Codom Hypo? Then explain this....

[BChambers]

Ever since I picked up my female "Codom Hypo" marcianus at the 2008 Daytona Expo, I've been scratching my head over my breeding results. the first spring, I mated her to a wild-caught local male, and got two small litters of 6 and 5-all entirely normal. Of course from a codom morph, I'd have expected at least some of those to be Hypos. Oh well, I chalked it up to bad luck (of which I've had plenty over the years:rolleyes:)....

Anyway, I held back one of the nicer-looking normal males that season and the next spring mated him back to his mother. As a result, she dropped two litters, each of which included several hypos, in approximately the expected ratio to normals. In a way, this made me feel better. But I got to thinking: If the hypo were in fact a "simple recessive " morph (rather than codom), I'd have about the same breeding results from breeding Hypo to het as if I'd bred Codom hypo to normal (i.e. 50% Hypo).

So I decided on a test. I held back two normal-appearing females from those litters and this season bred them to the normal male holdback from the previous litters. Below are pics of the 1.2 "normal" breeders and the resulting offspring:
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt56/BChambersfriday07/mmarc.jpg
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt56/BChambersfriday07/fmarc2.jpg
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt56/BChambersfriday07/fmarc1.jpg
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt56/BChambersfriday07/marclit.jpg

The results for both litters were 6 Hypos and 14 normals. All from three marcianus of entirely normal appearance. I can naught but conclude that the "Codom Hypo" gene is in fact simple recessive.

Thoughts?

[ConcinusMan]

Yeah, here's a thought. Send those hypos to me. OMG! Those are gorgeous!

As for the genetic questions, I think Jeff could give some insight on that. He's the genetics guy around here.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

It can't be just simple recessive though... I bred a wild caught female to a male hypo/pastel/whatever and I got a bunch of lime pastels right off the bat! I call them pastels by the way in case you haven't noticed. I bred the same male to an unrelated albino female that was clearly not a pastel and I got the same results. This keeps on getting weirder... Interesting! I just picked up another adult male pastel from ben Siegel. He did not know it was a Pastel either. They are always Popping up in everyones clutches, I have ID'ed them in a few peoples this year... And the people that did have them pop up, it was noticed that one of the parents actually ended up being a hypo/pastel, disguised as a normal since a lot of them darken considerably. I think they have been around for years and nobody noticed them until recently. I've been doing a lot of work with IDing pastels, because some of them come out looking very close to normals! They are my favorite project in all of my collection! I think that if it was only recessive it would be one heck of a coincidence that the snakes mated to the pastels in all the breedings I have seen being hets? Especially a WC female! I hAve also noticed that baby pastels from one clutch to the next vary even though sired by the same male... It seems the other parent influences their brightness.

[ConcinusMan]

Don't you think these might actually be something different from what we have Shannon? I mean, they are similar in some ways but wow. These are much prettier IMO. I don't really see that crazy head pattern or any abnormalities in her dorsal pattern.(the female you sent to me). Also, she has darkened up and looks pretty much like a normal green checkered now.

Sure would like to get my hands on a pair of these pictured above. One of them has a bulls eye painted on his head. LoL.

[BChambers]

First off, I'm in TOTAL agreement that Hypo is a bad term for them, and Pastel is indeed more descriptive. So yes, let's just agree that's the term :)

As for the rest-I dunno, all I can report is my own results-I don't see any of the above adults as "dark" pastels-if so I don't know how you'd tell a normal apart! And assuming that they are indeed "normals", then this particular gene can't be a codom.

Perhaps we are really looking at two different Pastel genes here? I guess the next test is to cross the two-anyone up for a trade?:cool:

[ConcinusMan]

Sure, I'll give you a great big "thanks" for two of your pastels.:p

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Don't you think these might actually be something different from what we have Shannon? I mean, they are similar in some ways but wow. These are much prettier IMO. I don't really see that crazy head pattern or any abnormalities in her dorsal pattern.(the female you sent to me). Also, she has darkened up and looks pretty much like a normal green checkered now.

Sure would like to get my hands on a pair of these pictured above. One of them has a bulls eye painted on his head. LoL.


