Different lines compatible?

I was looking at some of Brian's BPs at the White Plains show yesterday and someone asked a question about whether the snake he was holding was "compatible" with snakes from another "line."

I'm not a breeder but I am curious. Are there compatability issues with certain lines or morphs and what are they?

Thanks.
JohnNJ

There are compatability issues with some of the Anxanthic lines and well as some hypo lines. My head is too foggy to remember which lines tho...

There are a few yes, some lines of hypo don't gel with other lines, some axanthic lines are not compatible (TSK and VPI for example) off the top of my head that's about all I can think of. It's certainly never a problem with things like albino, pied, clown and Genetic stripe.


For example if you had two incompatible lines of axanthic (both still axanthic, both genetically reproducable) and bred them together you'd get double-het normals..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mason

For example if you had two incompatible lines of axanthic (both still axanthic, both genetically reproducable) and bred them together you'd get double-het normals..

---

So some lines, when bred to an incompatible line, do not produce what they normally should. Does that carry down to the offspring?

Are these issues documented somewhere?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

So some lines, when bred to an incompatible line, do not produce what they normally should. Does that carry down to the offspring?

Are these issues documented somewhere?

Thanks.

---

There are basically different genes that produce the same, or similar, phenotypes, or appearances. In the example of VPI and TSK axanthics, they are both called axanthics, but in reality they are as different as spiders and pinstripes, or Enchi pastels and vanillas. It gets confusing because they get named as soon as they are proven to have a certain appearance, but before they are proven compatible. So even though they end up being called a new line of a certain mutation, they are different morphs with different genetics.

Most lines of most mutations are compatible, but there are a few lines of a few mutations that are not the same. Most hypo, or ghost, lines are compatible, but there are a couple of recessive mutations that produce a similar phenotype that were given the name xx hypo, but they were proven to not be the same genetics at play, so they are not really hypos in the original sense of the name, just like Enchi pastels are not really pastels in the true sense of the name.

I know butterscotch and orange ghost hypos are compatible with each other, but blue ghosts and green ghosts are not compatible with anything but themselves.

The TSK and VPI Axanthic non compatibility is pretty common knowledge but I'm not sure if anyone has documented their breeding efforts on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spaniard

I know butterscotch and orange ghost hypos are compatible with each other, but blue ghosts and green ghosts are not compatible with anything but themselves.

The TSK and VPI Axanthic non compatibility is pretty common knowledge but I'm not sure if anyone has documented their breeding efforts on it.

---

This is a little off topic, but it seems counter productive, or bad marketing to name an incompatible, and different mutation altogether, a different line of an existing morph. If a buyer is looking for a recessive animal that will clean up a project, they have to go with a hypo or ghost. But since most hypos are compatible, and blue and greens are only compatible with themselves, most people will go with compatible lines to be safe. But if the incompatible lines were given different names altogether, like a spirit ball or something, that would offer an entire new morph option, and more people would probably decide to go with the rarer spirit ball than to decide on an incompatible line of the hypo phenotype. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

This is a little off topic, but it seems counter productive, or bad marketing to name an incompatible, and different mutation altogether, a different line of an existing morph. If a buyer is looking for a recessive animal that will clean up a project, they have to go with a hypo or ghost. But since most hypos are compatible, and blue and greens are only compatible with themselves, most people will go with compatible lines to be safe. But if the incompatible lines were given different names altogether, like a spirit ball or something, that would offer an entire new morph option, and more people would probably decide to go with the rarer spirit ball than to decide on an incompatible line of the hypo phenotype. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.

---

that would mean (sticking with the VPI/TSK axanthic thing) that when they both proved (phenotypically) to produce the same look (an axanthic appearing animal) both breeders should ahve tested their compatibility with each other to prove they were the same genotypically speaking then argued over who gets to call thier axanthic and who doesn't.


It just means there are multiple "lack yellow pigment" switches in ball pythons. both are phenotypically axanthic (just as green ghosts are phenotypically hypo). no line has more right to use the word "axanthic" than the other. Buyer beware, do your research, know what you're buying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mason

Buyer beware, do your research, know what you're buying.

