Adding "one more morph": A bright future for the BP industry

I recently added a nice vanilla female to my collection, courtesy of Marc Bailey (pictures coming soon). Yes, I did have to pry it from his hands tooth and nail. :) This got me to thinking: What is the marginal gain of adding one more morph to the collection?

Throughout this discussion I won't consider "super forms", so a pastel and a super pastel are lumped together in my counting. Bumblebee and killerbee would also be the same, etc... If someone wants to tackle this one, be my guest! :)

I also won't count normals, once again for ease of discussion.

Say you have one gene (a), then you can at best produce animals with the gene (a).

Now say you have two genes (a,b), then you can produce animals with gene (a), gene (b), and genes (a) & (b).

Keep going...we could write it out like this:

(a) = {a}
(a,b) = {a, b, ab}
(a,b,c) = {a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, abc}
(a,b,c,d) = {a, b, c, d, ab, ac, ad, bc, bd, abc, abd, bcd, abcd}

etc....

The recursion is: morphs(n+1) = 2*morphs(n)+1

We can plug this into Excel to see how fast this grows:

genes / morphs
1.... 1
2.... 3
3.... 7
4.... 15
5.... 31
6.... 63
7.... 127
8.... 255
9.... 511
10... 1023
11... 2047
12... 4095
13... 8191
14... 16383
15... 32767


Adding the vanilla bumped me from 9 to 10 genes, and so increased from 511 combos to 1023. Once again none of this is accounting for super forms so these are all vast underestimates. :)

I think this is one cause of the addictiveness of ball pythons and an indicator of the future strength of the market. The marginal gain from adding one more gene to your collection is a dramatic increase in the number of combo morphs you can produce.

JonV

Very interesting, never thought of this before.

good luck on the odds for getting more than 3 base genes into a single snake ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

good luck on the odds for getting more than 3 base genes into a single snake ;)

---

Wait... that's possible isn't it?

What in the HELL are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Wait... that's possible isn't it?

---

Quad genes are possible







The way that you have that equation set up, you account for 100% odds in your favor. To me that just seems odd......no pun intended.

I think the basis of this is right, but the process is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

What in the HELL are you talking about?

---

replace a, b, c, d with pastel, spider, lesser, mojave, etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Wait... that's possible isn't it?

---

Yes, they are not all on the same allele. Queen bee, bumblebelly, spinner blast, etc....

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Wait... that's possible isn't it?

---

It's possible, but takes either many generations or really good luck, and each additional gene gets less and less likely to happen.

For example..

pastel x normal: 50% chance of each egg being a pastel.

pastel x spider: 25% chance of each egg being a bee

bee x pinstripe: 12.5% chance of each egg being a spinner bee

1 in 16 chance for adding another base morph by mating it to a spinner bee. Goes up by powers of 2 if you mate heterozygous base morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Long

Quad genes are possible







The way that you have that equation set up, you account for 100% odds in your favor. To me that just seems odd......no pun intended.

---

I was just considering "possibilities" with these animals, with no account for the probabilities for each. I can't account for probabilities since that depends on the road you take to each combo.

JonV

I was simply pointing out that while adding a new base morph to your collection may increase the number of possible combos you can produce, multi-combo snakes become harder to produce the more genes you try to hit.

I did not mean to indicate that I thought any of these combos were "likely" starting with single gene, base morphs. I understand that it will take FOREVER to get a quad gene animal when you start considering probabilities given 4 animals each carrying one gene.

For example,

I also bought a killerbee male yesterday, also from Marc Bailey. While this added 0 new genes to my collection, it has just rocketed me years forward in my production of triple/quad gene animals and also eliminated my normal production. Such an animal is not accounted for in this model.

The "speed" of attaining these morphs is not built into this calculation, or else you would see a function of "t" floating around. Rather, I attempted to present a model which represents the dizzying array of possibilities given a new gene into your collection.

JonV

Quote:

---

Adding the vanilla bumped me from 9 to 10 genes, and so increased from 511 combos to 1023. Once again none of this is accounting for super forms so these are all vast underestimates. :)

---

You make it sound easy however what is not accounted for are the YEARS that it take to produce an animal with 4 genes and/or up as well as the number of attempts (odds are not always in your favors)

But good luck with your projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

You make it sound easy however what is not accounted for are the YEARS that it take to produce an animal with 4 genes and/or up as well as the number of attempts (odds are not always in your favors)

But good luck with your projects.