No, they are the same... My original male is from this exact bloodline... The original one when these were first made available. It's merely an -extremely- variable trait... It ranges from just a tad brighter than normal... To cracked out crazy like these babies here.

[ConcinusMan]

Interesting. Well then if they are the same, then there is bound be an explanation to the different breeding results. You said something about there not being a "super" form. Maybe the crazy ones are supers? Oh Jeff? what's going on here? LoL.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

First off, I'm in TOTAL agreement that Hypo is a bad term for them, and Pastel is indeed more descriptive. So yes, let's just agree that's the term :)

As for the rest-I dunno, all I can report is my own results-I don't see any of the above adults as "dark" pastels-if so I don't know how you'd tell a normal apart! And assuming that they are indeed "normals", then this particular gene can't be a codom.

Perhaps we are really looking at two different Pastel genes here? I guess the next test is to cross the two-anyone up for a trade?:cool:

We could be, or we could be dealing with a really weird gene that doesn't fit neatly into one category... The male I have done most of my work with is from that original line of pastel, the same as the snakes in your pictures! The snakes in your photos don't look like pastels to me but they do have a glow about them. I don't ever see normals that bright!

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Interesting. Well then if they are the same, then there is bound be an explanation to the different breeding results. You said something about there not being a "super" form. Maybe the crazy ones are supers? Oh Jeff? what's going on here? LoL.


Lol, there is more than one of us on this forum that understand mutation genetics in depth! Myself included! They can't be supers because the parents don't appear to be pastels! It's all a big mystery at this point I suppose! I have a firm understanding of genetics and how they work (I taught my peers the course on triple recessive crossings, incomplete dominance, codominance and all that real easy stuff using snakes as examples because my teacher did not understand it) and this puzzle simply can not be solved yet.... I think the reason these have flew under the radar so long is because even the neon babies wil darken up some, and I bet the majority will darken enough to pass as normals to the inexperienced.

[ConcinusMan]

Lol, there is more than one of us on this forum that understand mutation genetics in depth! Myself included!

Yeah, but you don't have the gift of explaining it so I can understand it better.:cool: You just confuse me.:p



I think the reason these have flew under the radar so long is because even the neon babies wil darken up some, and I bet the majority will darken enough to pass as normals to the inexperienced.

Perhaps, but I just don't see those ever looking like normals. I mean, look at their heads. That's crazy. I know you've mentioned the head pattern before and even showed pics and I couldn't see any difference. But these guys are another story. Even if they did darken up, they're obviously different.

Here's a pic of the pastel you sent to me. This is Olivia. I initially loved how bright white her base color was, and also the tinge of neon green. Well, she's darkened up quite a bit. That green turned dark olive, and kind of "dirtied" up her bright white. Still, a very good looking checkered though but I don't see any crazy head pattern on her at all. Looks normal to me. Of course naturally her head is blurred here but it looks normal, pattern-wise. Anyway, she's great. Much nicer color IMO from the usual drab looking brownish normals.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5625/oly002large.jpg

[Mexicofan]

Hallo,

:eek:, my Postbox is opened 24h for the little´s. Incredible these coloures.

A shame that America is seperated by an Ocean from Europe. If not I allready would sit in my car :D

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Yeah, but you don't have the gift of explaining it so I can understand it better.:cool: You just confuse me.:pyou can say that again :P I could have gone into detail but I was typing with my phone... I don't usually have the patience anyways!





Perhaps, but I just don't see those ever looking like normals. I mean, look at their heads. That's crazy. I know you've mentioned the head pattern before and even showed pics and I couldn't see any difference. But these guys are another story. Even if they did darken up, they're obviously different.They WILL change a good bit as they grow. I can guarantee it. They are not going to darken up and look normal, but they are not going to look like THAT as adults... I will lay money on it. As they grow and their head expands, the swirling on the head moves back and stays relatively smaller compared to the rest of the head which does fill in with some normal patterning. The middle of each scale begins to get a small dot of darkness on it as they expand. I am watching it happen with mine now as I watched it happen with my male. The one thing I am really trying to figure out, is how the other parents influence the babies. It must be so, because every batch of pastels looks completely different. And these babies that he has here, are from the same line as mine. These look like Steve's Bumblebee girl that he had last year.



