Single gene, double gene, triple gene...

[BPHERP]

Single gene, double gene, triple gene, etc...

...these are fine and wonderful, but what happens when we get far enough along that 'quad', 'quint' and 'sext' gene morphs become hard to identify?

I guess my point is this; will there come a time where its anyones guess, or that we can only partially identify an animal, but there will be open debate on certain animals making them a wrench in the gears of this hobby/business?

Just a thought.

PS - I hope I got these correct - 'quad', 'quint' and 'sext'

[Tyler_Royality]

very soon, I think we will possibly see stuff like " BEL - mojave lesser possible pastel " unless infact... that pastel gene will do something to the BEL

[stevepoppers]

Man, these triple visuals look so messy! I honestly don't like them. The base morphs are so much simpler and clear, and you can tell what they are! (mostly) There are already a lot of debated morphs (cinny/black pastel), and they aren't gumming up the industry/hobby, though they annoy the heck out of me.

Another problem with such combos is the odds. They get so ridiculously low. Once again, it would annoy me, but I'm sure plenty of people would absolutely love playing the tough odds. Because when you do hit it, it could be big. Really big. Or just feel good.

[RhacHead]

I believe its already happened. I mean there's genes like the BEL that mask other genes that animal is carrying but sometimes there are so many genes in play its hard to tell.Last summer Kara with NERD posted a snake that was believed to have as many as 5 or even 6 genes.It looked so diffrent that they needed to breed it just to discover what it was carrying. I'm pretty sure that was the case does anyone recall this thread?

[RandyRemington]

It's a classic glass half full. Sure the odds of hitting the ultimate combo are low but when you are working with that many genes the odds of normal go way down too.

I can't wait to work with quad het recessives. People could already be making them (snow X hypo stripe or hypo pied) but I think most are scared of the 1 in 256 odds per egg of making the quad visual. But there is only an 81 in 256 chance of each egg being normal. For the 2/3 of the clutch that is at least one visual morph you would have a huge variety. If I'm figuring right I think there are 24 possible morph combos.

With the dominant type morphs it's even better odds. Say you breed a bumblebee to a fire pinstripe, the 1/16 odds of producing the combo of all 4 is the same as your odds of producing a normal. And once you produce the fire + pastel + spider + pinstripe you get the same odds breeding it to normals.

But I do understand that some of the combos might not look so good and will be hard to id. I've got my first double (pastel yellow belly) and it might actually be a triple with chocolate to boot but not sure how the chocolate will look with yellow belly. But even if the chocolate will not be very noticeable in that combo I'd love to have it from a breeding standpoint (I like the pastel super chocolate a lot, and have no idea what if anything yellow belly would do to a super chocolate).

[rabernet]

I believe its already happened. I mean there's genes like the BEL that mask other genes that animal is carrying but sometimes there are so many genes in play its hard to tell.Last summer Kara with NERD posted a snake that was believed to have as many as 5 or even 6 genes.It looked so diffrent that they needed to breed it just to discover what it was carrying. I'm pretty sure that was the case does anyone recall this thread?

Kevin has several combos that are 4 or more genes.

I personally love their combo's.

Yes, at some point, the animal would need to be bred to a normal or a Recessive animal to find out what the "ingredients" are.

[Serpent_Nirvana]

This might seem off-topic but it's not, honestly ...

I wonder if in the future, the desirability of a snake will be based more on its actual appearance than the genes it carries.

For example, I hate the pewterbees (cinnamon spider pastel). I realize that it's a powerhouse in terms of genetics and what it can produce, but I just plain don't like the way they look. I think that, to a casual observer, a really great, bright, clean pastel looks nicer than even a good-quality pewterbee. (Again, purely my opinion -- apologies if they're your favorite morph!)

I've heard more than a few people say that in their opinion, the best way to gauge the "staying power" of a morph -- how desirable it will be in a few years -- is to show a bucket of morphs to a non-snake-person and have them pick out the prettiest one. By that test, I'll bet lots of bumblebees would make the grade ... But I don't know how many average people are going to pick the patternless ball python, for example. (Or maybe that's just me -- patternless is another morph I'm not too fond of )

So, the point I'm trying to make that IS relevant to this thread (wow, there was one!) is that I think in the future if a combo looks so "muddy" that you can't even tell what's in it, and it looks like crap, I don't know how much the potential 4-5-6 genes will affect the value. Maybe it'll still be super sought-after as a genetic powerhouse, etc., etc., but then again maybe it'll just be an ugly snake.

On the other hand, I think the ones with 4-5-6 genes that look outrageously awesome (like, say, some of those ones that NERD has kicking around ... ) will continue to be worth a fortune because not only are they difficult to produce and genetically powerful, but they're really really nice to look at.

So basically, YES, I absolutely do think that we're going to start seeing more and more "mystery balls" as time goes by ... But I think that increasingly, their value will be based more and more on their individual appearance, and slightly less so on their genetic potential. (Slightly. Ball python people do love their genes ... )