Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Additional peanut butter Brooksi Mutation Hypothesis below...

Hypo

NE Axanthic

PB

Now that I have a PB and I've examined it... I think IT IS another strain of hypo, not albino as I suspected a few months ago... this strain has ruby red eyes and a brown coloration, the strain that we already know has regular eye color and a reduction in the AMOUNT of black pigment present but not the DEGREE of the pigment expressed (Hope that makes sense).

We know this gene is Co-dom. since when bred with the T negative Albino "Jellies" were produced without the need for 2x hets.... Tom Stevens brought it to my attention that it is ONLY Co-dom with T Negative Albino, hence the reason we get 2x hets when bred to Hypo and axanthic. SO... PB X Hypo 2x hets should be a double Hypo, in worst case they'd be a Hybino (PB).

I believe ALL PB have ruby red eyes, not just the light ones that hatch out and have obvious red eyes... some people just don't bother looking, I'm a sucker for detail and precision... (I'm a bit obsessive compulsive) how else can we determine what we've got if we don't examine them inch by inch under a microscope... like the WS Mutations, people have been keeping them for years and some still have'n realized that their pupils are RED (yes the iris is black but the pupil is red!) I've noticed this eye coloration in the "White-walled" Speckled kings as well.

lastly a pic of WS, WS Axanthic and WS Hypo (hard to see the WS on this one)... i think red hypo would do these more justice, create more of a contrast...

Thanx for look'n / read'n

BTW: i'm still suffering with dial-up so if anything please appreciate the time i took uploading these pix...

~ZF
-----
Royal Blue ReptileZ
Home of Bklyn's Finest Brooksi

___

signature file edited 4/22/06; contact an admin.

I recall the first Peanut Butter picture posted was not a hatchling, but was truly sporting the color of peanut butter. I have no idea what it looked like as a hatchling, but that first Peanut Butter picture wasn’t red. Or “reddish” anywhere. I think the rage at the time was breeding for “Flame” and reddish hatchlings, maybe that was the origin of the first Peanut Butter? Perhaps this peanut butter gene is related to the red color gene and not the melanin of the hypo? Maybe these are the first Hypoerythristic Brooks kings?

pb was Bred to hypo and non allelic was confirrmed,, waybe a ULTRA ??? the PB juvis are almost Amel at hatching then change?

That's exactly how I explained it to Rainer when we discussed the Jellies. If it is only compatible with Albinos as far as being co dom then I think Ultra is a suitable label.
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

Furthermore........if two Jellies bred together make a new morph than it is probably co dom, though some people will still want to insist it is something else Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

If any Corn guys can help us here,,,,,,I believe there is such a thing as het for Ultra, and Ultra is co dom with Amel, so if that were the case there still may be het PBs that are co dom with Amel, can't say I am sure of this though the end Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

We know this gene is Co-dom. since when bred with the T negative Albino "Jellies" were produced without the need for 2x hets.... Tom Stevens brought it to my attention that it is ONLY Co-dom with T Negative Albino, hence the reason we get 2x hets when bred to Hypo and axanthic. SO... PB X Hypo 2x hets should be a double Hypo, in worst case they'd be a Hybino (PB).

We know this gene is Co-Dominant ? Says who ? If thats the case then you realize there are no hets for PB ? Anything sold or being kept as a Het is a normal that carries ZERO PB mutation. Have you ever thought that PB's could simply be a double recessive and the reason it breeds true with Lav is that they are Het for Lav as well ? I just find it a bit naive some would come out and say this is Co-Dominant as an absolute when its really not been proven.

I believe ALL PB have ruby red eyes, not just the light ones that hatch out and have obvious red eyes... some people just don't bother looking, I'm a sucker for detail and precision... (I'm a bit obsessive compulsive) how else can we determine what we've got if we don't examine them inch by inch under a microscope... like the WS Mutations, people have been keeping them for years and some still have'n realized that their pupils are RED (yes the iris is black but the pupil is red!) I've noticed this eye coloration in the "White-walled" Speckled kings as well.

