now im not 100% sure anymore.

of course on the internet you can find articles supporting both theories But to me, one of them seems more consistent than the others.


by the way, the two pictures are nice, but they dont disprove my post. If you breed normal-looking male offspring that has a male or female visible coral glow parent, you can hit these results by breeding to a CG female. such a male + coral glow female will result in: 25% male CG, 25% male het, 25% female CG, 25% normal female.

It would be evidence against my explanation, if there is documentation on the males involved proving that they cannot carry the CG gene because they have no CG in their anchestry. Without such data, or if the males come from other pairings involving CG, it doesnt conflict at all with my post.

i suspect some people just intuitively hold back nice males from CG pairings even if they dont visually show CG, and then get these quite normal and straightforward and nice results when breeding these to different CG females. Or they quite openly take the grandparents of the breeder male into account. And im quite sure that overall breedings involving banana/coral glow produce 50% males 50% females, "weird sex ratios" is referring to what you get visually. Clutches you dont need to sex because all females are visible CGs but none of the males will be seem to happen often enough. My proposed explanation, the one i believe in unless shown to be wrong, explains it all quite nicely, and makes it predictable, but constructs involving grandparents and intuition can also get you far enough. For example the guy running NERD regularly rejects explanations and comes up with his own explanations or just intuitively does the pairings and with that he is still cutting-edge, and they also work with CG/banana. They initially had trouble hitting male CG but by now figured it out, and initially charged higher for male CGs.

they sell a bunch of males right now: http://newenglandreptile.com/cart/32-coral-glows?