OK, now I very much appreciate all comments on the Southern Pine variants discussion we had,,,,but I'd really like to continue with it before moving on. Between the few posts the info gathered amounts to this...which is mostly opinion, which is why I'd like to try and get things into a more factual format someday.
Concerning Snows, it has been mentioned that they may not be the result of traditional Anery X Albino breedings. Also that there may be more than one type of Snow,....which also makes the thought of 2 possible Anerys, or maybe one Anery and one Axanthic? This is very interesting if you think about it considering how hard it is to find either one of these now....even when Snows are bred to normals, these other 2 morphs do not appear to be in the mix as most would predict. How many times have these test breedings been done? I can not answer that, but two come to mind. Let's remember folks, names sometimes stick like glue. I personally feel Scott Robinsons recent Axanthics[Scott posts as guero on here, and though we believe his snake to be a true Axanthic time will tell, hopefully next season] will help us learn a lot. If these create a NEW White snake when bred to Amels then I suspect his "line" if I can use that term will be very important. If it is bred to a Snow and creates more Axanthics....this may be the missing link the few of us who really care about these variants have been searching for.
After all, these Southerns have baffled me for a few years now, and to think the Leucistic is by a text book definition the proper label...the text books do not mention if it matters if that morph breeds true[I don't think so anyway]. This analogy is very general....I am not taking this from books...just from discussions with a few guys whose opinions I really value. Now some people think they have Anerys, I myself have wondered if some of the offspring I produce are actually Anerys but as they age the look chages and I have not held any back to work with. If these snakes can be silver/gray in the wild we can not assume most of them are Anerys can we??? Now even though some have worked with snakes resembling Anery and not had typical predictable results those snakes are still Anery?
So now we have to worry[ at least I do] that Leucistics, Snows, and even some Anerys do not breed true, or do not produce what we'd expect when creating hets and breeding them to each other???? Not too mention more subtle variants like Pink, Yellow, and who knows what esle also have a bit of mystery as far as what makes them have the appearances they have and where they started from??? All of the people who replied to the previous thread seemed ot agree these snakes are very variable, much moreso than everyone realizes. That can be said for many Pits, Sonorans come to mind...but still, dare I compare these to Corns when I say Corns seem to have been pinned down into a huge amount of variants all with very predictable genetics and also can be easily identified when mixed and matched. Southerns do not have a fraction of the following Corns have, and the amount of guys working with them seems to be minimal. I just feel if some of us do not make any effort to try and figure them out and it will become impossible if any other new things come into the hobby.
I once heard from someone that an Anery,.,,,, or possibly THE Anery that started the Snows was kept in that collection only long enough to create hets and was then sold off....and its whereabouts were now unknown? This could be true....but usually there's a little more concern as to where a rare snake is going....but that's just my opinion I suppose. Billys Snow to me looks different than most others I have seen. Another variant??? Are Southerns so poorly understood that there could be god knows how many unseen morphs all floating around within the genes of the snakes already in many collections? What stinks is now if you purchase a Pine from someone who knows nothing about its origins and variants appear in your clutch you can not do much but admire it at face value with the story being it popped up unexpectedly. Chances are test breedings will result in more confusion. At this point I almost hope that most of these are more properly variants as opposed to morphs. Thayeri come in a wide variety of looks in both color and pattern. Who is to say Southerns may not be to a much lesser degree similar? Maybe these looks mostly manifest themselves in the forms of what we are calling morphs and do not express themselves in the uninflueced wild type normals??? Question after question....
Jason Nelson listed some morphs. Other than he listed I can say I have seen quite a few that are two toned, like a white sided morph but in two different colors with a distinct striping seperating the two colors..... I said it before and I will say it again. If you breed, or have bred these snakes please share your thoughts on all of this. Any input would be great, especially if it conflicts with what I am saying and you have pics to show us. Paul mentioned test breeding, which has been done a bit. I think we'd have a better understanding if we continued to work with these animals a few generations after the inital breedings using het for nothing snakes being bred into every variant. This will take years, and I will do my small part. I love the snakes no matter what, I bred them for a few years before I realized how much there is to be learned about them. Unfortunately this year I produced 7.2. Not the best odds for holding snakes back. I do know a customer or two of mine who should be getting close to breeding offspring from my pair soon, and I will bug the hell out of them to show us what came of those breedings. I think a few people I know will also take this seriously with thier own stock and try to decipher the odd genetics within these phenomenal snakes. If any locale people know of specific looks to go along with certain locales I'd be interested to hear about that too, so please contribute if you can. Thanks Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com
Breeding tests have shown that the leucistic mutant gene in the Texas rat snake is recessive to the normal version of the gene. See H. B. Bechtel's paper in the Journal of Heredity back in 1985.
Great pics as well!