# in the begining.........



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

..........which is exactly where I am in trying to crack this genetics thing. I was wondering what you would get if you crossed two Normal/Wild Type Corns, lets say a Carolina and a Miami, to each other. I assume you would get 50% of one and 50% of the other. Is this correct?

What would the Punnet Square look like?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Nope.

"Miami" is a locality phase, not a single recessive. Think of it like a poodle.
"Carolina/Normal/Wildtype" is also a locality phase, not a single recessive. Think of it like a Border Collie.

Cross a poodle to a border collie and you won't get ANY babies that look completely Poodle OR completely Border Collie. You'll get babies that look like something in between. You'd have to breed a lot of generations of the most "poodle-like" and selecting only ones that look MORE like a poodle in each generation to get anything close to what you had (or breeding the most poodle-like to actual poodles)... 

Cross a Miami to a Normal, and you'll get "normal" babies - i.e. not strongly Miami phase, though they might be a little greyer than your typical brown/orange normal is. It'd take a lot of generations of breeding the most "Miami-like" of your offspring to each other or to strongly marked Miamis to get anything like the Miami you started with.

The punnet square wouldn't be "doable" because Miami and Normal are just variations of the same genetic makeup - they're both just genetically Not-Amel-or-Ultra, Not-Anery, Not-Charcoal, Not-Cinder, Not-Lavender, Not-Caramel, Not-Lava, Not-Hypo, Not-Sunkissed, Not-Dilute, Not-Motley-or-Stripe, Not-Diffuse, Not-any-other-recessive-or-incomplete-dominant-morph.


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*Thanks for the help*



Ssthisto said:


> Nope.
> "Miami" is a locality phase, not a single recessive. Think of it like a poodle.
> "Carolina/Normal/Wildtype" is also a locality phase, not a single recessive. Think of it like a Border Collie..


Is a Miami also a Normal/Wildtype? Are Keys and Kisatchie also Normal/Wildtype? Is Carolina different to Normal/Classic?


Ssthisto said:


> Cross a poodle to a border collie and you won't get ANY babies that look completely Poodle OR completely Border Collie. You'll get babies that look like something in between. You'd have to breed a lot of generations of the most "poodle-like" and selecting only ones that look MORE like a poodle in each generation to get anything close to what you had (or breeding the most poodle-like to actual poodles)... .


A great analogy. Thanks.


Ssthisto said:


> Cross a Miami to a Normal, and you'll get "normal" babies - i.e. not strongly Miami phase, though they might be a little greyer than your typical brown/orange normal is. It'd take a lot of generations of breeding the most "Miami-like" of your offspring to each other or to strongly marked Miamis to get anything like the Miami you started with..


Pending response to the earlier question but why would you get normal babies that were just a little more greyer than usual rather than getting Miami babies that were just a little more browner than usual? To use the analogy would all of my pups be more poodle-like than collie-like or would some of them be more collie-like than poodle-like?


Ssthisto said:


> The punnet square wouldn't be "doable" because Miami and Normal are just variations of the same genetic makeup - they're both just genetically Not-Amel-or-Ultra, Not-Anery, Not-Charcoal, Not-Cinder, Not-Lavender, Not-Caramel, Not-Lava, Not-Hypo, Not-Sunkissed, Not-Dilute, Not-Motley-or-Stripe, Not-Diffuse, Not-any-other-recessive-or-incomplete-dominant-morph.


This suggests to me that the answer to my earlier question should be "yes" they are all to be considered as wild type or genetically the same. Therefore its just why one of the genetically-the-same corns would have a greater influence on the look of the offspring than another that still puzzels me. Is one of the 5 (Classic, Carolina, Miami, Keys and Kisatchie) more dominant than the others? 

I look forward to receiving your response. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Patrick.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

ballpiefun said:


> Is a Miami also a Normal/Wildtype? Are Keys and Kisatchie also Normal/Wildtype? Is Carolina different to Normal/Classic?


A Miami is a locality phase of wild type, not a 'recessive-or-codom-morph', yes. So is Okeetee. 

