Thanks for taking a shot at it. It is a puzzling result. There is still a second clutch this year from the siblings and that may answer some questions.

I say wrong because there is absolutely no confusing the hypo gene of the amber looking female and the male hypo. The male hypo sired another clutch the same year. Bred to a female hypo and all the hatchlings were hypos. Very nice ones at that. So he is definitely a hypo.
So following your theory theory let's say the amber female fooled everybody. The hatchlings would still be het for hypo from their fathers hypo gene. Het x het siblings from the very first clutch, only 25% visual/homozygous with the rest being 66% het for hypo. It was a small clutch, about 8 I believe. So in a clutch of 8 it could happen but this would all have to happen in contradiction to the 2nd year breeding of the amber female that produced some visual caramels. The siblings that were bred should have also been het for that gene.

[ 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