A thought on Daddy and Lesser = Butter

[aureptiles]

Hello boys and girls,

We all know lesser vs butter has been debated to death. However, here's something that I haven't seen posted on this topic yet so I want to hear your thoughts on this.

Since Daddy platties has been made with butters (butter daddies), do you feel that this is enough evidence to prove the theory that lessers = butters? Reason for this is because butter possess the hidden gene for Daddy platinum as well, so I feel that this is enough to justify them to be the same thing. Think of butters as "het daddies", so at some point in the beginning, they would have come from the same parent (daddy) as the lessers.

As to why butters look different from lessers, I think it mostly has to do with selective breeding/line breeding. Just like pastel vs lemon pastel.

What do you think? Still think butters are not lessers? what about your thoughts on the two's effect on morphs (for example, any distinctive difference between lesser pastel vs butter pastel)?

[dr del]

Hi,

Just my unedumacated guess on this one.

I don't think the fact you can make butter daddies actually proves anything one way or another since it is a seperate gene mutation that just happens to be on the same location.

It no more makes a butter a lesser than the fact both mix with mojaves to create a BEL makes them a mojave or a Russo het white diamond.

I think it might be possible to make a mojave daddy or a russo daddy ( though that last one might look almost completely normal ).

I'd give up a toe at least to be able to find out what else Ralph has crossed the daddy gene into and see the results. Maybe it has no effect outside of the white gene complex - maybe several people are working with the same underlying gene with different names.

None of these questions or less will be answered next week.


dr del

[loonunit]

Nah--I think it just says that the daddy gene is a BEL allele, and we should expect to see mojave daddies, mocha daddies and phantom daddies in the near future.

I think the only way to conclusively prove butters != lessers is to actually sequence a bunch of ball python genomes, isolate the BEL complex, and find out whether butters and lessers are carrying an identical gene in that location.

[Freakie_frog]

[JLC]

Let's see if I can express my question in a way that makes sense...because it's rather a complicated jumble in my head...

If lessers and/or butters are simply "het for daddy"...then why don't you ever see a "daddy" pop out of a clutch of lesser x lesser or butter x butter or whatever? If it's just a matter of a hidden simple-recessive gene, then statistically speaking you should see "daddies" popping up on occasion without the need to breed back to normal looking siblings.

Of course, my question doesn't answer yours...but yours made mine pop into my head.

[dr del]

Yeah,

That bit drives me nuts too.

I think the given explanation is that, since it is said to be allelic (is that a word? ) then the daddy parent can only either pass the lesser or the daddy gene.

So where did the rumors of simple recessive come in?

To be expressed as a platty/ butter daddy there can only be one copy of it in the animal because the other has to be lesser, butter or whatever.

So any lesser etc that carried it would be a visible daddy.

The only way there could be daddy's from a lesser to lesser breeding would be for it not to be allelic at all but just a combo morph. Er.... I think.

But then I have never seen a homozygous "daddy gene" animal that I know of - it may look identifyably different which would make it a recessive morph in its own right.

Until Ralph needs a toe transplant I will probably never know.


dr del

[twistedtails]

Let's see if I can express my question in a way that makes sense...because it's rather a complicated jumble in my head...

If lessers and/or butters are simply "het for daddy"...then why don't you ever see a "daddy" pop out of a clutch of lesser x lesser or butter x butter or whatever? If it's just a matter of a hidden simple-recessive gene, then statistically speaking you should see "daddies" popping up on occasion without the need to breed back to normal looking siblings.

Of course, my question doesn't answer yours...but yours made mine pop into my head.

Niether the Lesser or the Butter carries the Daddy gene. It is only the sibs in a daddy sired clutch that carry the gene. Ralph said it himself on Reptile Radio a couple weekends ago.

[twistedtails]

So technically speaking the Daddy gene is similar to Crystal or Phantom gene in the fact that it plays out on the BEL location. With exception to the fact that Crystal and Phantom are codoms.

[JLC]

Niether the Lesser or the Butter carries the Daddy gene. It is only the sibs in a daddy sired clutch that carry the gene. Ralph said it himself on Reptile Radio a couple weekends ago.

Right...that's my understanding as well. Just that the OP suggested butters might be "het for daddy" and I figured that might be a common misconception that begged the question I asked.

That'd kind of be like saying "consider pastels to be 'het for bumblebee". Seems more like the daddy is a combo of two dominant genes in which one of them does not create a visible morph by itself. But that may be too simplistic an explanation as well.

[twistedtails]

Right...that's my understanding as well. Just that the OP suggested butters might be "het for daddy" and I figured that might be a common misconception that begged the question I asked.

That'd kind of be like saying "consider pastels to be 'het for bumblebee". Seems more like the daddy is a combo of two dominant genes in which one of them does not create a visible morph by itself. But that may be too simplistic an explanation as well.

Personally, I think we are gonna find after more breeding that Ball Python genes are WAY more complex than we can wrap our heads around.

To the OP, as I stated before, Daddy gene is only carried by the sibs in a Daddy clutch according to Ralph Davis. The Lessers and Butter in those clutches are...Well...Just that, Lessers and Butters.