---

Please see above post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

Please see above post.

---

Just saw it and above post was posted in the same time than mine was ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

good luck on the odds for getting more than 3 base genes into a single snake ;)

---

I'll do it next year, thanks! :)

JonV

I think this is an excellent post, although maybe a lot of people are either not understanding or missing the point.

The way I read the original post is not that Jon expects to be producing over 1000 different combos any time soon, just that those possibilities are now open to him. The cool part is he gets to pick and choose which ones he'd rather shoot for.

In fact, with his comments about the future and the addictiveness of BPs, I thought part of his point is that it WILL take a long time. No matter how many possibilities there are, if you can "collect them all" within a short time, it gets boring.

I have 6 genes in my collection, 7 if you count normal, and 8 if you count my phet. But basically I can make "only" 63 combos. That number sounds small compared to Jon's 1000, but I know it will keep me busy for YEARS even if I don't add any new genes into the mix. I think that is a GOOD thing.

Plus we have 4 different corn snake genes, and 2 different phets there.

Yeah, I don't see me losing interest in this hobby any time soon.

Jon, for us mathchallenged, it was a great post, I just do not think that way. So, it was an interesting point.

Dave

I think it was a cool post.You were just showing the genetic potential you had by the addition of a new morph not how likely you are of hitting the odds on these potential morphs.Just goes to show with the genetic variety out there with BP's the potential is nearly limitless!!
Clearly an idication of why BP's can be so Addicting:D

Umm if some of those gened are dominant and some a recessive then you cant get them into the same snake... Im pretty sure

I may be missing the point but what he says makes sense...

He is not saying he is going to produce these or even that it is possible for the majority of us who do not have the breeding stable that BHB has will be able to do this.

He is just saying if you have genes A, B, C it is possible for you to create X # of morphs, not taking into account the feasibility!

Mike

Whatever makes you feel better about dumping a bunch of money into snakes :D Just kidding! Congrats! I believe I saw a pic of it that John posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

I think this is an excellent post, although maybe a lot of people are either not understanding or missing the point.

The way I read the original post is not that Jon expects to be producing over 1000 different combos any time soon, just that those possibilities are now open to him. The cool part is he gets to pick and choose which ones he'd rather shoot for.

In fact, with his comments about the future and the addictiveness of BPs, I thought part of his point is that it WILL take a long time. No matter how many possibilities there are, if you can "collect them all" within a short time, it gets boring.

I have 6 genes in my collection, 7 if you count normal, and 8 if you count my phet. But basically I can make "only" 63 combos. That number sounds small compared to Jon's 1000, but I know it will keep me busy for YEARS even if I don't add any new genes into the mix. I think that is a GOOD thing.

Plus we have 4 different corn snake genes, and 2 different phets there.

Yeah, I don't see me losing interest in this hobby any time soon.

---

Excellent post, that is what I was trying to convey.

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmberBall

Jon, for us mathchallenged, it was a great post, I just do not think that way. So, it was an interesting point.

Dave

---

Thanks David! The yellowbelly is doing great, by the way :)

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isis

Whatever makes you feel better about dumping a bunch of money into snakes :D Just kidding! Congrats! I believe I saw a pic of it that John posted?

---

Hahahaa....yeah, gotta justify it somehow right? :) Lol John was director of photography today, he did a dang good job too.

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hock3ymonk3y

Umm if some of those gened are dominant and some a recessive then you cant get them into the same snake... Im pretty sure

---

are you stating that you cant have both dominant and recessive genes in the same snake? if so, that isn't true. There are codominant genes or dominant genes and recessive genes in the same snake take a look at the following:

albino spider
albino pin
pied spider
pied super cinny (panda pied)
honey bee (ghost/hypomelanisitic, spider)

I'm not entirely convinced that you can get that many combinations. One thing the equation assumes is that you can get 10 or 15 or more genes into one snake. I think that once you get to a certain number of genes the probability of a snake being produced with that many genes drops to a number so low that it is statistically impossible.

So, the question is, how many genes can you reasonably get into one snake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinderbird

are you stating that you cant have both dominant and recessive genes in the same snake? if so, that isn't true. There are codominant genes or dominant genes and recessive genes in the same snake take a look at the following:

albino spider
albino pin
pied spider
pied super cinny (panda pied)
honey bee (ghost/hypomelanisitic, spider)

---

Cinderbird is correct. You can not have more than 2 genes that all lie on the same allele...ie, there is no mojo/butter/lesser.

