Some Woma's we produced

Here are some Woma's we produced this year. They have some cool head patterns. The father of this clutch, who I bought from Sean Bradley, was sold to him as a possible hidden gene carrier from Kevin. I'm not sure if they are normal woma's or hidden gene carriers. Does anyone know if these are normal woma's or not?
I do have an adult female woma that I purchased two years that looks completely different from these.
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_6531.jpg
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_6530.jpg
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_6529.jpg
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_8765.jpg
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_8757.jpg
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_8758.jpg
Here's the adult female woma
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/o...s/IMG_8783.jpg

Nice! I loves me some Womas:)

Aww I love womas! They don't get enough credit!

Definately some good looking woma's :gj:

Awesome lookin Womas!

Rick,
Very nice animals. From what I have seen, and what I believe, I think those are carriers. I also have a Woma from Sean, and believe it to be a carrying Woma. I have seen alot of Seans Womas, and believe he has the special ones. Good luck with the project. I will be doing some cool stuff with my male this year.

Quote:

---

Rick,
Very nice animals. From what I have seen, and what I believe, I think those are carriers. I also have a Woma from Sean, and believe it to be a carrying Woma. I have seen alot of Seans Womas, and believe he has the special ones. Good luck with the project. I will be doing some cool stuff with my male this year.

---

Thanks Tim, I was thinking they might be because they look different from the female I have that I purchased from someone else. I just regret not buying the adult female woma that Sean had available when I bought the male. I think Amir grabbed it before I had the chance. I'm going to try to see if Brian Potter will send the pics to Kevin to have him take a look and see what he says.
I ended up with 2.2 of them and don't want to sell them if they are the carriers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

From what I have seen, and what I believe, I think those are carriers. I also have a Woma from Sean, and believe it to be a carrying Woma. I have seen alot of Seans Womas, and believe he has the special ones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjs73

Thanks Tim, I was thinking they might be because they look different from the female I have that I purchased from someone else.... I ended up with 2.2 of them and don't want to sell them if they are the carriers.

---

It is not really a matter of them being carriers that give them the "different" look. The "Hidden Gene" Woma and the "typical" Woma are, in all likelyhood, two different morphs. Kevin imported two animals on separate occasions that looked similar and he assumed were the same, only later did he figure out they were actually different. The first one he acquired was the one everyone calls a "Hidden Gene" woma and this is sort of a misnomer. The original founder animal did indeed carry a hidden gene, that is why it made SoulSuckers when bred to a Lesser. However, not all offspring from that founding animal would have gotten the "hidden gene" (only 50% chance of passing it on). And, subsequently, any offspring from those offspring would not necessarily have the "hidden gene" and so on and so on and so on...

The "Hidden Gene" womas have a different look from a "typical" woma but that has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the actual "hidden gene", it is because they are different morph (or at the very least different alleles)

Hi,

So can someone tell me how to tell if a woma is the hidden gene variant? :oops:


dr del

To date Kevin released two hidden gene woma animals in the US so if someone didn't buy an animal from me (which I sold two '09 babies this season) or Kevin...they don't have one. The other animal he sold is a female and she may be breeding size this season.

A normal woma has spider color and the typical woma pattern. Here is what a hidden gene woma looks like:

2009 animal
http://photos.imageevent.com/ghirept...009/HGWYBF.jpg

Adult male
http://photos.imageevent.com/ghirept...s/HGW%20__.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

To date Kevin released two hidden gene woma animals in the US so if someone didn't buy an animal from me (which I sold two '09 babies this season) or Kevin...they don't have one. The other animal he sold is a female and she may be breeding size this season.

A normal woma has spider color and the typical woma pattern. Here is what a hidden gene woma looks like:

2009 animal
http://photos.imageevent.com/ghirept...009/HGWYBF.jpg

Adult male
http://photos.imageevent.com/ghirept...s/HGW%20__.jpg

---

Wow, those Womas are crazy! Definately a different look there for sure, whether that is because the presence of the hidden gene or not, I don't know, but you can just look at those and tell something is going on. Very nice!