Red eyes are not the result of pigment like you are referring to them as. Its lack of pigment and what makes them look red is the blood vessels of the eye.

Keith
-----

Thanx, all are from Daytona and mine except the WS mutations I don’t own any of the animals pictured with the WS hypo…

Now on to the discussion

You said red eyes are a result of lack of pigment… did u read where I stated that the PB mutation affects the amount of pigment expressed hence the red eyes… by that I mean the pb mutation reduces the intensity of the color so u are left with a brown coloration rather than black… the known hypo mutation still has the same black coloration it just takes most of it away so you are left with a lighter brighter snake…

2nd I never said the PB mutation was Co-Dom with Lav, I said it was Co-Dom with T negative albino

3rd PB being a 2x HomoZ is possibly but I highly doubt it, here are the reasons…

a) When PB was bred to T negative last year one “het” was produced then you may say well it can’t be Co-Dom either… you are correct!

b) if PB was a 2x HomoZ with T negative in it’s background PB X T negative would Yield T negative albinos that were 100% het for PB… which was not the case, out of the clutch (last season) there were 3 things “light jellies” , “Dark jellies” and one het

c) the Dark Jellies turned out to look Almost identical to the PB they are just a bit lighter than the jellies… the light Jellies are similar you can tell they are from PB genes but they are Complete different than the PB and the Dark Jellies

d) the eye color on PB, Jelly and lavenders all Ruby red but they are not the same color ruby… one may say “that proves nothing, brooksi are variable” and that would be correct… But PB X T- gives a ruby eyed animal and none of them have the exact same coloration? Something 2x HomoZ would share more similarities.

Lastly this is my Hypothesis… the KEY to any good experiment, if we do not speculate as to what conclusions we may come up with how would we know what we are trying to prove/disprove…

Light “jelly”

Same snake months l8r

Dark “jelly” yearling: this one was purple and had lots of red

PB Yearling

T negative Adult

I don't think much more needs to be said after looking at the variation in the pix...

~ZF
-----
Royal Blue ReptileZ
Home of Bklyn's Finest Brooksi

___

signature file edited 4/22/06; contact an admin.

How do we know Jellies and PB's arent the same ? Do you have pics of baby Jellies along with PB babies ? Im assuming there is no Jelly over 1 year old ? Im not saying they are the same but if I remember Rainers pics of PB's they look an aweful lot like the Jelly you posted as a hatchling.

You said red eyes are a result of lack of pigment… did u read where I stated that the PB mutation affects the amount of pigment expressed hence the red eyes… by that I mean the pb mutation reduces the intensity of the color so u are left with a brown coloration rather than black… the known hypo mutation still has the same black coloration it just takes most of it away so you are left with a lighter brighter snake…

In the previous post you stated red pigment in the eyes so I guess I thought thats what you meant.

2nd I never said the PB mutation was Co-Dom with Lav, I said it was Co-Dom with T negative albino

What you think its co dominant along with is irrelevant. If PB's are co dominant at all you cant have hets. In other words there are NO HET PB Brooksi. Are you saying that PB's are Co-Dom ? Its my understanding that something cant exclusively co-dom with just something else. If a snake is Co-Dom then if bred to a normal you will get..in this case PB's and complete normals. Now is PB working like a Tiger Retic where if you breed 2 PB;s you get Super PB's ? Maybe, has anyone bred a PB to a PB ? Also Co-Dom traits are pretty rare especially in Colubrids (can you name more than 2)so this snake having some other recessive mutation isnt anymore rare than it being a Co-Dom.

if PB was a 2x HomoZ with T negative in it’s background PB X T negative would Yield T negative albinos that were 100% het for PB… which was not the case, out of the clutch (last season) there were 3 things “light jellies” , “Dark jellies” and one het
>>
>>c) the Dark Jellies turned out to look Almost identical to the PB they are just a bit lighter than the jellies… the light Jellies are similar you can tell they are from PB genes but they are Complete different than the PB and the Dark Jellies
>>
>>d) the eye color on PB, Jelly and lavenders all Ruby red but they are not the same color ruby… one may say “that proves nothing, brooksi are variable” and that would be correct… But PB X T- gives a ruby eyed animal and none of them have the exact same coloration? Something 2x HomoZ would share more similarities.