Keys and Kisatchies might be a different subspecies of corn, or they might be locality morphs. Certainly their appearance affects the appearance of recessive morphs that use Keys and Kisatchie corns.

"Carolina" is the same as "Normal" is the same as "Classic" is the same as "Wild Type"... it's a sales gimmick, unless you're talking about animals that were WC or descended from WC animals that ALL came from the Carolinas. Here in the UK it's just used to make "Not a visual morph" sound better.



> Pending response to the earlier question but why would you get normal babies that were just a little more greyer than usual rather than getting Miami babies that were just a little more browner than usual? To use the analogy would all of my pups be more poodle-like than collie-like or would some of them be more collie-like than poodle-like?


Miami is typically defined as "grey with coloured saddles". Anything that doesn't fit this description is unlikely to be called Miami.
"Normal" is defined as "anything that isn't a recessive or codominant morph". "Miami" fits into the box labelled Normal - but not all Normals fit into the box labelled Miami. 

If you crossed a Miami to a normal, you'd get animals that fit in the Normal box (they're not visual recessive or codominant morphs)... but they're unlikely to fit into the much more specific and exclusive Miami box. They'd be greyer than a normal that didn't have Miami heritage, but they're not likely to be grey ENOUGH to be called Miamis (certainly, not "good" Miamis) themselves. 

Maybe another analogy is in order...

Take a gallon of grey paint (miami base colour).
Take a gallon of orange-brown paint ("normal" base colour).

Mix half a gallon of each together (sort of like breeding a "good" Miami to a normal)

Your result isn't going to be grey enough to call it a miami base colour - but it's still brown enough to call it a "normal" base colour. Mix more grey in (breed the offspring to a Miami) and the result will be greyer - but it'll still have a brown tinge - but if you mix more grey in on successive breedings, you'll eventually reduce the orange-brown to a point where it's not noticeable - and then you've got Miamis again. 

Mix more orange-brown into your half-and-half, though, and you've still got an orange-brown normal  



> This suggests to me that the answer to my earlier question should be "yes" they are all to be considered as wild type or genetically the same. Therefore its just why one of the genetically-the-same corns would have a greater influence on the look of the offspring than another that still puzzels me. Is one of the 5 (Classic, Carolina, Miami, Keys and Kisatchie) more dominant than the others?


Nope - I hope the paint analogy helps  It's not that one has more influence than the other, it's that one has a broader definition than the other.

It's because "Miami" and "Okeetee" are genetically not simple recessive morphs, it's more like a spectrum with labelled ranges and everything that doesn't fall into a labelled range is a "normal". 

You can get fantastic steel-grey Miamis with deep red saddles that everyone would call "Miami" without hesitating; you can also get 'poor' Miamis that are greyish-tan with coloured saddles - which just BARELY fit into the area of the spectrum labelled Miami (depending on who's selling and who's buying!). 

You can get amazing Okeetees with screaming oranges and reds and huge thick black borders - and you can get wishy-washy Okeetees that are just barely within the definitions. I have one of these - a corn who's ALMOST an Okeetee - he's got good bright oranges, his reds aren't quite as nice as I'd like, and his borders aren't anything spectacular. I wouldn't call him an Okeetee if I were trying to sell him - he's a nice "normal" - but a less than honest shop might call him an Okeetee without hesitating. To me, Jasper just doesn't make my own personal cut for the Okeetee - which is the strong black borders.


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*by god i think he's got it..........*

............the old :idea: is starting to glow.......



Ssthisto said:


> Maybe another analogy is in order...
> 
> Take a gallon of grey paint (miami base colour).
> Take a gallon of orange-brown paint ("normal" base colour).
> ...


You the man!! This is a brilliantly simple explanation!! I am going to phrase something and send it to you to make sure that I have understood.....but I think I have!!! THANKS.


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*In my own words........*

.......to see if i'm getting the idea.

Normal or Classic corn snakes are basically made up using 3 colours - red, black and white. The red and the white are mixed to create an orange snake, the red is used to create saddles on the orange body and the black is used to edge the saddles and create a thin line between the red and the orange colours. The white is predominantly used to create the belly colour. 