Give them all to me! I have been looking for a Woma for a long time!

Daniel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

To date Kevin released two hidden gene woma animals in the US so if someone didn't buy an animal from me (which I sold two '09 babies this season) or Kevin...they don't have one. The other animal he sold is a female and she may be breeding size this season.

A normal woma has spider color and the typical woma pattern. Here is what a hidden gene woma looks like:

---

Very intersting Matt. Thanks for the pics.

Thanks for the info and pics Matt. But if Kevin has only sold two hidden gene woma's why was he selling some, for example to Sean Bradley, as possible hidden gene carriers?
Your hidden gene woma's are alot different looking than normal woma's. So there should be no guessing by the look of them as they are obviously different in appearance.

so, i have to ask. is the granite look in your line of womas common to the hidden gene? it is a little bit of a shame that so many of us have possible hidden gene womas if there is such a distinct appearance difference.
i have one of the possible hidden gene womas getting ready to ovulate from a lesser. and it has nothing that resembles the granite influence.

congrats on the incredible snakes you have been producing?
howard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hross

so, i have to ask. is the granite look in your line of womas common to the hidden gene? it is a little bit of a shame that so many of us have possible hidden gene womas if there is such a distinct appearance difference.
i have one of the possible hidden gene womas getting ready to ovulate from a lesser. and it has nothing that resembles the granite influence.

congrats on the incredible snakes you have been producing?
howard

---

I'm sorry but that does not make sense. Either the woma is a gene carrier or it is not. If it is from the gene carrier line from N.E.R.D., then it is a gene carrier, if not then it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

I'm sorry but that does not make sense. Either the woma is a gene carrier or it is not. If it is from the gene carrier line from N.E.R.D., then it is a gene carrier, if not then it is not.

---

Not if they are two different animals.

I guess my explanation above was not clear so let me try again.

There are 2 different morphs that look similar but, as far as is know, are not related.

One of these (call it Type I) had a founder animal that carried the "hidden gene" (which is separate and distinct from the Type I gene and itself passes in a co-dom manner.)

The other (call it Type II) has no affiliation with a hidden gene.

When these 2 different animals were brought in they were thought to be the same and Kevin called them both "Woma Tiger". After breeding them out a bit it became obvious that they were not the same.

Now, the nature of the "hidden gene" was not really known back then. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that, to keep things straight Kevin just started calling the ALL the odd looking ones "hidden gene" Woma to differentiate them from the typical Woma because he still though the 2 original animals were related and that the "hidden gene" caused the tweak in the appearance. It is only with his further work that he has concluded that Type I and Type II are not related but in that time the epithet of "Hidden Gene Woma" had become part of the vernacular.

So, when you think of "Hidden Gene Woma" it needs to be as a name alone and not as some guarantee of genetics. If I had to guess I would say that Kevin is probably trying to come up with a better name so that the distinction between these two distinct morphs will be more clear. But the hurdle of getting the new name to displace the old name could be a real pain.

i am sorry if the fact that two possible distinct morphs called the same thing by the same breeder and marketed as such with possible hidden genes is a little confusing to me.

matt has come out and said the "hidden gene" is a complete different look than the spider like womas that were marketed as potential hidden gene carriers. and his photos look nothing like the spider like womas.

Quote:

---

matt has come out and said the "hidden gene" is a complete different look than the spider like womas that were marketed as potential hidden gene carriers. And his photos look nothing like the spider like womas.

---

I agree. I understand that they are two completely different animals, but they have two different looks to them. So if the one's that Matt posted are the hidden gene woma's, then why was the one I purchased from Sean Bradley, sold to him by Kevin as a possible hidden gene carrier when it and his offspring look nothing like what Matt pictured?

Now are the one's Matt pictured are they the granite woma's, which may be making them look different, or are they just plain woma's.
If they are just woma's without the granite influence then there should be no confusion between the hidden gene woma's (Type 1) and the regular woma's(type 2).

I'm not trying to piss anyone off here. I'm just trying to figure out how you can say it is a possible hidden gene carrier when they look so much different from each other.

