Reptile & Amphibian Forums

My son has an Albino Banded Cali King. She is about 1 1/2 years old and he wants to breed her eventually. Since he and I are new to all this my question is this; He wants to buy another snake to add to his collection so we figured we'd buy a male to breed with the female albino. Does he have to buy another Albino to get albino babies or can he buy a regular banded Cali king that has albino traits. I assume if we can do the latter that we would get both albino and colored babies. Am I correct on this.

her.make sure its a cal king albino or het albino male you get for her.there's enough hybrids floating around as it is.Breed responsible please.

Duckbutter

I won't but I have another question. By het I assume that you mean a snake that appears normal, by that I mean has it's color. so will there be differant percentages of Het I mean one that could be 50% when another could be 75% etc. And if so would the higher percentage of Het give you a greater chance of Albino offspring?

If it is a 100 percent het, you will on average get 50% albinos and 50% normal colored

Those that say 66% or 33% het means that that is the chance that it actually has the gene.

Then these offspring would be 100% HET even if they have their color. Am I correct.

What I mean is if the mother is an Albino then she is obviously 100% and the father has his color but is 100% HET then the offspring would be all 100% HET whether they were albino or not am I correct with this?

well only half the babies would be het(heterozygous), the other half that display the trait are homozygous.

anyway it's like this, each parent has two traits, dominant and recessive, a recessive gene is masked by a dominat one, in this case albinism. so if you bred an albino ( genes [aa]) to a normal snake het for albino ( genes [Aa]) you would get some hets and some albinos

or thats my understanding anyway.

images blantantly stolen from google, punett square made in mspaint

-----
1.1 cal kings
1.0 rat snake

What I mean is if the mother is an Albino then she is obviously 100% and the father has his color but is 100% HET then the offspring would be all 100% HET whether they were albino or not am I correct with this?

Yes.

Even if a normal none carrying gene ("het-for-nothing" is bred to an amel then the babies are ALL het (carring the gene) but there will not be any albinos in the clutch. Just all hets.

Amelanism is a recessive gene which skips a generation.

>What I mean is if the mother is an Albino then she is obviously 100% and the father has his color but is 100% HET then the offspring would be all 100% HET whether they were albino or not am I correct with this?

The albino snake has a pair of albino mutant genes, making the snake homozygous albino and not het albino.

A colored male that is 100% het (AKA het) albino has an albino mutant gene paired with a normal gene.

Each baby gets one gene from each parent. The colored babies get a normal gene from the het albino parent and an albino gene from the albino parent. These are het albinos (AKA 100% het). Albino babies get an albino gene from both parents.

Sometimes it helps to take scraps of paper and make two pairs of scraps. One pair of scraps has "albino" written on each one. The other pair has "albino" written on one scrap and "normal" on the other. Then take one scrap of paper from each parent pair to make a baby. Write the results, put the scraps back in the original pairs, and repeat.

Paul Hollander

Note on 33% het -

Stay away from anything labeled as such. Only way to get 33% het is if one parent is 66% het and other is not - but in reallity, it isn't 33% het.

Either the parent is het or the parent is not het.
If the parent is het, statistically 50% of the clutch will be het.
If the parent is not het, none of the clutch will be het.

Personally, using probabilities from an unknown het is an abuse. Statistically you can't say that 33% of the offspring from the pairing will be het. Either 50% will be het or none will be het.

If someone has a possible (not 100%) het that they have not proven, the offspring of that het should NOT be labeled as any % het until the parent has been proven one way or the other.

Just my 2 cents.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

I disagree with you 100%.
I think its very important that the breeder label babies as such to let the buyer know what kind of chance he or she has to prove out such animal.
Yes,I know that a possible het is just that and it wouldn't matter if it was 1% or 99% its a possible het untill proven out.
But,Would you pay the same price for a 33% chance of being het vs.a 66% chance of being het.I didn't think so.

Sometimes you have no choice either.Say you have a visual whatever and make some 100% hets.Then the 100% hets are bred together and you get some visuals (proved the trait)and some normals.All the normall looking babies are 66% chance because you can't tell what ones are and what ones aren't.
Now say you can only buy or get your hands on a 50 or 66% het and you breed it to some normals.Those babies would be 33% or even 25% but by your post I take it as you should just call a het a het???No way,correct me if I am wrong.

