line are brighter than the the regular pastels. This is why super should be a phenotypic term and not a genotypic term.

Finally, Selective breeding to lighter, better looking normals is going to make any pastel line look brighter over time because it selects for the best modifier genes. So a well-established line that is continually outcrossed to normal is probably going to lose much of its brightness. Look at it this way selective breeding is not going to increase the rate of mutation to make the lemon pastel allele an allele that codes for a brighter yellow. Instead selective breeding will select genes that allow that yellow to shine through better.

There might be some true mutational differences between the lemon allele at the pastel locus and granzi allele at that same locus that makes them look somewhat different. But you would notice this almost off the bat without much selective breeding. With enough mixing of cinnamons and black pastel perhaps we will discover that nature did its own selective breeding and that most of the difference is due to modifier genes in their respective lines. But as long as we keeping getting animals that can be distinguished as cinnamons (Cc) and black pastels (Bb) from a crossing a cinnamon black pastel (CB) to a normal then they should be classified as a separate morph.

Oh and remember there were a lot of genetics done before 1953. Breeding experiment do give scientific evidence. Maybe not as technological sophisctaed but it is scientific evidence in every sense of the term.

Hope my :2cent: helped.

Quote:

---

but i trust the Hunter's guide people, the Nerds, the 8balls--ie. the experts on the look and feel of ball pythons when they say a black is different than a cinnamon. I simply haven't develop the eye that they have when it comes to distinguishing between certain morphs.

---

It's been a long exhausting day so I'm going to have to catch up on this thread tomorrow. I take issue with the claim that any of them have said the Blacks and Cinnys are different. Do they have different phenotypes? Yes, that is clearly visible. But the are the same in that the genes being affected to create said phenotypes are at the same loci.

Which has been the thrust of my argument. When I hear "they are different morphs", it indicates there is a substantial genetic variation. You'll notice, before the Cinnys and Blacks were crossed, the folks who thought breeding them would produce a double heterozygous cinny/black called them "different morphs." And now, we in fact know they are complimentary but they are still "different morphs." My argument, is using such vague terms to describe morphs will only confuse the issue more. Albino's and Mojave's are different. Grazi's and Lemons are different.

Had pfan simply qualified what he meant by different, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:

---

As far as morph....I think it should be used to describe any phenotype that looks different and is heritable in a predictable pattern.

---

Well, clearly there's a lot of differing opinions on what should and shouldn't be a morph. You describe the genetic definition, why not use the Zoologoical definition and call any abnormal behavior a morph? A spinning Spider completely different than a non-Spinner? I'm trying to classify what I think the "industry" defines a morph as. While my interpretation may be wrong, that's how I see it.

And your definition is interesting, but I question whether is adequate. Using your definition, predictable selective breeding would qualify as its own morph. Look at the reduced Clown... that's very predictable. By that definition, assuming the hypothesis that Pastels lines are actually selective breeding of the same genotype, it would be appropriate to call each line a different "morph".

I have no idea. I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep and I think I'm going to let this continue without my input until I have a chance to read it over again on a decent amount of sleep. Perhaps that's what is clouding my understanding a bit as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

If you all want to reinvent definitions, I'm okay with that. Really I am. None of us here has the clout to define anything in this industry, so it's really moot. But, referring back to my Cinny/Black and Pastel/Enchi example above, pfan said effectively the same thing about both pairs. Cinnys and Blacks are different. Pastels and Enchis are different. However, he qualified that much latter, and only after he was shown a Super Black/Cinny. And than, a moment later, said Lessers and Butters were the same, but Lessers and Mojaves are different.
:P.

---

I actually said I thoughtbButters and lessers were the same in my original post. I did not bring up mohaves because I assumed everyone already considered them different morphs. And do you really think I did not know cinny x black can produce a super? BHB has been doing it routinely for a few years now. If I remember correctly I think I even saw one at his table in Daytona last year. I just don't think that makes them the same exact morph. Compatible yes, the same no. Just as I don't believe the mohave is the same morph as a lesser even though they are compatible and make a somewhat similar super compared to a lesser x lesser super. Again, we may just mainly be arguing about terminology(the use of the word morph).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

Well, clearly there's a lot of differing opinions on what should and shouldn't be a morph. You describe the genetic definition, why not use the Zoologoical definition and call any abnormal behavior a morph? A spinning Spider completely different than a non-Spinner? I'm trying to classify what I think the "industry" defines a morph as. While my interpretation may be wrong, that's how I see it.

---

They all spin...Some not as bad as others but they are all a little off. Ask any of the big breeders. But I understand the point you are trying to make with the example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

They all spin...Some not as bad as others but they are all a little off. Ask any of the big breeders. But I understand the point you are trying to make with the example.

---

Now there's a YouTube Herp video I'd like to see.......I'd like to see this Spider Morph "Spinning" and the different severities of it.

Hi Mendel,


If you check out this post here Allison re-shares the video she made of "loopy".

While he is a normal patterned Bp the behaviour is the same and apparently his is quite severe but there are even worse examples.

If you look at the rest of the thread I put links to the previous threads made about loopy which should give you some of the background.


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Now there's a YouTube Herp video I'd like to see.......I'd like to see this Spider Morph "Spinning" and the different severities of it.

---

It's not a video but check out this thread...
http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/fo...?TOPIC_ID=9716
Page 8 has some crazy pics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi Mendel,


If you check out this post here Allison re-shares the video she made of "loopy".

While he is a normal patterned Bp the behaviour is the same and apparently his is quite severe but there are even worse examples.

If you look at the rest of the thread I put links to the previous threads made about loopy which should give you some of the background.


dr del

---

Del thanks for providing this link.....it nice to see what "spinning" was firsthand.:colbert2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfan151

It's not a video but check out this thread...
http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/fo...?TOPIC_ID=9716
Page 8 has some crazy pics

---

I was never able to access that site....registered and never got a password.:(