You are identifying these by the shade of red in the eye ? Thats pretty thin and open to interpetation. I might say one shade looks more the same to me than you would...its completely subjective. Show me some eye pics and identify what you are seeing. You state its obvious but shades of red, which is probably blood vessels seems an odd way to even begin determining whats what.

Keith

-----

Keith i said PB is Co-dom with ONLY the T nagative albino just like Ultra-amels in corns... Ultra a type of hypo is co- dom with ONLY amel corns... i don't think you are listening or reading clearly...

how do i know that PB and Jelly isn't the same thing cuz they were both inches away from me at daytona and i examined the two closely both the hatchlings and the yearling... they are NOT the same thing can't u see that from the pic? maybe your eye isn't trained to it or you're not one that concenrates on detail but it's pretty clear to me

all i know there's something weird going on with the PB gene
-----
Royal Blue ReptileZ
Home of Bklyn's Finest Brooksi

___

signature file edited 4/22/06; contact an admin.

Keith i said PB is Co-dom with ONLY the T nagative albino just like Ultra-amels in corns... Ultra a type of hypo is co- dom with ONLY amel corns... i don't think you are listening or reading clearly...

How can something be Co-Dom with only a particular recessive mutation ? T- is a recessive mutation right ? A co-dom trait wouldnt turn off and on or work with some and not others it either is or isnt. Maybe you can explain how that works ? Im not saying you are wrong its just that everything Ive known is that a Co-Dom gene is bred to a normal you get some normal and some that are Homo. Please point me to the literature or website that explains the genetics you are referring to. I want to be current as possible and I wanna leave open the possibility that Im wrong as Im not saying with 100% certainty that Im right.

how do i know that PB and Jelly isn't the same thing cuz they were both inches away from me at daytona and i examined the two closely both the hatchlings and the yearling... they are NOT the same thing can't u see that from the pic? maybe your eye isn't trained to it or you're not one that concenrates on detail but it's pretty clear to me

Well ZF I have not seen them personally but from pics of the hatchlings Ive seen they look close(can you post some hatchling pics of the animals in question?). Im an artist by trade so I do have a keen eye and have a knack for details. Again you are basing whats a different mutation or combined by looks alone and thats subjective. Like I said regardless a pretty morph hopefully more strange and cool looking Kings come from future breedings.

Keith
-----

in your HS biology or chemistry class did u do experiments?

If so what was the 1st thing you had to come up with or th 1st thing that was given to you by the teacher...

If it was like my HS or College courses u had to come up with a Hypothesis... a theory... an expected outcome

this is what i have come up with based on results from PB X T- and what has been brought to my attention in Corns... Maybe Zee can explain the corn thing since i don't keep corns and not 100% how it works with the Ultras but the results are similar...

i do not have a hatchling Jelly mine is last year's stock... i'll try to see if i have pix of my jelly as a hatching and post them in comparison ...

the one thing they do have in common are the males are light and the females are dark in both the Pb and Jelly mutations...
-----
Royal Blue ReptileZ
Home of Bklyn's Finest Brooksi

___

signature file edited 4/22/06; contact an admin.

Hey if you are saying this is all just unproven theory thats fine. I guess you threw me off with the statememt of fact in the original post...

We know this gene is Co-dom. since when bred with the T negative Albino "Jellies" were produced without the need for 2x hets....
-----

i do not have a hatchling Jelly mine is last year's stock... i'll try to see if i have pix of my jelly as a hatching and post them in comparison ...

Cool look forward to some pics!

the one thing they do have in common are the males are light and the females are dark in both the Pb and Jelly mutations...

Well that shouldnt be too suprising as males in normal Brooksi have usually tended to be highly colored and or lighter than females.