---

Other than asking experienced people here, where would you do research on which lines are not compatible?

Ask the breeder you are considering buying from, they should know what is compatible and what isn't with the traits they are working with. You could try giving a call to the bigger breeders who work with them as well, most tend to be very helpful even if you are not buying from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mason

that would mean (sticking with the VPI/TSK axanthic thing) that when they both proved (phenotypically) to produce the same look (an axanthic appearing animal) both breeders should ahve tested their compatibility with each other to prove they were the same genotypically speaking then argued over who gets to call thier axanthic and who doesn't.


It just means there are multiple "lack yellow pigment" switches in ball pythons. both are phenotypically axanthic (just as green ghosts are phenotypically hypo). no line has more right to use the word "axanthic" than the other. Buyer beware, do your research, know what you're buying.

---

People who prove a new morph can name it whatever they want. In the case of axanthics, it might make sense to name it axanthic, preferable axanthic-A, axanthic-B, etc., so it's obvious that they aren't compatible. Then If a new line proves compatible with one of the other lines call it Bob Hope line axanthic-B or something. But it would still make just as much sense to give them completely different names. Sure both end up producing animals with a hypo-xanthic phenotype, but that doesn't mean you have to call it an axanthic when there is already a morph called axanthic that obviously has a different genotype than the new one.

But with hypos, it makes almost no sense to name a new recessive mutation that isn't compatible with the actual hypo lines a hypo. That makes as much sense as calling a vanilla a Gulf Coast line pastel. GC could have named them that if they wanted to. They are both co-doms that produce similar phenotypes, but that would have been terrible marketing, as well as being confusing.

I agree with you that people need to do their research when buying any morph, or starting any project. I just think this hobby gets confusing enough without people naming a new mutation the same thing as an existing mutation, when it isn't compatible with the existing morph. And I also think that it's just bad marketing. You are basically taking a new morph and throwing it into a market that already has a steady supply, that people are already invested in. So the prices will drop faster, along with the rest of the lines of the mutation, and anyone who is already invested in the mutation will never buy an animal of the same name if it isn't compatible with what they already have. But if it had a different name and was marketed as a completely different morph, which they are, people wouldn't even think about the morphs being compatible with what they have. I want to get a vanilla. But if I thought of them as incompatible GC line pastels, I'm not sure I would be interested in them. I have Bell, Graziani and VPI line pastels already. Why would I want another pastel line that isn't compatible with the investments I already made? This is 10x more important when dealing with recessive morphs. Obviously the reality is that I will produce the same phenotypes and combos no matter what the name was, but the name is important in these cases for a lot of people when buying and selling these animals.

i do have to agree,i am alling my green ghost project "emerald project"simply because its not compatible,so easier to explain.Now,heres my question,if i breed a het butterscotch,to a het orange,which ghost will come out,or will be a mix of the 2?,and if its a mix of the 2,and i breed it to a yellow,will i have a butterscotch ghost with yellows and oranges in it liek a tye dye shirt?,lol,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RebelYell83

i do have to agree,i am alling my green ghost project "emerald project"simply because its not compatible,so easier to explain.Now,heres my question,if i breed a het butterscotch,to a het orange,which ghost will come out,or will be a mix of the 2?,and if its a mix of the 2,and i breed it to a yellow,will i have a butterscotch ghost with yellows and oranges in it liek a tye dye shirt?,lol,

---

Since orange and butterscotch are compatible, it would be similar breeding a lemon pastel with a graziani pastel, the resulting supers would just be called super pastels and are no longer part of a specific line. Breeding a butterscotch to a orange ghost would result in a non line specific ghost. if a buyer wanted to know the line you would just have to explain that it is the result of crossing the lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

This is a little off topic, but it seems counter productive, or bad marketing to name an incompatible, and different mutation altogether, a different line of an existing morph. If a buyer is looking for a recessive animal that will clean up a project, they have to go with a hypo or ghost. But since most hypos are compatible, and blue and greens are only compatible with themselves, most people will go with compatible lines to be safe. But if the incompatible lines were given different names altogether, like a spirit ball or something, that would offer an entire new morph option, and more people would probably decide to go with the rarer spirit ball than to decide on an incompatible line of the hypo phenotype. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.

