Quick Question

[sschind]

Since the flame is a genetic morph of the eastern now it would be possible to get hets. (and no hybrids or intergrades since they are all T.s.sitalis) That is assuming that the flame trait is a recessive one (like albinism). For a recessive gene to express itself (be visible) the gene has to be acquired from both parents. Since your current snake is normal (and we assume non het) it can not pass on the flame gene so none of your babies would show the flame trait but all your babies would be carrying the gene so they would be capable of passing that gene on in future matings.

If the flame trait is dominant then all babies produced would be flames.

If the flame trait is co-dominant then you could expect half your babies to be flames and half to be normal and there is no het. (like the pastel ball pythons)

there is also a category of incomplete dominance which would mean that any babies would show characteristics of both. (more red than a normal but not as red a flame for example.) I think this is the category that is most variable since you never know how much of the gene for a particular trait will express itself. I think a lot of the morphs in leopard geckos and bearded dragons work somewhat on this principle. you can have the two yellowest bearded dragons and yet some of the babies can turn out to be close to normal looking though it is generally accepted that the more of the trait the parents show the more the babies will show as well.

Thus endeth my brief genetics lesson. One of my worst classes in college was genetics. It was also one of my favorites. Very interesting but also can be very confusing and frustrating. We learned all that stuff on the first day and it got worse from there

I have also seen the term intraspecific hybridization used on some websites. It is defined as a mating between two animals of the same species but different subspecies (ie. Ts.sirtalis and T.s.infernalis.)

[abcat1993]

So I could, assuming that flame is recessive, breed my normal with it, keep a male, then breed that to my flame female and have flame babies if it was het for flame?

[abcat1993]

OK, I need help. I've been thinking about this for a while now with no results. He has available flames that are 66% possible het for paradox leucistic for $50 more than a normal flame, or I could wait and get a normal flame. What would you do if you were me?

[Cazador]

I have also seen the term intraspecific hybridization used on some websites.

Maybe the level of specificity that I have for biological terminology is my own quirk, but I think that misusing biological terms eventually leads to confusion, and repeating a misused term just gives it misplaced credibility. I'm sure I misuse plenty of terms in other fields, so please accept my critism with a grain of salt. Again, it's the right concept, which is what matters the most.

[sschind]

"So I could, assuming that flame is recessive, breed my normal with it, keep a male, then breed that to my flame female and have flame babies if it was het for flame?"

This is correct. In that case you should expect half the babies to be flames and the other half hets.

"OK, I need help. I've been thinking about this for a while now with no results. He has available flames that are 66% possible het for paradox leucistic for $50 more than a normal flame, or I could wait and get a normal flame. What would you do if you were me?"

I wouldn't waste my money on possible hets. Its just too big of a gamble in my opinion. Besides, even if they were guaranteed hets for the paradox leucistic (or whatever) it wouldn't neccesarily do you any good since your male will most certainly not be carrying this gene. what you would be looking at then would be breeding the het leucistic (again disregard the 66% and assume it is a het) to your normal. all babies would then be 50% possible hets for the leucistic gene. You would have to pick the right male to breed back to the female to get a chance to produce the leucistics. Being that the animal is only a possible het that means there is a chance that it is not. You would have to get lucky twice. First with a 2/3 chance that the female is het then with a 50/50 chance that the male you chose to breed it with is het. I believe that makes the odd at about 33% that you might get the leucistics. If the sexes were reversed it may make more sense since you could breed the het male with several possible het females to increase your odds but the way it is the possible het males can only breed with the one het female. The only way I might consider it is if the possible het he has now is older and would let you breed a season sooner than waiting for a fresh 07 baby. I'm not sure how old your male is though.

I agree with James, I am not into all the morphs myself. I wish my checkereds were only het for albino then I could enjoy them more but I couldn't pass up the deal I got on them. I could do the flames because there are naturally occurring populations. I don't like albinos because, although they are a naturally occurring morph, there are no self sustaining naturally occurring populations.

I also agree with Rick. I tend to prefer correct usage when it comes to scientific terminology as well. Unfortunately the guidelines continue to get less and less distinct as time goes on. It seems every year that goes by something new develops that tests the boundaries of scientific terminology. I'll use the snow corn as an example, although it is a common term and not a scientific one you might get the idea. When the first offspring of the Anerythristic and amelanistic corns produces the white babies, it was perhaps pretty easy to come up with the term "snow" corn. At the time a whiter variety of the corn probably was not even considered a possibility. Then when the whiter morph was produced they had to come up with something whiter than snow, hence the term blizzard.

[Stefan-A]

Maybe the level of specificity that I have for biological terminology is my own quirk, but I think that misusing biological terms eventually leads to confusion, and repeating a misused term just gives it misplaced credibility. I'm sure I misuse plenty of terms in other fields, so please accept my critism with a grain of salt. Again, it's the right concept, which is what matters the most.

You know I don't try to challenge you when it comes to biology, but this isn't a biology debate. The way I see it, considering the meaning of both the words "hybrid" and "intergrade", the use of the latter is logically incorrect, even if the science community has chosen to use it to describe hybrids produced within a species and out of the regular context. By no stretch of the imagination could these hybrid be considered transitional forms.

[Cazador]

By no stretch of the imagination could these hybrid be considered transitional forms.

Since we're sharing ideas and not arguing over the correctness of something that matters more in a classroom setting than it does on a forum for hobbiests, I'll play along and suggest that the evolution of species can occur by many different mechanisms... one being when different species hybridize, intergrade, or even when morphs adapt to a different niche within or beyond the range of its parents (phylopatry or allopatry). In these cases, even morphs that begin to assortatively mate would represent a transitional form until they establish reproductive isolation. If one looks at organisms on a geologic or evolutionary time scale, one might even say that all organisms are transitional forms . With intense inbreeding (bottleneck effect) and a little luck (genetic drift), over a long period of time, I'm certain that reproductive isolation (and hence speciation) could (and has) occur(red). Review this thread, then scroll through the posts before it for a real world example where this has occurred (http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/gene....html#post7657). The point is that these morphs represented transitional forms until they essentially (dare I say the word?) s.p.e.c.i.a.t... I can't finish it

The problem with debates over biological terminology are that even words like "adapt" can mean slightly different things to specialists of different disciplines (i.e. physiologists, evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc.). Yet they have specific definitions within their disciplines. Cheers,

Rick

[Stefan-A]

The problem with debates over biological terminology are that even words like "adapt" can mean slightly different things to specialists of different disciplines (i.e. physiologists, evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc.). Yet they have specific definitions within their disciplines. Cheers,

Rick

Speaking of which, even "adapt" ("selection" being another, for the same reason) is logically incorrect to use, considering the mechanisms, since the word itself suggest that it's a directed process.

[mikm]

Hey there again Matt ... Me personally, I would get a nice Flame baby. They do 'color up' so it's alot of fun to watch them develop. Just my person opinion

best of luck to you !!

[abcat1993]

Thanks for your opinions, and for reminding me that they color up since the babies look a little dull compared to the adult pictures. After flipping many coins, asking people, and just thinking, I decided it's worth a try to get that. It is partially my impatience however, since I could get it sooner. I know I'd regret it if I didn't take the chance, and I figured I'd probably just spend the money on something stupid like a video game anyway, so I figured, why not?