I know that when I am at a show and see other #s than just het I am more comfortable buying from said person cause they have taken the time to outbreed and are keeping track of said animals.
L8r Shannon

Here's the problem.

Some morph comes out - say, Flourescent Green.

I want to get into this morph.
So I spend $2500 on a male.

I see female 33% hets advertised.
I know from statistics that if the probably is .33 - then if I buy four of them, there is (1-.33)^4 odd that none will be het, so buy buying four, I know there is a 1-0.2 probability that at least one is het - or 80% chance of me getting a female.

However, since all four females I buy are sisters, I can't use that equation. There actually is a 33% chance that NONE of those females are het - because the possible het parent was only 67% het and was untested for the trait.

I have no problems specifying that one of the parents may have been het, but if it is only a possible het and has not been proven, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION to make statements about the probabilities of the young being het. It is a bad number that results from lack of information, and the 33% number it produces is incorrect - either it is 0% or it is 50% and we don't know which. There is a 67% chance that the correct het probability is 50% and there is a 33% chance that the correct het probability is 0% - and 33% is never correct.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

HET is HET and the rest are a role of the dice (probability)and breeding a Recessive trait(goal)to a normal or het is a for sure way to produce hets.So Homo to Het will produce target trait visual and 100% hets, after that het to het or to a normal is where percentage probabilities come into effect.
Are you feeling Lucky "Clint E. and generally takes 3 years to prove out

That's understood.

But (imho) you can only honestly assign a percentage to the offspring if you know the parents.

Granted - take 1000 67% hets and mate them with 1000 non hets, roughly 1/3 of the offspring will be het. But the problem with selling an offspring as 33% het is it screws up the ability to predict liklihood of success when dealing with syblings/half syblings.

As I explained - with 33% het, if you take four of them - you would expect that you have about 80% odds of at least one of them being het. But if those four have the same 67% het father, then there is a 33% chance that none of them are het.

Say I pair two 50% hets.

If we know nothing, there are four equally likely scenarios:

Het Homo Homo Homo Homo Het Het Het

Sat I get a clutch of 20 eggs none of which show the trait. In all liklihood, they aren't both het. So Het Het can be removed.

The equally likely scenarios are thus:

Het Homo Homo Homo Homo Het

There is thus a 67% chance that one of the two is het.
Would I thus label the young 33% het? If we knew which one was definitely not het, then there are two possible scenarios -

Het Homo and Homo to Homo

would we then say 50% x 50% = 25% het?

See the problem?

If a het isn't 100% or proven, you can't say anything about the statistical probabilities of the young. Note that it is possible het, from an unproven possible het parent(s) - that's the most you can do and still be honest.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

you say that"If a het isn't 100% or proven, you can't say anything about the statistical probabilities of the young"

So you say there is no grey area?but there is and people need to know when buying.What if joe blow wanted a pair of your snakes and didn't want it to carry any genes but wild type.He breeds them together and pops out a morph?he calls you and then you say oh yeah they were actually 33% het for that morph but since they weren't 100% het or proven I just didn't mention it?????????not good business.

or maybe the buyer has a albino male for example and you have "normal" looking females for sale cause you didn't want to label them as 33% or 50% or whatever.He buys a couple normal females looking to strengthen/outcross his line and to make 100% hets and he pops out a couple albinos????then what?

Shannon

p.s. I don't deal with anything thats ever 33% just because I have never had it happen yet.I am just saying I believe its important and shouldn't be overlooked.but because I use triple het females I do produce animals that are single homo 100% het for another and 50% for the third.Should I just not mention the third??no way man.

Unless you do a lot of inbreeding you can never guarantee that your offspring are not het for some morph or another. Recessive genes only are detectable if two of them come together, and exist in wild populations.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

I have to say I'm with Shannon. If there is a known heritage of morph it should be labeled. If someone is really buying it to get into making morphs they probably should do some research into how it is inherited or else ask questions at the time of purchase. Then like you said the seller could explain that with 33% hets it is either the whole clutch has potential to have hets or the whole clutch doesn't. Then the buyer can decide if they want to buy from different clutches in order to have a true 1 in 3 chance of getting a het.