An Okeetee phase corn snake is still a normal corn snake and still has the same pallate to work with but the colours are mixed to give a much brighter orange body, larger red saddles and bolder/thicker black lines around the saddles.

A Miami phase corn snake is still a normal corn snake where the same three colours are again mixed differently, utilising the black and white to create a grey bodied snake, with more white added to the red to produce a more orangy than red saddle with much less black being used in the edging of the saddles because of the fact that so much was used to create the grey body colour.

A Keys phase corn snake is still a normal phase corn snake but it looks as though it had very little amounts of red and black to work with resulting in a more silvery colour snake (not enough black mixed with the white to give grey) with pale orange saddles (not enough red mixed with the white to give strong orange colours) and it looks as though the black ran out before any edging of the saddles could be achieved.

Therefore if I bred any of these they would still be a Normal corn snake, working with a red, white and black pallette, but depending on how the colours were mixed would depend upon whether or not you could class them as a particular phase.

An Amel is a cornsnake that does not have any black on its pallette and an Anery is a cornsnake that does not have any red paint to work with. As a result of this they can not be described as Normal corn snakes. The lack of these colours makes them a genetic mutation. If any of the above Normal corn snakes were born with Stripes or circled patterns (Motley)instead of saddles they would also no longer be deemed as normal corn snakes as they would be genetically flawed.

How'd I do?

I do have some follow up questions, regarding the belly patterns, colours of eyes and the colour yellow, but I don't want to ask these until I've absolutely nailed the basics.

Also, I've read different views on whether or not the Kisatchie is to be considered as a Normal corn snake or not. What are your thoughts? For what it's worth, if I apply my logic from above, I would say no. I can not see any red and therefore if anything it appears to be more like an Anery than a Normal to me.

Let me know if I'm driving you mad but I'm finding this very useful.

:cheers:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

ballpiefun said:


> .......to see if i'm getting the idea.
> 
> Normal or Classic corn snakes are basically made up using 3 colours - red, black and white. The red and the white are mixed to create an orange snake, the red is used to create saddles on the orange body and the black is used to edge the saddles and create a thin line between the red and the orange colours. The white is predominantly used to create the belly colour.


Actually, more like three colours: *Red*, *Black*, *Yellow*. 

White is the absence of pigment to produce colour 



> An Okeetee phase corn snake...
> A Miami phase corn snake ...
> A Keys phase corn snake ...
> Therefore if I bred any of these they would still be a Normal corn snake, working with a red, white and black pallette, but depending on how the colours were mixed would depend upon whether or not you could class them as a particular phase.


Pretty much, so long as we know that white is the absence of pigment and that you've got yellow in the group too.



> An Amel is a cornsnake that does not have any black on its pallette


Yup, so it's only got yellow and red (aka "xanthin" and "erythrin"). The white shows up where no pigment was put down at all - probably because those spots were marked in the paint by numbers as supposed to contain black!



> and an Anery is a cornsnake that does not have any red paint to work with.


Essentially, yes. Anerythristic A seems to REPLACE the red pigment with black (so instead of having a bucket of red, a bucket of black and a bucket of yellow, it's got a bucket of yellow and two buckets of black).

Though some genes causing an "anerythristic" effect which AREN'T "Anerythristic A" have different pigmentation - for example some morphs don't have much yellow paint either (charcoal); some morphs have reduced amounts of black paint, a little bit of red paint and very little yellow paint (lavender), some start off without any red paint but develop it as they grow (Cinder), and when you get right down to it, the only TRUE anerythristic, really, is a Caramel - which has a normal complement of black paint, a normal complement of yellow paint - but no red paint. 



> As a result of this they can not be described as Normal corn snakes. The lack of these colours makes them a genetic mutation. If any of the above Normal corn snakes were born with Stripes or circled patterns (Motley)instead of saddles they would also no longer be deemed as normal corn snakes as they would be genetically flawed.


I was with you right up until the word "flawed". 