---

I agree, if I discovered a new morph that looked similar to something else, but was not compatible, I would give it a whole new name. Not only does this avoid confusion, but it protects the value of the new morph(as you stated).

I'll have to disagree with Jake on this one. Since noone has actually done any chemical testing in these animals to find out exactly what causes certain mutations, we can only go by appearance, and definitions of phenotype in other species. I guess what I am saying, is I think it would be even more confusing if Michael Joliff, Snakekeeper, and VPI all had diffenert names for the same mutation (Axanthics). We assume by the apparent lack of xanthrophores, that they aare the same, but they are not compatible. However, chemically, we believe the same thing is occuring in these snakes. The same rule could apply to Kahl and Sharp line Albino Boas. There isn't too much argument out there that both lines are forms of Albinism, but they just aren't compatible.

I guess, I think that it has been handled correctly, and people just need to do a little more research when buying a morph that has incompatible lines. Also, I think the guys that really care about preserving certain lines pay very close attention to tracking their bloodlines, and marketing there snakes to represent exactly what they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

I'll have to disagree with Jake on this one. Since noone has actually done any chemical testing in these animals to find out exactly what causes certain mutations, we can only go by appearance, and definitions of phenotype in other species. I guess what I am saying, is I think it would be even more confusing if Michael Joliff, Snakekeeper, and VPI all had diffenert names for the same mutation (Axanthics). We assume by the apparent lack of xanthrophores, that they aare the same, but they are not compatible. However, chemically, we believe the same thing is occuring in these snakes. The same rule could apply to Kahl and Sharp line Albino Boas. There isn't too much argument out there that both lines are forms of Albinism, but they just aren't compatible.

I guess, I think that it has been handled correctly, and people just need to do a little more research when buying a morph that has incompatible lines. Also, I think the guys that really care about preserving certain lines pay very close attention to tracking their bloodlines, and marketing there snakes to represent exactly what they are.

---

I agree that it was probably the right move with axanthics, although not absolutely necessary. You have a great point about all the different non-compatible lines of albinos. I know it's the same situation with leopard geckos. I do kind of have a problem with the entire use of the name axanthic, though, since even the best examples brown out a little with age. There is some xanthrophoric action going on in the current lines. I would have liked to seen them names hypoxanthics, just in case anyone ever proves out a truly axanthic ball. Kind of like if T+ albinos were discovered before T- albinos and were given the name amelanistic. Please correct me if that is wrong. I still think it's bad marketing with the incompatible lines of hypo, for the reasons I stated. Even if they end up being different alleles for the same gene, I still would have given them different names if they were my projects. Like all the BEL complex animals were. I don't work with hypos or axanthics, so it doesn't really bother me. Just thinking out loud here.

Jake,
I believe that Axanthics brown out due to the presence of small amounts of eurythriphores (sp?)(red pigment), and not actually from the xanthrophores. Although we haven't truly seen an Anerythristic Ball Python yet, I believe that there are red pigments at work in these animals.

At this point, it is just a bunch of opinions, but I do always like these types of discussions. Thanks for making me put my thinking cap on for awhile.

LOL, I just figured out Python Wallace is named Jake too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

Jake,
I believe that Axanthics brown out due to the presence of small amounts of eurythriphores (sp?)(red pigment), and not actually from the xanthrophores. Although we haven't truly seen an Anerythristic Ball Python yet, I believe that there are red pigments at work in these animals.

At this point, it is just a bunch of opinions, but I do always like these types of discussions. Thanks for making me put my thinking cap on for awhile.

---

That could be. It certainly seems like erythriphores exist to some degree in ball pythons. While some of what we see with the oranges might be explained by hyperxanthism, it would make just as much sense that there is some red at play. I think the presence of red pigment would explain a lot of the colors we see in a lot of ball pythons. I'd like to see this proven one way or the other.