Labeling is fine.
Assigning a bogus percentage is not.

There is not a 33% chance that the neonate is het. Either there is a 50% chance or a 0% chance. Not knowing which it is does not justify use of a bogus numerical value.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

Dude,
There is so a chance something can have a 33% chance of being het.Its not a ploy to fetch a few extra bucks because they don't cost anymore than a normal unless its something so rare like albino condros.
Check that site out.He has a 25% chance het for albino female for sale right now.Try telling him it doesn't matter.

Anyway,you need to understand that a 33% chance for het animal has a 1/3 of a chance vs.a het.It doesn't meen that if you have three that are 33% that one will turn out.Its all luck but the #s are real.

So if you don't buy into this how can you buy into the theme that when a pair of proven hets are bred together all the non visuals are 66% or 2/3 chance they are het.You know that some are and most aren't.But they all have the same probabilty of being het by %.

Shannon

Breed the pair that produces a 33% het numerous times, producing 100 babies from them.

How many will be het?
Not 33 - I can guarantee it.

Either none of them are het, or 50 of them are het.

Thus - 33% het is incorrect.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

When advertise odds, those odds need to be correct.
We can know the odds if we know the genetics of the parents because of the First Law of Mendel - the Law of Segregation.

If we do not know the genetic makeup of both parents, then we can not calculate the odds that any given offspring will be het or will not be het. We do not know the odds, and even if the intention is not bad, it is wrong to assign a numerical value to the odds that a offspring is het because we do not know the numerical value to assign.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

Look,I call B.S and the fact of the matter is you and I will never agree on this so lets just drop it.You label your probable babies as normals and I will label mine for what they are.

L8r Shannon

You can call BS - I'm not the one using probabilities I pulled out of my ass that are guaranteed to be different from the actual factual probability that results from the mating (which can only be 50%, 67%, or 100%).
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

I think of it this way. If you have 1,000 clutches produced from 1,000 different pairs of pos. het. X normal breedings approxiamately 33% of the babies will be hets. If you want to have a true one in three chance of getting a het. you need to buy from 3 different clutches produced by three different pairs.

I think it is good you posted this because alot of people could otherwise buy 3 babies from one clutch and think 1 in 3 out of every clutch will be a het. That still does not make me think every het to normal clutch should be written off as normals.

One real good reason to disclose even slim chances of heterozygosity is that alot of morphs are regarded as having come about by crossing and some people would be dissapointed if they were thinking they were getting a snake they would consider pure. For example if I bought a pair of snakes as pure floridana I would be very dissapointed if I produced an amel three years later since amel in floridana is thought by some to have come from cal kings originally. Alternatively it could lead me to believe I had produced a new pure floridana amel.

There may be better ways to describe 33% pos. hets. but it should still be said some way.

It can be described as having a possible het parent.

With 67% or 50% het, that snake has the real odds described.

With a 33% het, that snake does NOT have the real odds described.
Sure - out of 1,000 such pairings, 33% will be het. But the probability of that snake being het is solely dependent upon its parents, and if the parent is unknown, a probability can not be calcultated. You can only speak of the probability relative to non syblings from similar unproven pairings. It is not an absolute probabiliy, only a relative probability - it is a relative probability that is different from the real probability which can only be determined by proving the parent(s).
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

>>>My son has an Albino Banded Cali King. She is about 1 1/2 years old and he wants to breed her eventually. Since he and I are new to all this my question is this; He wants to buy another snake to add to his collection so we figured we'd buy a male to breed with the female albino. Does he have to buy another Albino to get albino babies or can he buy a regular banded Cali king that has albino traits. I assume if we can do the latter that we would get both albino and colored babies. Am I correct on this.
>>>

Simple answer to your actual question. Find another Albino Banded Cali King and you will probably get all albinos. If you don’t, you will end up with babies that are 100% carriers of two different strains of amelanistics. If the new mate is only a carrier of the gene and not displaying the trait, you will get some albinos if the strains are compatible, and the normal looking ones would then be known carriers of the trait. As well as the normal male, which we would say has been proven to be a carrier. Fun stuff to get into, especially for a youngster. My personal opinion on the hybrid thing, as if that is what you asked about, is that it is more complex in breeding for select traits that may not be simple recessive- best left to more advanced breeders. Please don’t be misled that there is anything irresponsible in those breeders who have advanced the fun stuff to another level. Don’t be afraid to go there someday.