A visual colour or pattern morph isn't* flawed* - it's just got a different paint job  A motley or a stripe or a bloodred isn't a "normal" even if it doesn't have a colour changing morph - it's got genetics that make it show an aberrant pattern.



> I do have some follow up questions, regarding the belly patterns, colours of eyes and the colour yellow, but I don't want to ask these until I've absolutely nailed the basics.


I think the explanation above might have cleared up "yellow" for you - because it's a base pigment, not an additional. Eye colour usually follows directly from scale colour - if you don't have black pigment in your scales, you probably don't have it to put into your eyes either, so you wind up with red eyes. If you have no yellow pigment in your scales, you probably won't have it to put into your eyes, so you'll likely have dark grey eyes. 



> Also, I've read different views on whether or not the Kisatchie is to be considered as a Normal corn snake or not. What are your thoughts? For what it's worth, if I apply my logic from above, I would say no. I can not see any red and therefore if anything it appears to be more like an Anery than a Normal to me.


Until and unless the "Kisatchie" look can be recovered in the F2 from "het kisatchie" offspring, I'm inclined to assume it is a 'normal' locality phase or a subspecies, not a recessive morph.

Not all WILD snakes will necessarily have their full set of paint buckets either, you see... maybe a Kisatchie just started off with a very small bucket of red or yellow anyway, and for where they live they don't need the red and yellow to be camouflaged. What I see when I look at the South Mountain Reptiles site's photo of a Kisatchie is a very, very dark animal with lots of extra black, but enough yellow and red to produce browns instead of true black and grey.

And the idea that it might be a natural integrade of Corn Snake and Great Plains Rat snake... yeah, it's a possibility.


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*Ssthisto............*

.................once again a big

THANK-YOU


The haze is beginning to clear. I will absorb this, read some more and return to the master for guidance.


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*master...........*

..............I seek further guidance.



Ssthisto said:


> Actually, more like three colours: *Red*, *Black*, *Yellow*.
> White is the absence of pigment to produce colour


The addition of the Yellow as the base colour has nailed it for me. Thanks. However, would you agree that a Normal should only be classified as a Normal, if when created, the creator, had access to equal amounts of all 3 colours? 



Ssthisto said:


> Yup, so it's only got yellow and red (aka "xanthin" and "erythrin"). The white shows up where no pigment was put down at all - probably because those spots were marked in the paint by numbers as supposed to contain black!


Again, nailed it for me with AMELs. Clear and simple...there is NO BLACK!!! 

My understanding of Hypomel (Hypo A) is that the creator has still been given a can of black paint but it contains a lot less paint than he would have received if he was being asked to create a Normal. It therefore can not be classified as AMEL because there is a black paint can and can not be classed as NORMAL because the black paint can was not full.

I have not yet looked into Hypo B, Hypo C or Hypo D. I will not move on to these until I have received your feedback on my understanding of Hypo A.



Ssthisto said:


> Essentially, yes. Anerythristic A seems to REPLACE the red pigment with black (so instead of having a bucket of red, a bucket of black and a bucket of yellow, it's got a bucket of yellow and two buckets of black).
> 
> Though some genes causing an "anerythristic" effect which AREN'T "Anerythristic A" have different pigmentation - for example some morphs don't have much yellow paint either (charcoal); some morphs have reduced amounts of black paint, a little bit of red paint and very little yellow paint (lavender), some start off without any red paint but develop it as they grow (Cinder), and when you get right down to it, the only TRUE anerythristic, really, is a Caramel - which has a normal complement of black paint, a normal complement of yellow paint - but no red paint.


Not yet nailed. I thought it was similar to AMEL except that ANERY was clear and simple.....there is NO RED.........but it does not appear so. Surely if there is some red, even if greatly reduced, it should be classified as a hypoanery instead of an anery. 

The Anery C/Cinder throws me completely. For me, it quite clearly has access to red pigment, needed to create its "burgundy tones", and is not therefore an Anery but a hypoanery. 

Listen to me laying down the law or more likely talking out of my :censor:!!!!

What classification is given if the creator is given NO YELLOW paint?