Either way I love the head patterns on the one I produced and will end up keeping them anyway.

Hi,

Well the first pic is labled HGWYBF so I assume it is also a yellow belly? That would knock it up a notch.


dr del

Quote:

---

Well the first pic is labled HGWYBF so I assume it is also a yellow belly? That would knock it up a notch.

---

Where do you see the label in the pic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjs73

then why was the one I purchased from Sean Bradley, sold to him by Kevin as a possible hidden gene carrier when it and his offspring look nothing like what Matt pictured?

---

My understanding is that Sean didn't get his from Kevin.

Rick, i am spot on with what you are saying. my reply was to eddie who thought i was crazy. Plain and simple if matt's photos are a true representation of the hiddend gene trait , then nerd really dropped the ball to put it in pc terms.

now i am going to bet that matt's have the yb gene in them and what looks to be a granite marker on the neck. but i do not know of anyone who purchased womas from them or secondary offspring that have produced anything similar to their crosses. i am not mad at anyone here. i think it is crummy that they would be defended in any way for selling offspring from two unrelated lineages under the same name. did this secondary unkown line of nerd woma produce a fatal pearl when the two lines were mated? this is something that has been going on for what ten years, and now they are selling the true ingredients to the cool morphs as the same name but with a different lineage completely. if the first version produced the hidden gene as well it sure has not proven out anywhere else that i know of. i sure hope someone can prove me wrong. honestly i hope i prove myself wrong. I agree how can you sell possible het (for lack of a better word) for anything if they look that different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi,

Well the first pic is labled HGWYBF so I assume it is also a yellow belly? That would knock it up a notch.


dr del

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

http://photos.imageevent.com/ghirept...009/HGWYBF.jpg

---

This picture was posted in another thread and labeled as a HG Woma/YB. Perhaps Matt can clarify?

Hi,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjs73

Where do you see the label in the pic?

---

In the filename of the picture;

http://photos.imageevent.com/ghireptiles/babyballs2009/HGWYBF.jpg


dr del

Hi everybody,

In 2005 I was standing at my table in Daytona and Kevin McCurley walked up and asked me if I had any male Pinstripes with size. I said that I had like 12 males that were decent sized and asked what he was interested in doing. He asked if I'd take a Woma male straight up. I said that was no problem. We conducted our trade as most commercial breeders... He walked back over and tossed me a male Woma and I handed him a male Pinstripe. No deli cups or snake bags involved just an honest trade of snakes between hands. LOL

I'm guessing that Kevin took the Woma off of his own table since I didn't see him retrieve it but I trust that Kevin is above stealing it from someone else for his own trade. We then had a conversation about the hidden gene stuff and Kevin told me to keep an eye on my stuff. I noticed that the animals coming out of my male were very light and colorful compared to others I had seen.

I DID NOT ever claim to have the hidden gene, only that I was told that I should "keep an eye" on the production pertaining to the hidden gene qualities.

I hope this clears the air on my end...

Yup...that's a hidden gene woma/yellow belly and the breeder male is a hidden gene woma/granite/yellow belly.

As far as Kevin selling 'possible' hidden gene animals, that might be something that would have happened in the first few years of breeding them I would guess...but I am just guessing.

Simply put, Kevin originally thought they looked similar enough to be the same type of animal and after breeding them for years figured out that they were two completely different morphs. In the past I have heard people say that they were sold babies as possible hidden gene animals and not one of them could supply any credible evidence supporting this. Usually it boils down to someone wanting to sell a woma and they tell the buyer that Kevin told them it was a possible hidden gene animal. That makes the animal that much more appealing now doesn't it?