Here's a pic of the pastel you sent to me. This is Olivia. I initially loved how bright white her base color was, and also the tinge of neon green. Well, she's darkened up quite a bit. That green turned dark olive, and kind of "dirtied" up her bright white. Still, a very good looking checkered though but I don't see any crazy head pattern on her at all. Looks normal to me. Of course naturally her head is blurred here but it looks normal, pattern-wise. Anyway, she's great. Much nicer color IMO from the usual drab looking brownish normals.I told you that was going to happen!! :P I said, don't be disappointed cause she won't always be a light lime green color! ;) But no matter what they look like as babies, they always disappoint a bit when they color down. They don't -all- have the crazy head pattern, just most of them do to some degree. When i look at that picture of her I still clearly see a pastel. She's got the glow that normals lack, and her screwy neck pattern with the thick uneven black gives it away. Her albino pastel sister did not have a funky head pattern at all. Simply put, not all pastels are the same, the vary greatly and none of them seem to fit into all the rules. But it was very apparent at birth that that's what she was! And then my other clutch of pastels was pretty darned funky! Looked nothing at all like your female, but they were all sired by the same pastel male... who has quite a swirly head pattern and even as an adult is distinctly different. I have met other pastels that did not have the head pattern thing going. They are all different. I remember when I bought my male, he was a nice bright white little thing! He darkened up considerably.

[HazAnga]

Is love to get another pastel that's unrelated to any of mine to work with that.
I agree that those are wicked awesome babies you have there and there deff something different about then.

[Jeff B]

Hey Brad,
As you well know I purchased a pair of "hypo" from you in 2009 and I kept a female. This spring I bred her to my granite male, I am hopefull that she is gravid although will likely be a small litter as she is still on the small side. I have attached two photos of her that I took tonight plus a photo of the two granites that I produced last year. She still has a very light colored head and bright pastel yellow.
I want to suggest a little different take. If you take a close look at the pattern change with these new babies it reminds me of the granite, maybe low grade or other genes suppressing the full effect or something based on what is causing the "hypo" or "pastel" effect. The head pattern and also the body pattern on two of those lighter babies you produced look an aweful lot like the granite to me. So I wonder if you either have hets for granite which I have been told is a recessive gene in the mix of your breeders, or I wonder if the "hypo" or "pastel" could be a visual het for granite? I would have thought that someone would have noticed this before if the latter where true though. I personally would not know as the only production I have personally done is granite to granite breeding which yeilded granite which doesn't provide any info.
I guess you could also be looking at both of your parents were low grade "hypo/pastels" and the new babies that you produced are "homozygous" codom aka "supers" that just happen to resemble granites.
IF my "hypo/pastel" female that I got from you that was bred to the granite does produce for me it will be interesting to see what the babies look like, I was assuming that there would be normals and "hyp/pastels" at about 50/50 ratio and all would be het granite.
The obvious breeding to do now is take those new "special" babies and breed to each other and to completely unrelated normal and see what you get.

[Jeff B]

Brad,
I cut the color saturation just a bit on your photo and they look like granites all the more to me. Also I see two slightly different "normal" types in that litter, which makes me really lean that the "hypo/pastel" is a slightly visual het for the recessive granite gene. Also looking again at the two parents pics that you posted and are calling normals, they could easily be or qualify as "hypo/pastels". This is just one possiblity as food for though, of course this could prove to be completely wrong, but something to consider.

[BChambers]

Jeff, it's curiouser and curiouser. I agree that with a little squinting one MIGHT be able to imagine that at least that male might be a dark "Pastel"-but boy I hope not, as that sure could just as easily be confused for an attractive individual of our local marcianus hereabouts. I'm looking forward to your results from the female you got from me in 09-that may tell us something if your theory is correct. i need to pick up som granites-should have done so previously.

[ConcinusMan]

That's an interesting possibility Jeff but I thought people (Shannon perhaps?) had already bred pastel to pastel and no super form, and certainly no granites have been produced from such a breeding.

