| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BlueDragon |
Posted - 28/01/2011 : 10:51:39
I'm really new to learning all the different morphs you can get with Royals. There's some really quite stunning ones. But I don't know if I'm just being thick (I'm a lass, and yes, I am blonde, so make of that what you will) but I can't see why Bummble Bee and Killer Bee Royals are so called : / Is it the Spider-like stripes they have? The colour? And why would you call such a cute lookin' snake a 'Killer' Bee? That's seems a bit mean X ) Especialy with all the bad press snakes can get!
Sorry for my cluelessness : / |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BlueDragon |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 09:17:49
Ah, I see.
Ta : ) |
| Blackecho |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 12:24:21
Its only the Homozygous form of the Woma gene (Pearl) that is fatal. It appears that there is sufficient wrong with this gene (and Spider) that the snake can only cope with one copy, having both is fatal. |
| BlueDragon |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 11:29:42
Wow, thanks for the vids and all the info too. Really quite stunning snakes in the vids. And the graph too, that made sense to me! (I'm dyslexic, so numbers, messurments, charts, graphs, instructions and stuff like that all make no sense to me at all)
So when people describe a Royal as being 'wobbly' or 'unstable' are they taking about this Woma gene then? And if all snakes with woma genes in them die, how come there where some in the 'NERD' vid? I can see why he didn't want to breed from them though, that's a shame they're like that. What causes it?
And, if Pasel and other flavours of Royal were originaly found in the wild was this a result of a fault or have they evolved these colours for a reason? I can't see the brighter coloured ones being much good at camaflauge (sp?) or sneaking up on they're prey.
...So, does anyone actually know just how many different colour/pattern variations there actually are? ; ) Kevin's vid showed quite a mind-blowing aray of beautiful snakes! And I got the impression that not even he would know!!! |
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 20:08:17
quote:
Originally posted by Royalbob
Not sure your understanding python23.
The super spider has been produced and it is a lethal gene
They die in the egg or shortly after.
of course i understand, no super form has been made as the super form must die in the egg. what i was trying to say is if the super form wasnt a lethal gene then the super form would of been produced years ago. |
| Royalbob |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 20:03:32
Not sure your understanding python23.
The super spider has been produced and it is a lethal gene
They die in the egg or shortly after. |
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 19:59:14
very interesting, wouldnt mind a pinstripe myself, maybe after breeding pieds hopefully. If there is a super form of the spider, i would have thought it would have been produced by now. |
| CoN |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 19:42:30
Some lethal gene reading:
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?77030-is-there-a-lethal-gene |
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 19:27:46
would like to know why they die. maybe the head wobble in normal spiders has something to do with it |
| Blackecho |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 19:07:40
Yes, lots have. |
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 19:05:57
quote:
Originally posted by Blackecho
Homozygous Spider, like Woma is lethal, so they just die, either in the egg or during hatching.
i wonder if anyone has opened up an egg thats died to see if anything was actually growing in it |
| Royalbob |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 18:46:03
quote:
Originally posted by Blackecho
http://www.theroyalpython.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=187
Ah it was right under my nose all this time. |
| Blackecho |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 18:31:24
Homozygous Spider, like Woma is lethal, so they just die, either in the egg or during hatching. |
| Blackecho |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 18:30:33
http://www.theroyalpython.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=187 |
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 17:59:30
yes im 95% with you, i didnt know that breeding pinstripes together for example would produce supers that looked the same, thats new to me, i have heard no one has produced a super spider yet. Its a strange gene that one |
| Royalbob |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 17:42:07
Co Dominant
ok if you look at genes as being a pair in co dominant royals if only 1 side of the gene pair carries the gene the royal will still be a visual morph. This is because the co dominant gene is dominant over the normal gene. A visual het in other words such as pastels, lessers, fire's etc.
If both sides of the gene pair are the co dom gene then we get what we call the Superform. For pastels this is the super pastel, super lesser is the blu eyed luecistic and the super fire is the black eyed luecistic. breeding one of these super forms back to a normal will give all visual hets i.e all fires or all pastels.