Ssthisto said:


> A motley or a stripe or a bloodred isn't a "normal" even if it doesn't have a colour changing morph - it's got genetics that make it show an aberrant pattern.


What does aberrant mean?
Is a bloodred a pattern rather than a colour?



Ssthisto said:


> Until and unless the "Kisatchie" look can be recovered in the F2 from "het kisatchie" offspring, I'm inclined to assume it is a 'normal' locality phase or a subspecies, not a recessive morph.


I have no idea what F2 means but to be honest I'd like to put this on hold until I crack AMEL, ANERY and HYPO, assuming I've cracked NORMAL.



Ssthisto said:


> Not all WILD snakes will necessarily have their full set of paint buckets either, you see... maybe a Kisatchie just started off with a very small bucket of red or yellow anyway, and for where they live they don't need the red and yellow to be camouflaged. What I see when I look at the South Mountain Reptiles site's photo of a Kisatchie is a very, very dark animal with lots of extra black, but enough yellow and red to produce browns instead of true black and grey.


Oh :censor: there goes my opening speech about Normals having to start with equal amounts of paint even if they are used in different quantities and are mixed differently (grey, brown, orange).

Do you think I should give up? Do you think I am making any progress or just falling further into the genetic abyss?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

ballpiefun said:


> However, would you agree that a Normal should only be classified as a Normal, if when created, the creator, had access to equal amounts of all 3 colours?


No - because a "normal" is just another way of saying "Not a visual recessive or dominant morph" - it's just a way of saying "wild type". 
Wild type in some areas can include a lot less red or yellow; wild type in other areas can be much less black. The creator in this case is the specific environmental conditions - and the palette available to the snake is suited for the area they originated in. 


> My understanding of Hypomel (Hypo A) is that the creator has still been given a can of black paint but it contains a lot less paint than he would have received if he was being asked to create a Normal.


Sort of 
When you're talking about recessive genes, you're really talking about whether the snake has the ingredients to make the paint and whether it's got the places to put the paint. The other hypo-effect genes ALSO result in reduced amounts of black, but for different biological reasons than Hypo A.
Reasons they might not have the full complement of black can be things like not having enough of one ingredient to make melanin, or not having enough melanophores, or having those melanophores in the wrong places.


> Not yet nailed. I thought it was similar to AMEL except that ANERY was clear and simple.....there is NO RED.........but it does not appear so. Surely if there is some red, even if greatly reduced, it should be classified as a hypoanery instead of an anery.
> The Anery C/Cinder throws me completely. For me, it quite clearly has access to red pigment, needed to create its "burgundy tones", and is not therefore an Anery but a hypoanery.


You're quite right. A Cinder is almost certainly "*Hypoerythristic A*" - but it was called "Anery C" based on its hatchling appearance, which LOOKS Anery to start with. 
And an Anery A is probably closer to *Hypermelanistic *


> Listen to me laying down the law or more likely talking out of my !!!!


No, you're asking sensible questions from someone who wants more of an understanding of HOW it works, rather than just "If I cross A and B, what do I get? How do I get C?"


> What classification is given if the creator is given NO YELLOW paint?


An absence of yellow pigment is *axanthic*. This hasn't been identified in cornsnakes yet.
A reduction of yellow pigment is *hypoxanthic*.
And an abundance of yellow pigment is *hyperxanthic* - which might account for some of the yellow in butters, caramels and ambers.


> What does aberrant mean?


Aberrant is "anything that isn't normal" literally - in corn snakes, it'd be anything that isn't the typical colouration, patterning or form.


> Is a bloodred a pattern rather than a colour?


*Bloodred* was originally used to describe animals who are of normal pigmentation but who have a pattern mutation that is now known as *diffuse* - now that we have animals showing the pattern that are clearly not 'blood red' in colour (like Granites and Pewters.)


> Oh there goes my opening speech about Normals having to start with equal amounts of paint even if they are used in different quantities and are mixed differently (grey, brown, orange).


The paint analogy works quite well for dealing with how "normals" mix with other non-simple recessives (like Miami or Okeetee), but it doesn't work quite as well when trying to explain the exact appearance of individual ranges - and specifically, not when you're talking about animals who might be hybrids (and who might have totally different natural colour palettes and proportions!)