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainman1000

I'm not entirely convinced that you can get that many combinations. One thing the equation assumes is that you can get 10 or 15 or more genes into one snake. I think that once you get to a certain number of genes the probability of a snake being produced with that many genes drops to a number so low that it is statistically impossible.

So, the question is, how many genes can you reasonably get into one snake?

---

I think in 10 years we'll be surprised by the number of genes in these ball pythons. :)

JonV

I beleive your equation will not work for recessive gene as they need to be Homozygous to be visual. Only Dominate and Co-Dominant will work. :)

Its like an artist...

...the more colors on the palette, the greater the possibilities.

Brandon

PS - That was for all of us non-math, non-genetics majors.

this could never work because if you mixed any of the white snake genes you wouldnt know what you had unless your bred it. since it would wipe out the pattern and color.

plus it would take longer to breed them than the life cycles of the animals. and the changes would be so low that some ppl have taken more than 7 years to get a double recessive so tripple or quad recessive could take more than 20 years itself. not to mention that it would take more than 1 or 2 animals per morph.

I think some folks are completely missing the point of the original post. It's not suggesting that anyone will actually accomplish all those combos. It's illustrating how many combos are possible.

And while I personally may never make a "abcdefg" combo, even if I have all those genes in my collection...I could make a TON of different combos, and have the joy of deciding which ones to try for. While I aim for "acef" ...someone else with a similar collection may be aiming for "bcfg"...and another person may accomplish a "acdfg" combo.

Of course his numbers aren't to be taken as any sort of absolute. He even said there are many other factors to consider that he did not take into his original simple calculation. The point isn't some absolute number of morphs any one person can expect to create in their lifetime...it's to show that even if there are thousands of people out there breeding, any one of us still has a chance to create something unique and have the joy of planning and trying for that something special simply because the possibilities are virtually endless. And the more variety of genes you have in your personal collection, the more possibilities you open up for yourself.

PS -- And anyone doubting the possibilities of more than three genes (or four at the most) ever working out in ball pythons...or that there wouldn't be some neat surprises by making something beyond the common combos should take a close look at NERD's collection. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nixer

this could never work because if you mixed any of the white snake genes you wouldnt know what you had unless your bred it. since it would wipe out the pattern and color.

---

This is an interesting point, and I won't be surprised when we get to the point you have to hold your animals back and breed them to know what's in there. OR you have to arrange your breedings so there is no doubt, ie, super pastel super fire X super cinny super fire, etc... Here all the outcomes are known.

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

I think some folks are completely missing the point of the original post. It's not suggesting that anyone will actually accomplish all those combos. It's illustrating how many combos are possible.

And while I personally may never make a "abcdefg" combo, even if I have all those genes in my collection...I could make a TON of different combos, and have the joy of deciding which ones to try for. While I aim for "acef" ...someone else with a similar collection may be aiming for "bcfg"...and another person may accomplish a "acdfg" combo.

Of course his numbers aren't to be taken as any sort of absolute. He even said there are many other factors to consider that he did not take into his original simple calculation. The point isn't some absolute number of morphs any one person can expect to create in their lifetime...it's to show that even if there are thousands of people out there breeding, any one of us still has a chance to create something unique and have the joy of planning and trying for that something special simply because the possibilities are virtually endless. And the more variety of genes you have in your personal collection, the more possibilities you open up for yourself.

---

Spot on!

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

This is an interesting point, and I won't be surprised when we get to the point you have to hold your animals back and breed them to know what's in there. OR you have to arrange your breedings so there is no doubt, ie, super pastel super fire X super cinny super fire, etc... Here all the outcomes are known.

JonV

---

but even to get the super pastel super fire you would have to breed 2 super pastel fireflys to even begin with or you would have to prove it by breeding that you really had a super pastel super fire.

Hi,

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your example the only one in which you wouldn't need to prove it out by breeding?

Super pastel x super pastel = all super pastels.

Any thing that was a pure white snake would have to be a homozygous pastel homozygous fire.

Or do I need more coffee?

**edit**

I obviously need more coffee as I misread your post. :oops:

Sorry for making the same point you were in a considerably dafter way.

Move along folks no brain dead scotsmen here - these are not the droids you're looking for.

** end edit **

Now any other combination containing both fire and pastel on both sides would have to be presented similarly to poss hets untill the breeding results were statistically large enough to make a reasonably safe guess.