Hey Sean,

We were posting at the same time and thanks for clearing that up. I would have Kevin chime in here but at the moment he is upstairs eating dinner with my family (they won't let me eat with them because I am too sloppy ;) ) and he isn't much into the forums anymore. He actually sent Travis an e-mail earlier today explaining the woma thing and I think that he (Travis) did a great job explaining it :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean : EbN

Hi everybody,

In 2005 I was standing at my table in Daytona and Kevin McCurley walked up and asked me if I had any male Pinstripes with size. I said that I had like 12 males that were decent sized and asked what he was interested in doing. He asked if I'd take a Woma male straight up. I said that was no problem. We conducted our trade as most commercial breeders... He walked back over and tossed me a male Woma and I handed him a male Pinstripe. No deli cups or snake bags involved just an honest trade of snakes between hands. LOL

I'm guessing that Kevin took the Woma off of his own table since I didn't see him retrieve it but I trust that Kevin is above stealing it from someone else for his own trade. We then had a conversation about the hidden gene stuff and Kevin told me to keep an eye on my stuff. I noticed that the animals coming out of my male were very light and colorful compared to others I had seen.

I DID NOT ever claim to have the hidden gene, only that I was told that I should "keep an eye" on the production pertaining to the hidden gene qualities.

I hope this clears the air on my end...

---

Thanks for clearing that up Sean! I could have sworn you told me you didn't get yours from him. Guess my age ("old-timers") is showing! :P

I'm not trying to offend anyone here nor am I claiming that Kevin was selling animals as poss hets to try to make more money. All I was trying to do is to see if anyone knew what to look for in a hidden gene woma without anything else added to it. And to see if the one's that I pictured in this thread were normal looking or is there something else to them.

To Matt,Sean and Kevin I apologize if I offended any of you. That was not my intention for starting this thread.I just wanted to post some pics of what I thought were some cool looking woma's.

Hey Rick,

I don't get offended by anything and didn't find anything offensive in any of your posts so no sweat. :gj:

Is it just me, or did the original question not really get answered? Someone posted pictures of a combo morph to try and clarify and all it did was confuse the heck out of me :confused: Does anyone have a picture of a hidden gene woma? Just a hidden gene woma, not a yellowbelly granite hidden gene, or any other combo with a hidden gene. I think that the OP's womas look AWESOME :gj: and when I pick up a woma, that's what I want it to look like.

Quote:

---

Hey Rick,

I don't get offended by anything and didn't find anything offensive in any of your posts so no sweat.
__________________

---

Thanks Matt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsmorphs1

Is it just me, or did the original question not really get answered? Someone posted pictures of a combo morph to try and clarify and all it did was confuse the heck out of me :confused: Does anyone have a picture of a hidden gene woma? Just a hidden gene woma, not a yellowbelly granite hidden gene, or any other combo with a hidden gene. I think that the OP's womas look AWESOME :gj: and when I pick up a woma, that's what I want it to look like.

---

hidden gene woma
http://photos.imageevent.com/ghirept...s2009/HGWM.jpg

Yeah Matt, that's hot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjs73

I'm just trying to figure out how you can say it is a possible hidden gene carrier when they look so much different from each other.

---

Quote:

---

I agree how can you sell possible het (for lack of a better word) for anything if they look that different.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjs73

All I was trying to do is to see if anyone knew what to look for in a hidden gene woma without anything else added to it.

---

The hidden gene is not what gives the Type I is different look. The look of the Type I is just a result of whatever gene is responsible for the morph. I believe that the "hidden" gene in Kevin's founder animal is similar to/the same as the the "hidden" gene in RDRs animals that gives rise to the "Daddy" type animals. This gene is another allele in the BluEL group and is the weakest allele. When present as one copy there is not phenotype but when paired with another BluEL allele (Lesser, Butter, etc) you get a "Daddy" animal. Additionally, homozygous hidden seems to be a silent phenotype (RDR produced on of these in '07). Because the allele is silent when alone there is no way to tell if an animal carries it unless you breed it to another animal carrying a visual BluEL allele. That is when you get the really tweaked pattern/colour animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hross

did this secondary unkown line of nerd woma produce a fatal pearl when the two lines were mated?

---

The Pearl is the fatal super form of the Type I. No one seems to know if they Type II has a super form or not. Again, it was taken for granted in the early days that the two morphs were the same so no one felt inclined to try crossing the Type II animals after Kevin's discovery of the Pearl. If no one has tried it in a couple years I may try a Type II cross. I would also like to see a Type I x Type II cross to determine if the genes behind these morphs are at all related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

As far as Kevin selling 'possible' hidden gene animals, that might be something that would have happened in the first few years of breeding them I would guess...but I am just guessing.