It was my understanding that she's bred these enough to know that breeding a pastel to a normal will produce some pastels and that breeding pastel to pastel still doesn't produce granites or any super form. Of course, if hets and homozygous both appear to be pastel, that confuses the matter.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I do not think they are the same.... they don't look like granites to me! I can kinda see the resemblance, and I can definitely see how you made that connection, It just doesn't make total sense because I once bred a visual pastel to a WC female and I got pastels right off the bat...pastels that were bright white like those babies pictured. I bred the same male to an unrelated nonpastel albino female and I got... pastels and normals, albinos and albino pastels. As they grow up, they darken and don't stay so bright, unlike the granites that keep their contrast and brightness. The granite pattern is also more refined... and my het granites were totally normal looking, fairly dull examples of marcianus. I think they are two totally different genes with a similar phenotype... at least as babies. Kinda like the spider and woma ball python. Different genes, somewhat similar look. As adults, the difference is clear because the pastels brown out some.

[ConcinusMan]

I remember you were saying something about the codminant pastel being really "incomplete" dominant instead of codominant. Think that maybe it's possible that even homozygous pastels could appear totally normal, as in, they are pastel genotype, but normal phenotype? I'm not even sure if this fits into the breeding results. It's getting confusing, loL.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

If pastel were incomplete dominant then it would have to have a super form. It was thought that there was a super form when pastel x pastel yielded some babies with slightly lighter heads, until my clutches popped out, which were pastel x normal, and I got babies that were even lighter and brighter than what were suspected super forms. The only way to prove out a super form is to breed the suspected super to a totally normal animal and if you got all pastels, then it would be proven that there is a super pastel. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened to anyone yet, not even when you take a really awesome baby, grow it up and breed it. The thing you are mentioning with the "pastels" having a basically normal phenotype (kinda like a sable ball python, looks close to normal) and the "super pastels" having the weird light colored appearance could have worked, and is a good idea, except for visual pastels produce some normal babies so they can't be a super form.

[ConcinusMan]

Well then that leaves us in this position...

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1049/doublefacepalmn.jpg

I get the feeling that the blue anery morph concinnus' are going to leave us doing this too, after a few years of captive breeding. Just a feeling.

[BChambers]

But even as adults, however much they brown out, my Pastels have retained an aberrant head and neck pattern. As you can see, the normal-looking trio above all sport an equally normal marcianus head pattern.

[ConcinusMan]

Meum cerebrum nocet

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

But even as adults, however much they brown out, my Pastels have retained an aberrant head and neck pattern. As you can see, the normal-looking trio above all sport an equally normal marcianus head pattern.

And most of them do... If they are born with q screwy head pattern they keep it... Likewise with the Labial marks. I have had a few that didn't have the aberrant head pattern, but still had the neck pattern and were quite clearly pastels at birth. Richards female is an example of this! The snake in the first picture of your trio looks very bright and clean. Any chance it is a pastel lacking some aberrancy? I mean to me it looks like a bright normal, but if it actually were a pastel in disguise it would not surprise me.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Okay so I guess what it boils down to is this... By your breeding results, this morph should clearly be simple recessive. By mine, it couldn't be simple recessive, unless my wild caught female and the unrelated albino were both somehow, hets... And you'd think that would be a one in a million shot! My original male was purchased as a "condom hypo" and I am pretty sure that was 2008 as well!

[BChambers]

Ok, I can't prove that top male isn't an ugly hypo without head aberrancies, though I don't think it is. I guess the next step is to catch a couple wild females and mate them to a male Pastel next spring. Will do.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Ok, I can't prove that top male isn't an ugly hypo without head aberrancies, though I don't think it is. I guess the next step is to catch a couple wild females and mate them to a male Pastel next spring. Will do.


hehehe... awwww shucks.. he's not ugly!!! He's beautiful :)

[kibakiba]

No garter snake is ugly. I don't care if a snake looks like a giant piece of rotting poop... It's pretty! :D

(only when it's a snake.. I don't like rotting poop at all)