Dominant
these genes work the same as co doms it's just that there is no visual super form if both of the gene pairs are dominant. So breeding a pinstripe to a pinstripe will produce 25% normals, 50% pins and 25% super pins. these super pins though will look no different to the other pins in the clutch. However lets just say we knew which one the super pin was if we bred it to a normal we would produce all pins where as the normal pins would only produce half the clutch of pins and half or normal looking royals.
That make sense?
|
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 17:15:06
haha yea, you always seem to word it slightly better than me though, heres a question i seem to struggle on, whats the difference between dominant and co dominant? |
| Royalbob |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 17:05:59
lol can't believe i just done it again. Are we synced up or something lol.
Spiders and pins are dominant genes though. |
| Royalbob |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 17:04:55
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDragon
Thanks for all the replies! I do kinda get it now : ) Well, at least as far as these morphs go anyways X )
Really? Pastel Royals were a wild made morph??? But they look so un-natural. Well, there's my lesson learnt for today, 'cause I never knew that! So how come their, what would be tan, patches on their sides are... erm, overmarked? What's that all about then? Is it just a fault? And they're 'filled in' too. Or is that all a later captive bred addition that then went on to produce the Spider morph?
Am I overcomplicating things now?
Nah. let me try and explain. With morphs you have two types base morphs and designer morphs.
Base morphs
These are morphs that are found in the wild alongside normal looking ball pythons. A few base morphs are pastels as we've said also albino's, spiders, pinstripes the list goes on. They are then sold on to importers who breed them to see what type of gene they are. Dominant such as a pinstripe. Co dominant such as a pastel or recessive such as albino's.
Designer morphs
These are morphs that are designed from 2 different base morphs. These would not occur in the wild naturally. Examples of these would be pastel x spider = 25% chance of making a bumblebee. Pastel x pinstripe = 25% chance of making a lemonblast
Thats it on a basic level. Hope it makes sense
|
| python23 |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 16:58:19
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDragon
Thanks for all the replies! I do kinda get it now : ) Well, at least as far as these morphs go anyways X )
Really? Pastel Royals were a wild made morph??? But they look so un-natural. Well, there's my lesson learnt for today, 'cause I never knew that! So how come their, what would be tan, patches on their sides are... erm, overmarked? What's that all about then? Is it just a fault? And they're 'filled in' too. Or is that all a later captive bred addition that then went on to produce the Spider morph?
Am I overcomplicating things now?
The morphs that are known as base morphs were all originally found in the wild, even spiders were found in the wild, for what reason im not sure anyone knows. People took these unusual looking royals into captivity and started breeding them. Some of the morphs turned out to be recessive which means that both parents need to carry the gene in order for the offspring to carry the visual trait of that particular morph.
Others were proven to be co dominant meaning only one parent needs to carry the gene to pass on a visual trait. examples of these are pastels, spiders,pinstripes etc. Then as time went on people started breeding these morphs with each other to make more complex morphs such as bumblebees,lemon blasts (which is a pastel x pinstripe) etc. Nowadays some of the royals being produced are a combination of 5-6 genes hence the reason for their crazy looks. A lot to take in isnt it !!
Have a look at this video and be amazed, this guy is kevin Mcurley, probably the most famous Royal python breeder in the world. Some of the snakes he's breeding are ridiculous
http://www.youtube.com/user/raphymartinez#p/u/13/Jq4hOaROpwg |
| Royalbob |
Posted - 30/01/2011 : 15:29:25
quote:
Originally posted by python23
well said royal bob, the more advice for the young lady the better, its hard at first to get your head around the genetics of it all. Once i understood what het, co dom, and dominant genes did etc i kind of got it, takes a lot of reading though
Cheers, yeh tell me about it. I'm kinda just into the whole genetic thing so makes for easier reading. My mates some kind of genetic punnet square wizard it just comes naturally to him it's sickening lol.
Done that before Danny, Proper annoying.  |
