For what it's worth, I was in NOLA this week, hence my "disappearance". I just didn't have the time or energy to post until now.

"Or did your anger simply get the best of you."

What makes you assume that I was angry? I just call a spade a spade. If you think I was angry, then you are merely projecting your feelings onto me. In fact, I only called you a liar because you've been telling and implying untruths. Before it was deleted, I did see where you called me a bunch of names that had nothing to do with anything other than your anger. If anybody is angry Frank, it's you!

"I am interested in how you can possibly say that Jon R, proved anything without back breeding?"

I never said he did prove anything. Unfortunately, what I wrote has been deleted so now I cannot show you exactly what I actually said. But I will reiterate, I never said he proved anything.

"You said he proved the first Mexican axanthic was recessive, because he bred it to several normal and only produced visual normals. I have to wonder how that proved anything."

Again, I never said "he proved the first Mexican axanthic was recessive", that is 100% incorrect. What I actually said was that the outcrossed breeding that Jon did proved that the axanthic coloration was "broken" by outcrossing which is more along the lines of how a recessive trait works. I said that by him doing that, he proved more about the genetics than you did because he actually did outcrossing whereas you did not.

Example, if you breed two normals together and you get more normals, that only proves that you are combining like traits to like traits and able to produce more. So, if you breed 2 albinos together and get more albinos, that doesn't mean you've proven whether or not they are a recessive trait or anything else for that matter other than the fact that if you breed two like traits together, then you will be able to produce more of the same trait. But the problem is, this type of like pairing can produce the same results with dominant, recessive, codominant, incomplete dominant and polygenic traits. The only hitch is with the codominant, incomplete dominant and polygenic traits as these traits will usually produce variations or different morphs altoether such as an anaconda x anaconda should also produce normals and supercondas, but it's not unheard of to produce all anacondas and not a single normal or superconda which could lead one to assume that the anaconda gene could either be dominant or recessive for that matter.

The trick to proving a trait, something I would have thought you'd know by now with all of your years of experience, is to find a means to break the trait by outcrossing it which will eventually tell you what type of trait you are working with. You do not prove anything by producing the same trait from pairing the same like individuals, that proves nothing about what the gene is or how it works!

"I am under the belief that one more step is necessary and that is to back breed an offspring(possible het) back to the possible recessive parent. Or het to het, which is less accurate and takes more events to prove out."

That's correct, there's plenty of steps that need to be taken to properly prove out a trait. Again, with your years of experience, you should know already that properly proving traits can take many years of inbreeding and outcrossing individuals. This is something you've not done at all, nor did Jon for that matter. Neither of you individually proved this trait out at all. All you proved was that breeding axanthics to axanthics will produce more axanthics. Jon proved that breeding axanthics to normals will produce normals. Jon's pairing was a lot more informative because he showed that the trait was not only broken by outcrossing but that it was not acting in a manner that showed dominance, codominance or incomplete dominance. However, Jon still had a lot more work to do to properly prove it out, but outcrossing is a huge step in proving a trait, something you have not yet done.

"how can you say that my breeding did not indicate a recessive trait. As I bred a visual axanthic founder, to a visual axanthic founder, and received 3 out of 3, visual axanthics."

Seriously Frank? Are you really this ignorant? How does breeding 2 like animals prove anything at all? It doesn't!

Example, let's say we have an island populate with only indigenous albino hognose snakes. All we know is that the albinos breed to albinos and they produce more albinos. Unless we are able to find an indigenous non-albino to do an outcrossing to see what will be produced, we don't know if the albino trait is dominant, recessive or anything else for that matter because we have a limited gene pool of only albinos to work with. It's like trying to solve an algebra problem a b=c. If you only know that c=3, that doesn't mean that you can assume that a=1 and b=2 even though those do add up to 3, but you can also have a=0 and b=3 and get the same answer. The fact is, you cannot solve that problem until more data is known or discovered.

This is the exact same case with these mexican axanthics. You have only worked with a minimal part of the equation and are now making assumptions as to what these traits are. Yes, you can actually be correct simply by guessing, but that doesn't mean you've proven anything until you do all of the work and outcrossing is a huge determining factor in proving traits out, again, something you have not done.

"Then you stated, all I did was breed two like looking animals and received like looking neonates. Which is silly and naïve, we are not talking about normal colored animals, we are talking about a morph, an abnormal trait."

On the contrary, you are the one being silly and naive by claiming what this trait is without having done the necessary and proper work to prove this trait out. Like I previously stated, Jon gained more information about this trait by outcrossing than you did by pairing like animals.

Like I keep saying, it boggles my mind how someone of your standing who has been keeping reptiles far longer than I have has so little understanding of how to properly prove traits or even about simple Mendelian genetics.

"Start with question number one, how was what Jon R. did, prove anything?"

Jon didn't prove what the actual trait was. What Jon proved was that the trait can be broken by outcrossing and that the hatchlings produced were normal which is indicative of how recessive traits work but I never said that his outcrossing proved that the trait was recessive. That's all I said and it is 100% correct.

"And two, why do you dismiss what did occur? three neonate axanthics?"

I didn't dismiss anything. I understand that you bred two axanthics together and produced more axanthics. What is there to dismiss? All I'm saying is that what you did doesn't prove anything other than pairing the same traits together will produce the exact same trait which, again, pretty much happens with just about every type of Mendelian trait out there. The magic happens when you outcross, that's when you actually start to learn something about what these traits are and how they work. Yes, you produced more axanthics, good for you, but you still have zero idea about what they are and you won't until you outcross them.

For what it's worth, it's a safe bet to assume that the trait at this point is a recessive trait, but only because of the outcrossing work that Jon did which showed that breeding an axanthic to a normal produces normals which is how recessive traits work which leads us to assume that all of his hatchlings were het axanthic. Unfortunately, none of those hatchlings were ever bred back to their axanthic parent nor inbred to each other to prove whether they were in fact het axanthic, if the axanthic gene was acting as a recessive trait.

"Remember, All I said was, I did produce the first captive hatched Kennerlyi axanthic. I actually produced the first three."

The problem I have with you is that you have been acting like you've been the first one to find these animals and work with them, which is entirely untrue. Only after I called you out on this did you respond and pretty much corroborated everything I stated in my deleted post, but only because you had to try and regain some credibility by turning the tables using my truths against me which was rather entertaining. But I understand your tactics, I backed you into a corner and you were forced to come clean but chose to use the facts that I presented to attack me in order to reclaim some credibility.

"I guess I could post pics of their bellies to PROVE they are axanthics."

What a weird way to end your post. Did I ever say that these snakes were NOT axanthic? Nope, not once, not ever. Now you are desperately trying to imply that I stated this but I never made that assertion.

Perhaps you are confusing me with Nasicus. He actually made the ignorant statement that the only way you can prove that these are axanthic is if you can make snows from pairing these with albinos. What Gregg previously stated, was based from a conversation he had with me where I told him the exact same thing that he posted here.

Regardless, you made the childish statements (in your deleted posts) that I was jealous and a hater which is so far from the truth that it's laughable. I'm not jealous at all and the only thing I hate is arrogance and lies which seems to constitute who you are as a person. As far as the axanthic mexicans go, honestly, I wasn't even that interested in them back when Jon first showed them years ago. I was excited yes because it was a cool discovery, but that's where it ended.

But whatever Frank, you believe what you want to believe as will your kool-aid drinking sycophantic cronies. I honestly could care less. My only aim was to set the record straight, which I did. Other than that, this forum is pretty much now a lost cause. So have at it!
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]