Keith

-----

I agree with most of what Keith is saying. The PBs are not co-dom from what we are seeing. They may be on the same allele with amels, but with co-dom traits, you will produce the morph just by breeding them to normals. Breeding a PB to any brooksi should produced 25% PB....and so far, I don't think this has been the result.

I disagree with Keith on the co-dom genes not being hets though....unless I just misunderstood his post. With co-dom genes, the het for is expressed as the trait where as the homozygous is expressed by breeding two "hets" (co-doms) together.

Take the Pastel Ball for example. Breeding a pastel (heterozygous) to a normal should produce 25% pastels and 75% normals. Breeding pastel(heterozygous) to pastel(heterozygous) should produce 25% super pastels (homozygous). Pastels are expressed as the het form and the Super Pastel is the homozygous form. This is considered "co-dom". Othere co-dom "hets" would be Yellow Bellies, Mojaves, Lesser Platinums, and the Spot-nose to name a few.

In dominant traits, the genes are produced in the first breedings and there is no het form. Examples of this would be the Pinstripe Ball and the Spider Ball. These traits are only expressed in one fashion and there is no super form.

I hope that helps some understand this co-dom thing.

Brandon Osborne

What I meant was you cant have normal looking hets from Co-doms. If its carrying the mutation it would be expressed being co-dom and all.

Keith
-----

Yeah....that's what I thought you meant. lol. I just misunderstood what you were implying......plus I was reading on the fly. That'll teach me to get in a hurry.

Brandon Osborne

Well I confused myself more than few times writing in this thread lol.

Keith
-----

>What I meant was you cant have normal looking hets from Co-doms.

This is true.

>If its carrying the mutation it would be expressed being co-dom and all.

This is true only when there are only two known alleles at a locus. It need not be true when there are three or more.

>How can something be Co-Dom with only a particular recessive mutation ? T- is a recessive mutation right ? A co-dom trait wouldnt turn off and on or work with some and not others it either is or isnt. Maybe you can explain how that works ? Im not saying you are wrong its just that everything Ive known is that a Co-Dom gene is bred to a normal you get some normal and some that are Homo. Please point me to the literature or website that explains the genetics you are referring to.

As far as you go, you are mostly right. It's just that you've been operating with only two alleles. Things get strange and complicated when there are three or more alleles (AKA multiple alleles).

The words "dominant", "recessive", and "codominant" always involve a comparison. Sometimes the comparison is implied, and sometimes it is explicit. Let's take the sentence, "The albino mutant gene is recessive."Here the comparison is implied. By convention, if the comparison is not explicit, it is always to the normal allele. The above sentence is equivalent to the explicit comparison, "The albino mutant gene is recessive to its normal allele."

When there are only two alleles, the normal allele and a mutant allele, there is only one comparison, the normal vs. the mutant. With multiple alleles, there is more than one comparison. In the black rat snake, there is a case of three alleles: normal, xanthic, and T-positive albino. This gives us the following six possible genotypes at this locus:

1. normal//normal (this means a pair of normal genes, one on each of two homologous chromosomes. "//" stands for a pair of homologous chromosomes.) Looks normal.
2. normal//xanthic. Looks normal.
3. xanthic//xanthic. Looks xanthic; distinctly yellow with reddish pupils.
4. normal//T-pos albino. Looks normal.
5. T-pos albino//T-pos albino. Lacks melanin; is very pale yellow with pink pupils.
6. T-pos albino//xanthic. Is paler than a xanthic//xanthic snake but yellower than a T-pos albino//T-pos albino snake.

A normal//xanthic looks normal. Therefore, the xanthic mutant gene is recessive to the normal allele. Or the xanthic mutant is a recessive.

A normal//T-pos albino looks normal. Therefore, the T-pos albino mutant gene is recessive to the normal allele. Or the T-pos albino mutant is a recessive.