I figured the easiest way was to get an Albino male but he really wanted something differant that is why I was inquireing about buying a male that had it's color but could still produce some albino offspring

My understanding is that there is only one strain of amel common in the Cal King market.

I have heard that there are other strains, but no one I have sponen to can confirm having them, so it seems that maybe they are not being bred.

I would LOVE to have two different amel strains - just because I think it would be cool to produce "normal" babies from PE albino parents.

In CA, PE Albinos are exempt from F&G regulation - I would just find it funny to have two snake that F&G says you don't need a permit to breed - that produce a clutch that F&G says has to be bred under permit to sell.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

hey funky, there are TWO strains of albino documented in calkings(perhaps more). the common type like the guy who started this thread and the lavender type. kerby has normal double hets. from breeding these two types of albinos together i beleive, i do agree with the %thing imho anything under 66% should be sold as a normal or at least shouldnt be marketed(sold) for more money than a normal to anyone on those kind of percentages but then again people buy lotto tickets everyday and apparently some do win, or so ive been told,,,,,,,,,thomas

Yes - I have one of each (a female amel and a female lavender).

But a lavender isn't amel, some melanin is still produiced - and often have they very dark eyes (mine does).

There is more than one way though to completely break melanin production resulting in amel - and it is possible for two different amel lines to exist (I believe it has been documented in getula, if I'm not mistaken - the splendida amel is not compat with the common cal king amel - integrades result in double het normals).
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

well funky i strongly disagree with you lavender is a form/strain of albino that is just not allelic with the other albinos(that we know of,yet). albino is a real generic term in this sense though, some say T-, T as oppossed to amelenistic, or lavender,(still albino) and just to further the confusion anerythristic and hypomelanistic, extreme hypo,dbl.homo,triple homo,etc. could also fall into the "albino" category,,,,,,,,,thomas

There are varying amounts of hypomelanism.

All albinos are technically hypomelanistic.
amel are Tneg hypomelanistic. No melanin is produced (though other pigments are).

There are varying degrees of hypomelanism - how do you draw the line between a hypomelanistic that are called albino and that are not called albino? It is completely arbitrary.

That's why it is better to call them amel or hypo rathen than albino. If you say hypo, even though an amel is technically hypo, people generally understand that some melanin is produced, albeit less than normal. If you say amel, it is generally understood that no melanin is produced at all.

I prefer to use the term "albino" strictly with amel because of legal reasons. CA F&G specifies that Pink Eyed Albinos are exempt - but if you read the fine print, it specifies that no melanin is produced in their definition of pink eyed albino.

So a pink eyed hypo would not be a pink eyed albino to CA F&G - only pink eyed amel is what they consider to be pink eyed albino.

In california it actually is important to be clear on the difference - there are people breeding lavenders without a permit because they are under the impression they don't need one for albinos, but what they have doesn't fit the definition. As such, they technically are in violation of F&G code.

But anyway - yes, it is common to call animals that are hypo albino - but where do you draw the line? If they are a dark hypo, are they albino?

Since there is a difference between Tpos and Tneg, it probably is better to just not use the term albino as it is not precise enough, and instead, use the more precise terms - amel, hypo, pied.
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

Yes. Mating with albino will result in all albinos.
Mating with a normal that is heterozygous for albino will result in half albinos, half normal heterozygous for albino.
Mating with a normal that does not carry the albino allele will result in a clutch that is fully normal but heterozygous for albino.

I don't know what state you live in, but just a heads up in case it is California -

In California, you have to have a permit to breed California Kingsnakes EXCEPT for pink eyed albinos.

So if you are in California, either get a PE albino mate, or get the breeding permit from F&G (some paperwork and a $48 fee for 2007)
-----
3.3.5 L. getula californiae
1.0 L. getula nigrita
1.0 Boa constrictor constrictor (suriname, fostering/rescue)
2.1.2 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata

Thank you FunkyRes. your answer was the one I was able to best understand. It was straight forward and to the point. Some of the others lost me but I'm sure as my son and I get into this we will better understand it all. And we live in PA. Thanks again..