Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Just another thing to consider for those of you who are skeptical. Breed a Leucistic Black rat to a normal....see what you get....Then breed a Leucistic Texas to a normal....see what you get......The results are VERY different, which would suggest two different genes, or slightly different locals on the chromosomes. Also, when you take an F1 from each of the crosses above to a normal, the babies are VERY different again. In the black rat, you will see the "codominance" showing through (in 50% of them), and in the Texas, you will see nothing but normals (possible hets) in all of them. Just something to think about...

And for those that are interested, the Larry Rouch rusties DO look different than the Darin Bell Rusties (the breeder of the original farm caught leucy in Ohio) if you look at the F1s of the leucistic x normal crosses. Maybe I will post some pics later this week for you to see what I am talkin about.

Dewey

The pic I posted is NOT comparing the Bell and Rouch line of rusties. The one on the right is a project my brother and I are working on right now...

Dewey

"Just another thing to consider for those of you who are skeptical. Breed a Leucistic Black rat to a normal....see what you get....Then breed a Leucistic Texas to a normal....see what you get......The results are VERY different, which would suggest two different genes, or slightly different locals on the chromosomes. Also, when you take an F1 from each of the crosses above to a normal, the babies are VERY different again. In the black rat, you will see the "codominance" showing through (in 50% of them), and in the Texas, you will see nothing but normals (possible hets) in all of them. Just something to think about..."

It would be more helpful if you were more explicid in your statement. As it is, it doesn't make any sense.

Nevertheless, I assume you to mean: "Breed a Leucistic Black rat to a normal" (black rat) and "...a Leucistic Texas to a normal" (Texas). If that is what you mean, then I would think one would get two, normal looking types of each that are heterozygous for Leucistic. Naturally, the difference would be that one is a black rat snake and the other is a Texas rat snake.

You really lose me in this statement:

"Also, when you take an F1 from each of the crosses above to a normal, the babies are VERY different again. In the black rat, you will see the "codominance" showing through (in 50% of them), and in the Texas, you will see nothing but normals (possible hets) in all of them. Just something to think about..."

If you take an F1 from the black rat x leucistic black rat results and breed it to a normal black rat snake, you'll get normal black rat snake babies. If you take an F1 from the Texas rat snake x leucistic Texas rat snake results and breed it to a normal Texas rat snake, then you'll get normal Texas rat snakes. That is unless the normals to which you are breeding just happen to be carrying the heterozygous gene for leucitism.

On the other hand, if what you mean to say is-->If you take a pair of F1's from each of these breeding and breed the black rat F1's together, and breed the Texas F1's together, then I would expect to see some normal F2 types of each and some leucistic F2 types of each.

The problem is, I don't know what it is you are trying to say.

You understood everything except the last part...When you breed a leu and normal black rat together, you DON'T get normal looking animals. And when you take one of those and cross it to a normal one, half the babies will look like mom, and half will look like dad.

This, my friend, is why my brother and I LOVE working with black ratsnake genetics. It's a lot of fun, and conversations about it can lose many people. Hope this helps.

Dewey

All that means to me is that the lucistic gene in Black Ratsnakes is in fact dirived from Texans and not pure in the Black Rat sense. A lucistic black rat bred to normal should look normal and be het for lucistic. If it were a co dominant trait you should still be making some normal looking animals. Where did this so called PURE lucistic black rat snake originate from. I do not believe that there is a pure form lucistic black rat out there. I think they were made from lucistic Texans.
-----
"Life without risk is to merely exist."

Yeah and the leucistic balls too!!!! j/k I have faith that they are pure. I understand everyones skepticism especially with there already being a leucistic texas rat. But that doesn't automatically make it a cross. Something else I've been thinking about, if they were crosses wouldn't you see some bug eyed black rats?
-----
0.1 Snow Corn "Hope"
1.0 Ball Python "Wilson" (Castaway)
1. Orange Albino Black Ratsnake "Chunk" (Goonies)
.1 Orange Albino Black Ratsnake "Peaches"
0.0.1 Mexican Black Kingsnake "Onyx"

An interesting question, but I don't think we can assume that you would (see the bugeye trait in lucy black rats). Not unless the tx rats used in the cross had the bugeye trait, either outright or recessive, and I don't think that ALL, or even MOST leucistic texas rats are carrying the bugeye trait.

Lucy blackrat with normal eyes.

If you say that crossing a Leucistic to a normal black rat should produce NORMALS, shouldn't you also get normal balls when you cross a leucistic to a normal? You get all fires. Does this make the leucistic gene impure in balls? If not, then why the double standard. Just food for thought. Like I said, I have kicked this around with Dwight Good, George Miskimmon, Mike Jolliff, Floyd Pressley, Andre Wynn, Darin Bell (the guy who owns the original WC leucistic black rat from Ohio), as well as a few other reputable breeders, and we all have a slightly different take on things. We all bring up valid points to consider. And unfortunately, none of us can be proven right or wrong per say. It all boils down to what YOU personally believe to be true.

Dewey

I personally know the individual who collected the lucy Black Rat Snake. He made hets by breeding it to a normal black rat and eventually made the first captive-bred leucistic Black Rat Snakes. Despite this, there will always be "non-believers," who insist that there's no such thing as a pure lucy black rat.

Unfortunately there is no way to prove a lucy is Texas, Black Rat, or Texas X Black Rat. This is a shame, since in my experience Black Rats make great pets, while Texas Rats like to bite.