A T-pos albino//xanthic snake doesn't look normal. And it doesn't look like a T-pos albino//T-pos albino snake or a xanthic//xanthic snake. When we must choose either dominant, codominant, or recessive for the comparison, the best possible fit is to say that xanthic is codominant to T-pos albino (and vice versa). Comparisons between two mutants must be explicit.

This is a case where xanthic is recessive to normal, T-pos albino is recessive to normal, and xanthic and T-pos albino are codominant to each other. Three different comparisons.

The English language is poor at making comparisons between more than two items.

Hope this helps.

See H.B. Bechtel's rat snake paper in the Journal of Heredity in 1985. See multiple alleles in a good genetics text.

Also see the a locus in Genetic variants and strains of the laboratory mouse / edited by Mary F. Lyon, Sohaila Rastan, and S.D.M. Brown for the International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice.
New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.

Paul Hollander

First off we are not simply guessing it is co dom........we are guessing it is similar to the ULTRA gene fairly recently discovered in Corns. This is NOT a typical co dom. I am waiting to hear from someone who can explain it without any guessing as I am doing now.... Co dom.......Ultra......not the same thing. It is ONLY compatible with Amel, so no other breedings to other morphs OR normals would yield any morphs.
To think that this cool snake should have been bred to every morph, and then to simply not sell any babies for however many years is ridiculous. Brooksi have many morphs so to hold back all the babies and breed them to each other would amount to a huge amount of snakes that under some peoples opinions should not have been sold? So what... breed PBs to both axanthics, bhb anerys, ricks lavs, sulfur lavs, sulfurs, hypos, and whatever else......raise the babies and breed them to each other? Then keep all those babies? This is not exactly a realistic plan for one person to undertake and the bottom line is people liked the morph and bought them. Everyone had to have realized it was a new morph.....that was made clear as day. Can PBs be het for Amel? Sure....but then soon to come from double het pairings we may end up seeing FOUR or more types of morphs within a clutch. Example given. PB X Axanthic...this would yield PBs, Axanthics, the double homozygous...AND MAYBE something brought into the picture due to the hidden Amel gene. You should realize that way too many Jellies popped up immediately.....I am thinking this would be more likely from the influence of something similar to the co dom with amel Ultra gene in Corns as opposed to being het Amel but time will tell and I have had enough of this topic.....there's no point unless we all want to keep guessing.
By the way Brandon, killer Sulfurs..congrats on those. I emailed you three times with no responce??? Drop me a line sometime
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

Just a note regarding the Pinstripe mutation. Brian hatched out something that may in fact be the super pinstripe this year...all the claims that it was just a dominant trait were premature, based on far too few breedings of Pinstripe to Pinstripe, although we will all have to wait till it's grown up and bred before he will label it a super (an excellent idea, I think) and as to all the confusion with PBs & such....the question will be answered when the animals are bred to WC floridana (I will be doing this, hopefully next year) then it can be put to rest....alot of the confusion is based on "hets" not actually being "hets" in the classic sense but co-dom hets that as adults are very hard to differentiate from normals...meaning I think that some animals sold as hets were in actuality PBs and the supers were being referred to as PBs....the variation is to blame somewhat as well...I am BY NO MEANS claiming anything....at least until the eggs hatch. But the "het to het" breeding results should not be considered proof since the appearance of adult PBs (in my opinion) can be only slightly different from a "normal" brooks.

Horridus@aol.com

Zenny

I beleive the PB is a type of amel. The term hypo can also be slung around a lot so technically that term applies. If the PB appeared on the scene before the hypo (which it almost did) then what would we have named the hypo. The term PB only came up since the name "hypo" was already taken.

But in retrospect we now know the PB is allellic with the amel gene in some way. So my instincts tell me it is a type of amel that we cannot "see" but it certainly is there. Thats why I beleive the Phantom (axanthic X PB) would have produced a snow looking animal but with a tad more pigment. Basically a white ghost or leucistic looking animal.

these came from DH peanutbutter X hypo ,normal lookers soory bad pic but I gotta go talk soon........