Posted by:
slithering_serpents
at Tue Sep 19 12:39:48 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by slithering_serpents ]
I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately people use the term pastel for everything. It really irks me that people call a light hypo a pastel etc when there is no pastel anywhere in their ancestry. Just because ignorant people, or inscrupulous sellers call everything a Motley would that change what a Motley is? No! A Pastel will always be a pastel, regardless of those people. Unlike the single gene morphs, pastels have so many genes that create the look, you really can't have the same problem as the morphs. It isn't one gene! After this discussion I will never by an F anything either. I purposely make a great effort to outcross all my projects.
Caden
"With anything that is genetic,the higher the filial number,the greater the chance of isolating a homozygous example,and/or discovering the true nature of any given mutant.it seems pastel has just become a huge adjective stewpot for anything slightly above pure brown? if you notice,every single hypo produced now is a "pastel" with no real suggestion of any linear continuity,or previous track record at all? just my take on it,at the rate everything's being lumped into the pot,eventually "pastel" will simply mean that it didn't come from a black boa... *lol* as far as I can imagine,I can't think of anything I'd be interested in working past F3? if it's a form of dominance,third gen. should yeild the desired result,if it's recessive you should have an entire litter of homozygous examples to out cross from...why go to F4 with anything???"
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: I don't know about pastels,but... - slithering_serpents, Tue Sep 19 12:39:48 2006