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*oh well..................*

.............so this table that I prepared isn't very useful then!! Just below the chocolate tea pot in terms of usefullness!!!
 

*COLOUR*
*CODE **NAME **RED **YELLOW **BLACK*
*111 **NORMAL *normal normal normal 
*112 **AMEL *normal normal none
*113 *normal normal increased
*114 **HYPOMEL *normal normal decreased
*121 *normal none normal
*122 *normal none none
*123 *normal none increased
*124 *normal none decreased
*131 *normal increased normal
*132 *normal increased none
*133 *normal increased increased
*134 *normal increased decreased
*141 *normal decreased normal
*142 *normal decreased none
*143 *normal decreased increased
*144 *normal decreased decreased
*211 **ANERY *none normal normal
*212 *none normal none
*213 *none normal increased
*214 *none normal decreased
*221 **CHARCOAL *none none normal
*222 *none none none
*223 *none none increased
*224 *none none decreased
*231 *none increased normal
*232 *none increased none
*233 *none increased increased
*234 *none increased decreased
*241 *none decreased normal
*242 *none decreased none
*243 *none decreased increased
*244 *none decreased decreased
*311 *increased normal normal
*312 *increased normal none
*313 *increased normal increased
*314 *increased normal decreased
*321 *increased none normal
*322 *increased none none
*323 *increased none increased
*324 *increased none decreased
*331 *increased increased normal
*332 *increased increased none
*333 *increased increased increased
*334 *increased increased decreased
*341 *increased decreased normal
*342 *increased decreased none
*343 *increased decreased increased
*344 *increased decreased decreased
*411 *decreased normal normal
*412 *decreased normal none
*413 *decreased norma increased
*414 *decreased normal decreased
*421 *decreased none normal
*422 *decreased none none
*423 *decreased none increased
*424 *decreased none decreased
*431 *decreased increased normal
*432 *decreased increased none
*433 *decreased increased increased
*434 *decreased increased decreased
*441 *decreased decreased normal
*442 *decreased decreased none
*443 *decreased decreased increased
*444 *decreased decreased decreased


----------



## intravenous (Dec 20, 2006)

Sorry, nope .

You'd be better off making a tabe of genetics, like chch for charcoal, hh anan for ghost...that kind of thing.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

ballpiefun said:


> .............so this table that I prepared isn't very useful then!! Just below the chocolate tea pot in terms of usefullness!!!


It's a neat idea, though, for predicting what appearances MIGHT occur. 

I mean, a "Sunglow" amel (which, generally speaking, are genetically amelanistic with nothing you can easily point at as a recessive 'reason' they're sunglows instead of amels) has enough red and yellow colouration to replace the white on its back - and your table kinda predicts that such a thing COULD occur - so it gives someone a point to aim for. And there was a time when a very big breeder in the States was using something like this to aim for an enhanced yellow, enhanced black snake with no red... unfortunately, the ingredients he used didn't have that effect.

But now that you've got the "paint" analogy worked for how normals mix with other locality phases... learning the genetics part of it for the recessives and incomplete dominants will be better. 

I've got a small quiz for you in that case. If I have the following parents:

1 male Crimson (this is recessive hypo applied to a Miami-phase corn)
1 female Ghost (this is recessive hypo and recessive anery, no specific phase)

What do you think the offspring would be?


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

*mmmmmm........*



Ssthisto said:


> I've got a small quiz for you in that case. If I have the following parents:
> 
> 1 male Crimson (this is recessive hypo applied to a Miami-phase corn)
> 1 female Ghost (this is recessive hypo and recessive anery, no specific phase)
> ...


assuming Crimson is Nh (cross between Normal and Hypo) and Ghost is ha (cross between hypo and amel) I would expect

hh, ha, Nh, Na

25% hypo
25% ghost
25% crimson
25% normal het anery

where did I go wrong? what should my punnet square have looked like? I have included my thoughts so that you can hopefully work out the flaw in my thought process.