---

I woul dbe inclined to agree with you Matt

Quote:

---

In the past I have heard people say that they were sold babies as possible hidden gene animals and not one of them could supply any credible evidence supporting this. Usually it boils down to someone wanting to sell a woma and they tell the buyer that Kevin told them it was a possible hidden gene animal. That makes the animal that much more appealing now doesn't it?

---

I have seen this happening as well. And most of the pics I have seen in such ads are obvious Type II animals to my eye

Quote:

---

I just wanted to post some pics of what I thought were some cool looking woma's.

---

You did do that and they are very cool looking animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

He actually sent Travis an e-mail earlier today explaining the woma thing and I think that he (Travis) did a great job explaining it :gj:

---

Thanks Matt, I try :salute:

Hi,

So lets see if I can shoehorn this into my thick skull. :oops:

Type I womas are the ones that produce the soulsucker etc and are also known as hidden gene womas but definately have a super form which fails to thrive?

Type II womas are the ones most people will have in their collections and will not produce the whacky combos but no one yet knows if their super form has the same problem?

Or if the super problem also occurs in a type I x type II combo if they prove compatible?

Are the visual differences between the two thinner/ busier pattern and higher white on the type I's when compared to the cleaner lower white on the type II's?

Or is this simply because I have not seen enough of either to fully judge? :oops:


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

The hidden gene is not what gives the Type I is different look. The look of the Type I is just a result of whatever gene is responsible for the morph. I believe that the "hidden" gene in Kevin's founder animal is similar to/the same as the the "hidden" gene in RDRs animals that gives rise to the "Daddy" type animals. This gene is another allele in the BluEL group and is the weakest allele. When present as one copy there is not phenotype but when paired with another BluEL allele (Lesser, Butter, etc) you get a "Daddy" animal. Additionally, homozygous hidden seems to be a silent phenotype (RDR produced on of these in '07). Because the allele is silent when alone there is no way to tell if an animal carries it unless you breed it to another animal carrying a visual BluEL allele. That is when you get the really tweaked pattern/colour animals.



The Pearl is the fatal super form of the Type I. No one seems to know if they Type II has a super form or not. Again, it was taken for granted in the early days that the two morphs were the same so no one felt inclined to try crossing the Type II animals after Kevin's discovery of the Pearl. If no one has tried it in a couple years I may try a Type II cross. I would also like to see a Type I x Type II cross to determine if the genes behind these morphs are at all related.



I woul dbe inclined to agree with you Matt



I have seen this happening as well. And most of the pics I have seen in such ads are obvious Type II animals to my eye



You did do that and they are very cool looking animals.



Thanks Matt, I try :salute:

---

As a brand new owner of a Hidden Gene Woma Yellow Belly (Type I) I thank you for putting all of this information in one place. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Type I womas are the ones that produce the soulsucker etc and are also known as hidden gene womas but definately have a super form which fails to thrive?

---

Close.

The original Type I animal you need to think of as a 2 banger. It has the Type I gene AND carried the "hidden" gene. Now, when Kevin bred his founder animal the "hidden" gene would have 1 in 2 odds of being passed on. Additionally the Type I gene had a 1 in 2 chance of being passed on. So the odds of getting another Type I that also carried the "hidden" gene are 1 in 4. The important message to take home here is that not all Type I animals bred from the founder will necessarily have the "hidden" gene. And, by extension, any Type I subsequently produced from those offspring will not necessarily carry the "hidden" gene.

And yes, the super form of the Type I is lethal (the Pearl)

Quote:

---

Type II womas are the ones most people will have in their collections and will not produce the whacky combos but no one yet knows if their super form has the same problem?

---

This is correct

Quote:

---

Or if the super problem also occurs in a type I x type II combo if they prove compatible?

---

Also correct

Quote:

---

Are the visual differences between the two thinner/ busier pattern and higher white on the type I's when compared to the cleaner lower white on the type II's?