So breeding two fireflys together will give you snakes that can be visually identified and (hopefully) some white snakes.

Those Black Els should be 66% possible for carrying some variant of the pastel gene with 33% of those that do being possible homozygous pastels.

So how would you list those for sale as unproven hatchlings etc?

BlackEls 66% poss het pastel 25% poss Homo pastel?

Now the real tricky one would be a homo pied homo fire lesser. :O


I can see it now;

"what kind of ball python is it?"

"a white one"

"Yeah but what kind of white one?"

"do I look like a geneticist to you? it's a white snake, ya wannit or not?"

:rofl:


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi,

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your example the only one in which you wouldn't need to prove it out by breeding?

Super pastel x super pastel = all super pastels.


dr del

---

Dr Del,

Yes you are correct, this is what I tried to convey with the "or" in my above post. You could hold your animals back and prove them by breeding OR arrange your breedings so that all outcomes are known/easily identifiable.

Sorry if my post was confusing.

JonV

This topic makes me think to hard and hurts my head. :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

PS -- And anyone doubting the possibilities of more than three genes (or four at the most) ever working out in ball pythons...or that there wouldn't be some neat surprises by making something beyond the common combos should take a close look at NERD's collection. ;)

---

Just to add to that, there are already some Quad combos out there. EX: Wannabee pin = Woma, Spider, Pastel, Pinstripe. And just imagine what the inferno consists of.

Hi,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

Dr Del,

Yes you are correct, this is what I tried to convey with the "or" in my above post. You could hold your animals back and prove them by breeding OR arrange your breedings so that all outcomes are known/easily identifiable.

Sorry if my post was confusing.

JonV

---

No, your post was fine - I'm just an idiot. :rolleyes:


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Now any other combination containing both fire and pastel on both sides would have to be presented similarly to poss hits untill the breeding results were statistically large enough to make a reasonably safe guess.

So breeding two fireflys together will give you snakes that can be visually identified and (hopefully) some white snakes.

Those Black Els should be 66% possible for carrying some variant of the pastel gene with 33% of those that do being possible homozygous pastels.

So how would you list those for sale as unproven hatchlings etc?

BlackEls 66% poss het pastel 25% poss Homo pastel?

---

which was why i said it would have to be 2 super pastel fires bred together before you could say 100% it had pastel in it.
super pastel fire pairings
all of the babies should be super pastels and if you had a white snake in there it should also be super pastel also.
correct?

either way it would be a hard sell, but it would be a nice thing from a breeders standpoint because every snake would be a firefly if crossed with a normal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nixer

this could never work because if you mixed any of the white snake genes you wouldnt know what you had unless your bred it. since it would wipe out the pattern and color.

plus it would take longer to breed them than the life cycles of the animals. and the changes would be so low that some ppl have taken more than 7 years to get a double recessive so tripple or quad recessive could take more than 20 years itself. not to mention that it would take more than 1 or 2 animals per morph.

---

Another good point.

I totally understand what the OP was getting at, but what wasn't taken into account was the ability to identify all of the different genes in an animal.

ok im off to take a handful of asprin :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainman1000

I'm not entirely convinced that you can get that many combinations. One thing the equation assumes is that you can get 10 or 15 or more genes into one snake. I think that once you get to a certain number of genes the probability of a snake being produced with that many genes drops to a number so low that it is statistically impossible.

So, the question is, how many genes can you reasonably get into one snake?

---

It has nothing to do with reasonableness....

It is a what if, situation not hey guys look what I am going to do....

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N4S

This topic makes me think to hard and hurts my head. :rolleye2:

---

It's the struggle that counts! :)

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brainman1000

Another good point.

I totally understand what the OP was getting at, but what wasn't taken into account was the ability to identify all of the different genes in an animal.

---

Agreed!

JonV

There is actually a more effective equation to use that I learned in statistics years ago. The basic concept is taking a sample and figuring out the number of combinations of a given set out of that selection. The example was how many different poker hands are possible with a single deck of cards. The sample there is 52 unique cards and a 5 card set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoax

It has nothing to do with reasonableness....

It is a what if, situation not hey guys look what I am going to do....

Mike

---

Hypothetically speaking anything is possible. The problem with that is that the odds of certain things happening are so low that they are practically impossible. It would be nice to get a snake that has 15 different base morph genes in it, but I really dont think it is realistically possible to achieve that.

Now, if you are talking about the OP, reasonableness is not a factor. If you look at the subject, then reasonableness is key.