Tim

As long as your source is "a person" then your credability is refutable. Who is "the person"? and where is a picture of this founder animal? seems to vague to be beleivable.
-----
"Life without risk is to merely exist."

Exactly my point - you're a non-believer. The original lucy black rat was caught at least 12 years ago. I don't think the person who caught it bothered to photograph it. He did, however, take it to reptile shows in Ohio. The Columbus Show (All-Ohio) is the longest-running reptile show in the United States. If the person was trying to pull a "fast one" by trying to pass off a lucy Texas Rat as a Black Rat, I think someone would have called him out on it - after all, I recall him selling lucy black rats for $600 and hets for $300.

I am not giving the person's name because he lives in Ohio. These days Ohioans get their homes raided by ODNR agents - thus, the reason for secrecy. Although I doubt the original collector still keeps Ohio reptiles, or any reptiles for that matter - no one likes getting raided.

I don't reckon giving you the name would make any difference - you still wouldn't believe it to be true. Do you think there are photos and records of the original lucy eastern hognose? Western hognose? Texas Rat? Eastern garter? No, there are not. Does this mean such snakes don't exist? I think not.

Tim

On the contrary I am easy to convince but I do my homework. I know of gads of people who inadvertantly buy hybrids but do not find out till years later. I am actualy interested in purchasing a pure strain black rat lucistic but I am picky about my stock. So far there are too many gaps in the information out there for me to feel safe about purchasing such an animal. I have a 90% probability of getting a hybrid. I am genuinly seeking not arguing just to argue.
-----
"Life without risk is to merely exist."

Second point is that he made HETS not animals exibiting some co dominant trait!
-----
"Life without risk is to merely exist."

He in fact DID produce VISIBLE hets. He considered them a form of natural hypo. He, at the time didn't realize that the visible het was a co dom trait. I may be able to contact Darin and have him forward me a pic of the ORIGINAL WC leucistic black ratsnake from Ohio. You guys are all saying that Don and Mike have "good" strains of leucistic, but what you don't realize is that they got them from someone else. Darin's name isn't well known since he keeps to himself a lot, but he is very reputable and honest.

And furthermore, there is actually more to the original than most know. It was ORIGINALLY bred to an amel black ratsnake since "leucistic" wasn't so well known. The results produced NO "albinos" which was was was thought to happen at the time. That guy who did this thought that the "white" wasn't genetic since no albinos came out of the cross. This is where Darin came in. He acquired the animal and some of the F1s from the amel cross. Darin knew that they had to be crossed back again to produce the desired trait.

Hope this helps out some as well.

Dewey

Were these a-mel pure black rat. I would be willing to pay more for something I knew was pure in the black rat sense. Who is this Darin? Any pics yet from the wild lucy? you almost have me convinced but still to vague.

-----
"Life without risk is to merely exist."

There is a very simple way to check the leucistic Black Ratsnake origin. Just breed a leucistic Texas Rat to a leucistic Black Rat. If the F1 offspring turns out to be all leucistic too, then these two leucistic morphs are allelic, and therefore you can safely assume that the leucistic Black Rat is indeed a Texas x Black Ratsnake crossbreed. If not, then the two leucistic morphs are to be considered as incompatible, and therefore of different origin.

I was planning to do this myself, as I had both leucistic morphs until about 6 months ago, but I got bored with the whole subject and sold all of them. The real problem with leucistic ratsnakes that they all look the same.

I do have both types of leucistic and do indeed plan on doing breeding trials, but it won't happen until next year. Nevertheless, I think the arguement regarding the different origins of leucistism in black rat snakes versus Texas rat snakes is a moot one, since they have been proven to be genetically the same snake (2002, Urs Utiger et al, Russian Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.105-124). The potential for leucistism to pop up in either animal independant of the other is there.

Sighthunter-I was there in Ohio in the late eighties when this happened, and the young man who collected the leucistic was a casual friend of mine. If you want his name please email me. I too was a skeptic at the time, but his story of this snake's capture on a rural farm, which was corroborated by a mutual friend, won me over.

On the subject of breeding trials with lucy texas rats-this won't prove much even if the cross produces leucistics. If both mutations in the respective ssp. happen to affect the same genes, then they will be compatible, pair up, and produce pure lucys even if the snakes ARE from different ssp.! For example, if I were to find a new wild-caught amel black rat in the woods here in New York this season, there is every possibility that it might be compatible with present captive strains, even if it has arisen spontaneously in our local wild population!

Brad Chambers

Lets assume you are right. Has someone kept track of the bloodline? Have they been kept pure? Are they legal?
-----
"Life without risk is to merely exist."

Posted by: Sighthunter at Thu Mar 2 23:19:46 2006 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Lets assume you are right. Has someone kept track of the bloodline? Have they been kept pure? Are they legal?
-----

The answers to your questions are (in order): 1. I don't know. 2. I have no idea-probably in some cases yes, some no. However, I have no clue as to what would motivate someone who had pure lucy black rats to mix them with Texans! But stranger things have happened lol..... Finally, for your third question-in the 80s yes, the original collection was quite legal in Ohio. This was well before that state's rather draconian herp laws were instituted (at which point I, not entirely coincidentally, left the satate!).

I will say that the individual who collected this animal had a very good reputation for honesty in the Buckeye herp community.

Brad Chambers