Or is this simply because I have not seen enough of either to fully judge? :oops:

---

Like you I have not seen enough to necessarily make ab absolute assessment on this but, generally it looks as if the Type I is less busy than the Type II. The Type II is very Spider like in pattern and colour, they Type I not so much. The Type I seems to have the thinner/busier pattern you noted but I do not know if I would call them high white, just that the pattern on them is trimmed with more white (high white to me means the "calico" type white patterning that Spiders have.)

Again, that is just my assessment so I could be missing a few things. Matt may be able to call it a bit better if I mis-ID some trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albey

As a brand new owner of a Hidden Gene Woma Yellow Belly (Type I) I thank you for putting all of this information in one place. :gj:

---

No worries Albey.

Say, if yours is a male, maybe in a few years (assuming I am still in the ATL) we can talk about trying a Type I x Type II cross :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

The original Type I animal you need to think of as a 2 banger. It has the Type I gene AND carried the "hidden" gene. Now, when Kevin bred his founder animal the "hidden" gene would have 1 in 2 odds of being passed on. Additionally the Type I gene had a 1 in 2 chance of being passed on. So the odds of getting another Type I that also carried the "hidden" gene are 1 in 4. The important message to take home here is that not all Type I animals bred from the founder will necessarily have the "hidden" gene. And, by extension, any Type I subsequently produced from those offspring will not necessarily carry the "hidden" gene.

---

... So then there should also, theoretically, be some normal BPs out there with the silent "hidden" gene that was originally carried by the Type I double-carrier, correct?

Does that gene still have the same effect by itself, or is the Type I gene also necessary for the neat combos such as the soul-sucker? Is the soul-sucker a triple-combo (Type I x hidden gene x lesser), or just a double (hidden gene x lesser)?

Thanks for posting all of this info; this is clearing up a huge amount of mystery for me regarding the hidden gene "womas" ...

Wow..Talk about confusing. Maybe it's time to rename the "Type II" morph? Even then, it likely wouldn't stop an unscrupulous breeder from selling them as "hidden gene". Welcome to the wonderful world of Ball Pythons where a lot isn't as it appears! Thanks to Matt and Sean for helping to clear this up! Beautiful animals Matt!

"The original Type I animal you need to think of as a 2 banger. It has the Type I gene AND carried the "hidden" gene. Now, when Kevin bred his founder animal the "hidden" gene would have 1 in 2 odds of being passed on. Additionally the Type I gene had a 1 in 2 chance of being passed on. So the odds of getting another Type I that also carried the "hidden" gene are 1 in 4. The important message to take home here is that not all Type I animals bred from the founder will necessarily have the "hidden" gene. And, by extension, any Type I subsequently produced from those offspring will not necessarily carry the "hidden" gene."

The information that I have been given is that the Type 1 phenotype and the "hidden genne" are not produced separately. In other words, if you have the Type 1 phenotype, you have the "hidden gene".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana

... So then there should also, theoretically, be some normal BPs out there with the silent "hidden" gene that was originally carried by the Type I double-carrier, correct?

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Does that gene still have the same effect by itself, or is the Type I gene also necessary for the neat combos such as the soul-sucker?

---

I am not sure I follow the first part of the question... But I will answer it the way I think you are asking it. The Type I gene causes a lot of interesting tricked out patterns when combined with other morphs. If you look at the NERD photo gallery, it was said that all the Woma combos on that page are Type I combos. The "hidden" gene however only really comes in to play when it combines with other alleles in the BluEL complex

Quote:

---

Is the soul-sucker a triple-combo (Type I x hidden gene x lesser), or just a double (hidden gene x lesser)?

---

The SoulSucker is a triple combo of Type I/"hidden"/Lesser. It is easier for me to think of it as a Type I Platinum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis Kirkland

The information that I have been given is that the Type 1 phenotype and the "hidden genne" are not produced separately. In other words, if you have the Type 1 phenotype, you have the "hidden gene".

---

Per my conversations with Matt and with Kevin this is not the case.