Part of the problem with the pairings you listed is that it's very easy to 'fake' the hypo and the caramel look. That is, cornsnakes which are not homozygous for either can still appear to be hypo or caramel. Some breeders will even sell yellowish corns as caramels, even when they are het or don't carry the gene. With that in mind...

What you observed:

Year 1
Hypo X Amber = Hypos, yellow hypos
Hypo X Hypo = Hypos

Year 2
Caramel X Amber = Normals, Caramels

Year 4
F1 yellow hypo X F1 yellow hypo = Normals


Right off the bat, Year 2 tells us something. Year 2 tells us that your "Amber" is really only het for Caramel. This is probably the result of a breeder seeing a yellowish normal or hypo and mistaking it for a true caramel as a hatchling.

Secondly, year 4 tells us that the "Amber" is not homozygous for hypo. If she were, F1 X F1 would equal 100% hypos. The father's state as being a hypo is now also suspect, but Murphy may just be messing with your clutch ratios. (You didn't say how large the year 4 clutch was.) The other thing that the Year 4 breeding tells us, is that the yellow-hypo look does not breed true. Ergo, it is not a new morph or anything.

So what we have:
"Amber" -- Really just a Normal het caramel that looks yellow enough and light enough to fake being homozygous for caramel and hypo.
"Hypo" -- Probably hypo, assuming the hypo X hypo offspring were correctly identified.
"High-yellow hypo F1s" -- Het hypo, with some pretty coloration that does not breed true in the offspring. Neither, both, or just one may be het caramel.

Now this is all given that your identification of the hatchlings' morphs is correct, obviously. But that's what my deductions are at current.

-Kat
-----
This Space For Rent

[ Hide Replies ]

• Calling Kathy L. and Don S., and anyone - John Q, Sat Jul 22 09:22:29 2006
• RE: Calling Kathy L. and Don S., and anyone - STEVES_KIKI, Sat Jul 22 10:30:03 2006
• Giving it a shot... - Kat, Sat Jul 22 12:21:31 2006
• Thanks but Wrong! ! ! - John Q, Sat Jul 22 12:43:25 2006
• Aha! But... - Kat, Sun Jul 23 20:29:19 2006
• RE: Aha! But... - shaky, Sun Jul 23 21:51:13 2006