Reptile & Amphibian Forums

do each of the variations that i often hear referenced, like granite, blushing (btw what is the actual definition of blushing b/c i can't seem to get a good hold on it from pics), clear belly, jungle, partial stripe, rings, blackback, etc....correspond to producing different traits or morphs when bred? i know about the het pied marker and what its supposed to be, are these other traits believed to have similar implications or are they just oddities, so they may be more likely to produce further odditites? or are they jut different traits that people enjoy in and of themselves.... i'm really curious about the significance of these traits and any opinion or input would really be appreciated. thanks. ed

With such variation in ball pythons it seems like there are many traits that people find desirable. A python may have a great deal of light brown coloration on its back, sides or head which is called blushing. Granites have speckles of dark in their yellow patterns. Black backs (i do not beleive that all are genetic) have a large portion of their back that are dark in color. Jungle is an increased pattern throughout the python, and I beleive is genetic and considered a morph. A partial stripe along the back that is not considered genetic often times is a desirable trait in a snake. Ringer is a snake that has a spot that may be white or extremely light on its body. It seems now a days that any spot or blotch that is not normal is a new trait. I consider these traits to be natural variation in normal ball pythons.

have you encountered any reason to believe that these traits may be on the same chromomsome as more drastic morphs? for example isn't a granite a key component of breeding for another more intense morph....i guess i'm basically asking if there's any reason to believe that any of these seemingly minor oddities or marker traits....also does the blushing change color like when a crested gecko flames up or is it jut the lightnes that this term refers to?

The topic of genetic linkage may be a little more complicated than one would think. If a gene is on the same chromosome, depending on how far away each gene (physical distance) on the chromosome, one needs to look at expected mendelian ratios. For instance if a dihybrid cross (a cross between 2 double heterozygotes in which there is an apparent dominant and recessive trait) one would expect the ratios of the offspring to be 9:3:3:1. If the two genes are on the same chromosome, this ratio will be distorted. Essentially if two genes are on the same chromosome, there is not an independant assortment of the genes. The closer the genes are on the chromosome the less independant, the farther the genes are on the chromosome will be more like a mendelian ratio due to recombinant genetics, but the ratio will still be distorted.

The answer to your question is difficult for me to answer. One would need a great deal of data on these traits, and so far I have not found much data on the genetics of such traits.
Link

i'm going to go look for some of my bio books from college and try to brush up now some of this is starting to come back to me and i know they have some good info in them....i had assumed that there was not sufficient evidence to say anything for certain at this point, but is there any suspicions or fairly widely held beliefs about this topic, kind of a staring point?