At the same time, another test would be greatly appreciated. Where abouts do you live so that I can buy you a beer when I've cracked this?

Thanks.

I


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

ballpiefun said:


> assuming Crimson is Nh (cross between Normal and Hypo) and Ghost is ha (cross between hypo and amel) I would expect
> 
> hh, ha, Nh, Na
> 
> ...


You're forgetting that most genes are not 'linked' that closely - they're more like separate steps on a ladder rather than all being on the same step. Each gene is represented as a separate pair of letters. I use the following letters when I'm writing them down: A/a/a^u for the *a*mel-Ultra set, E/e for an*e*rythristic, L/l for *l*avender, CH/ch for *ch*arcoal, H/h for *h*ypomelanistic type A, and so on. I use * to represent the unknown member of a pair if you are breeding an animal who shows visual "not-mutation" at a gene pair and you don't know if it has any hets.

As such, a crimson is:
EEhh (this is "not anery not anery, hypo hypo") with Miami phase distribution of colour.
A Ghost is:
eehh ("anery, anery, hypo, hypo")

So your cross is EEhh X eehh

I would expect to get:

100% Hypo het anery (Eehh) - 

This is because both of them are visual hypo, so they can't give anything BUT hypo to their offspring. Only one of them carries Anery - and can't give anything else - so all offspring are het. I'd also expect that the offspring would be a bit paler in the 'base' colour area because they've got the Miami heritage.



> At the same time, another test would be greatly appreciated. Where abouts do you live so that I can buy you a beer when I've cracked this?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I


Ok, another test...

I have two snakes who are both white with pale yellowish markings, a male and a female. 

I breed them together and get the following offspring:

50% visual amelanistic (aaE*)
50% visual snow (aaee)

What do you think the parents could have been, based on those results?

And if we can magically switch-o change-o the word "beer" to the word "Pint of diet Coke" you're welcome up West Yorkshire way any time!


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> And if we can magically switch-o change-o the word "beer" to the word "Pint of diet Coke" you're welcome up West Yorkshire way any time!


That bit of magic'll be no problem at all........the rest might take a while. I'll get back later this evening!!!


----------



## ballpiefun (Mar 8, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Ok, another test...
> 
> I have two snakes who are both white with pale yellowish markings, a male and a female.
> 
> ...


I am assuming that both parents are visual snow (aaee) and would therefore have expected both offspring to be visual snow (aaee) but as one of the offspring is visual amel I know that one of the parents was hiding something else........but I have no idea what!! Sorry!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

ballpiefun said:


> I am assuming that both parents are visual snow (aaee) and would therefore have expected both offspring to be visual snow (aaee) but as one of the offspring is visual amel I know that one of the parents was hiding something else........but I have no idea what!! Sorry!


It's not as much that one parent is 'hiding something else'... as it is that one parent is not what you thought it was based on the appearance.

From above, it's clear that 100% of the offspring are homozygous amel - you got half amels and half snows. That means both parents have to be homozygous amelanistic too. 

Now, there are currently three corn morphs that CAN present as "mostly white snake" that are combinations of Amel and something else:

1.* Snow* (aaee - homozygous amel, homozygous anery). This is the one you'd expect to have yellowish blotches.
2. *Blizzard* (aachch - homozygous amel, homozygous charcoal). This USUALLY looks like a solid white patternless snake.
3. *Opal* (aall - homozygous amel, homozygous lavender). This one usually winds up having more colour as an adult than just yellow - usually peaches and pinks.

It looks like, since you got some non-snow offspring, that one of your "snows" isn't one. It's more likely to be a blizzard than it is an opal, but we couldn't say for sure which it was without test-breeding it. 

Now, the offspring also tell you something else. You got some snows. Which means the parent who ISN'T a snow is at least het for anerythristic.... otherwise, you wouldn't have gotten any snows at all. 

My guess on what the parents would be if *I* had those results is:

Snow (aaeeCH*) X Blizzard het Anery (aaEechch)


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

Ssthisto have you ever thought about writing a book? this is good stuff!


----------

