First, let me address something that I want everyone to think about. If you have not bred bloodreds (remember this is the original name and I'm old fashioned about accepting change) AND if YOU personally have experienced frailties in the genetics of your line of bloodreds, it's your perrogative to report that to everyone. If you do that, PLEASE, tell them that your comments are a result of YOUR personal experience with them and does not necessarily reflect a trend within the mutation. I say this because my bloods are about as fertile and virile as any other morph I have. Over 15 years ago, there were fertility issues and problems getting babies to eat. As a family of corns, my baby bloods eat as well (if not better) than most corns out there. They are NOT weak. Fertility? What can I say? I get 80-100% fertility in all my bloodred projects. That's precisely the efficacy I expect from ANY corn snake project. So, before addressing your question, let me say that I want people to stop parroting what they read and hear, without doing some research. My success with this line is the same as the success my competitors and associates are experiencing. To say that bloods are problematic is like saying you're a bed wetter. Perhaps you wet your bed as a child, but you surely do not do that now. Hence, you are no longer a bed wetter, so you probably omit that item on your bio and your resume. As a race of corns, bloodreds are no longer problematic. Perhaps someone's are, but generally speaking, they are not weak by any physical or genetic standard.
Note: I'm not pointing at Tim here. He's a valuable asset to this forum and I enjoy reading his posts.

Now, are they simple recessive? Obviously, there's nothing simple about them. This is the main reason the F1 outcrosses of bloods used to be called "outcrossed bloods". If you breed an albino corn to a normal corn, you get all normals. None of them show any markers for carrying the amel gene. That's how a simple recessive works. Since some (or most) of the F1s from pairing a bloodred (again I'm using the name they were originally called, regardless of coloration) show SOME signs of being like their bloodred parent, we used to call them outcrossed bloods. Obviously, this is lame, but figuring out exactly what genetic mechanics are in this snake has not been easy. Common perception today (in lieu of more extensive breeding trials) is that they are some form of dominant mutation. Some say bloodred is a variable or incomplete dominant gene. Unless another gene is working in concert to create the look of a bloodred (diffused) corn, this is the best label I can think of to describe the function of this mutation. SO, at this time, I'd have to call it incomplete dominant. That is, until more evidence is offered that best describes what's going on with this unpredictable race of corn.

Why does the web site for South Mountain Reptiles still call the F1 outcrosses HETS? I need to change that, but it would require that I offer two or three forms of bloods. One form is identical to a wild-caught normal corn. You see, if incomplete dominance is truly what's going on, I should be able to sell every baby from a bloodred X amel pairing, as a bloodred; even if they look completely normal. Who's going to buy those? Not me. I want the ones that grow up to be like the pictures we see out there. SO, you can see that I have a problem calling a normal looking corn a bloodred OR calling one that has half the bloodred looks, a PURE BLOODRED. This begs the question, "What do we call the ones that don't look good?". Grade "B" bloods? I know it's not correct to call them hets, but by doing so and charging less than bloodred prices, my customers get a snake that is capable of producing stunning bloodreds. If I don't figure out what to call those other than "het" (which of course, they really are not), I'm faced with two options. Fraudulently sell them as normal corns, even though they have some blood markers and really are more than just normals OR euthanizing them because they do not neatly fit into a known morph classification. It's almost embarrassing to call them hets when it appears that they are not, but what would I call them? Have two grades? Three grades? Grade A bloods for the good ones, Grade B for the halfway looking ones and Grade C for the ones that have NO bloodred markers??? That's not practical either. Suggestions?

In conclusion, let me remind you that people that read this forum (and others) tend to believe most of what they read. If they read that bloodreds are frail, the morph undeservingly gets a bad rap, and isn't properly marketed and propagated. Me, I can't help but notice that the more we try to change the color or pattern of bloods, the more we strengthen the genetic integrity of the mutation. I have not seen a lack of genetic integrity in this line for over 15 years. Perhaps it's because I was on a mission to infuse this mutation with other colors and patterns, and in the process, I diluted inferiorities in the line. If that is the case, I'm in good company, because many of my colleagues report to me that their bloodred lines are also superior to other allegedly strong lines.
South Mountain Reptiles

[ Show Entire Thread ]