Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have been looking back in the archives looking for some info on these guys. I have some questions that have some different answer's in the archives. Well here goes...
1. Are harlequin's Co-dom?
2. Was the Patternless the Super ?
3. Do all harlequins have blue eyes??
4. Is a Harlequin a Jungle?

checked Tim's site yet?

www.HarlequinBoa.com

as far as I know, the patternless hasn't been proven to be the super form, and Jungle's are totally different animals.

Bci Joe
-----
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin

I went back through the archives and there seems to be some confusion out there as to what the full deal is... On epost said it was a harlequn to a normal well that is intresting enough but I'd kind of like to know more and I did email the guy and have had no response...

I would believe what I read on the site of the originator, above what others say in archived posts. Even what the Magee's or I have said in archived posts may have been disproven or proven otherwise at this point.

The patternless was produced from the first breeding of an F3 ( I believe) to an unrelated animal. So it was Harley to normal, but most Harley's we've seen are merely F1's.

Thanks, joe
-----
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin

1.No, 2.Too early to tell.(however the first "patternless" Motley was produced from gene carrier to non-gene carrier,so although it doesn't make sense,it's a good question.) 3.No, 4.No.....The name "Harlequin" is not synonymous with a monotypical mutation,it is the name of the bloodline that produces anomolous results. I've always felt that in this way it is similar to the "Jungle",which is why so many people have had trouble understanding those also. it is much more important to identify the bloodline relationship,continuity,and,or parental status,than the appearence of any one individual produced from either of these lines. Even simple mutations do not always follow strict genetic calculations,so when dealing with "variably expressed" non-recessives you've got to do the long version of the equasion rather than try to hammer a square peg into a round hole,or jumping the gun in catagorizing the nature of the genetic behavior. I believe the Harlequin bloodline may end up providing us with an example of "incomplete dominance" (which is hard to prove,because I'm not aware of any clear,documented cases of it in boa constrictors.) hope this helps,(at least stimulate more thought! *lol*)
-----
EMAIL

After looking at harlequinboa.com, I think that all we can reliably say is that harlequin is not a single recessive mutant gene. I think the odds are that there is a single mutant gene, but even that hasn't been nailed down beyond doubt. So far, apparently nobody knows whether a snake with a pair of harlequin mutant genes looks different from a snake with a harlequin gene paired with a normal gene.

If most of the boas that have the harlequin mutant do not look normal, but some normal-looking boas can pass the harlequin gene to their offspring, then that could be a case of incomplete penetrance. That sort of thing is known with at least one of the mutants that causes extra fingers and toes in humans. Harlequin seems to be so variable that incomplete penetrance is certainly possible. Proving it would require breeding as many as possible of the normal-looking offspring of a harlequin to normal mating to normal boas. And then figuring out what percentage of those normal-looking boas actually did throw harlequin babies. An interesting but time-consuming problem.

Paul Hollander

Keep in mind that the website contains information "to the best of my knowledge",and ability to describe it..."at that time". I have continued my work with them,and the story is now in need of a few new chapters...if,by "we" you mean the "boacultural community" at large then sure,that's probably true,I never bet the farm on it being a "single gene set mutation"...but,having more than one set of genes working within the same line of animals,is the best reason I can think of to name,and pay attention to the bloodline rather than trying to name each,and every anomolous look it produces,and presenting individuals as "possible" this,or that(the "problem" with another variable "morph" that should've been recognized as a "bloodline" IMHO.) the patternless anomolies produced this past year were fathered by a completely "normal looking" F3 bred to a completely unrelated animal!"normals" from this line have produced expressive individuals numerous times..as for the recipe for proof you suggested,I would agree that that particular path is much too long,and time consuming...my thoughts are,rather than slowly spiral up that mountain in the name of science,littering the path with an excessive number of animals of questionable value,I'm going to take the elevator straight to the summit,so I can enjoy the view in my lifetime...I'll drink a little toast to proof & science from there.
-----
EMAIL