Reptile & Amphibian Forums

She is an 04 farm raised BCI I got back in 04. I don't know she has always looked abit like a jungle to me. But I need people with more experance with jungles than I have.Please let me know what you think Keith

If she is farmed raised she wouldn't be a jungle since it is a specific blood line. If shes anything new (which you will be able to tell from breeding trials) you'll get to name it yourself.
-----
1.1 96, 04 Het Albino - "Suzie" & "Lumpy"
0.1 03 Poss. Het Albino - "Ami"
0.1 05 Super Salmon - "CreamSicle"
0.1 04 Anery Het Snow- "Squelchy"
1.0 04 DH-Sunglow - "Dwayne"
1.0 06 TH-Moonglow - "Gargamel"
1.2 01 BRBs- "Gobball", "Larva" & "Tofu"

The Jungle gene comes from Sweden. So your animal being farm raised makes it impossible. It could look like a Jungle and even throw some abberant babies But If its not from the original line and you didn't get it from a known Jungle breeder then its not a Jungle

Michael T
Boas Etc

.
-----
1.1 96, 04 Het Albino - "Suzie" & "Lumpy"
0.1 03 Poss. Het Albino - "Ami"
0.1 05 Super Salmon - "CreamSicle"
0.1 04 Anery Het Snow- "Squelchy"
1.0 04 DH-Sunglow - "Dwayne"
1.0 06 TH-Moonglow - "Gargamel"
1.2 01 BRBs- "Gobball", "Larva" & "Tofu"

You are way off the mark. Do you understand anything about the nature of genetics? The beauty of it? The very basis of evolution?

Just because that animal was farm raised does not mean it does not carry similar genes to the Swedish line. Do you think those genes simply erupted in Sweden?

That snake PROBABLY isn't a jungle, but that has NOTHING to do with its origin!
-----
_____

signature file edited, contact an admin. 2/13/06

Mike is right. As it stands today, Jungles are a recognized (at least within the scope of hobbyist and breeders) "line" of boa, as well as a specific morph. It is much like a thoroughbred race horse it you think about it. The lineage of all thoroughbreds can be traced back to the original three stallions that were used to create the line in England (although they were not English in origin, they were Middle Eastern). Does that mean that other horses could possess quite similar genetics and still not be considered thoroughbreds? Absolutely. Actually, that's precisely what it means.

IMHO, the Jungle is as much of a line as it is a morph. Clearly there are some great genetics at play, but unless you know the lineage, you can’t claim it is a Jungle.

I suppose that it is very possible that another snake or line of snakes will come along (actually, I suspect they may already be here), that are genetically compatible with the Jungle, (i.e., when bred to a Jungle, it produces the super form in the first breeding). When this happens, it will be a quandary. Did one low expression Jungle get sold as a normal and the lineage reappear as an unrelated, yet obviously compatible, line? Was the new line actually discovered independently of the original line? Was the new line “discovered via fabrication” for marketing purposes? If this hypothetical breeding took place and supers were produced, then this becomes a different conversation. Right now we are at “do you think my snake could be a Jungle because of the way it looks”. The answer is clearly “sorry, but no”. This question/answer is not limited only to the Jungle line/morph; it applies to any of the named lines. Harlequins for example, if you don’t know the lineage, can you assume the lineage because your new snake looks like a Harlequin to you?

Just my $.02, no offense to anyone intended, just contributing to the dialog.

Mark

-----
uncommonboa.com

I have to disagree there. If I breed an unknown lineage "jungle like" animal to a known proven Jungle and it produces super Jungles then guess what it is a Jungle. It dosent matter if it came from Sweden all that matters is that the genetics are there.
-----
Thanks Vinnie Caruso
opinons are like a--holes... everybody has one and they all stink

Hi Vinnie,

I'm sorry that you disagree with me, because I don't really disagree with you! lol

Actually, I may have been confusing in my ramblings, because I don't think you did disagree. I really tried to speak to two different issues, proof and line vs. morph. My first point was that one can't tell by simply looking. If one proves an animal via breeding it to a known Jungle and producing supers, then that is a different question all together. My point was that particularly with unknown lineage, you can't decide simply on looks that it is a Jungle, it has to be proven. Secondly, I would agree that if supers were produced, then someone has to make that leap to call a non-Swedish lineage animal a Jungle. I posed the questions in this forum before, and received little response. But there are other high color, aberrant animals/lines out there of various names. What if one of them is proven to be compatible with the Jungle...then what...? Does one line/morph cease to exist and is rolled into the originally named line/morph? If one of these other lines preceded Jungle, does Jungle go away?

I suppose it really comes down to the line vs. morph question. If Jungle is the line that originated from Sweden, then no non-Swedish line animal could be considered a Jungle. If Jungle is a morph, (like Anery) then any animal displaying the trait could be considered a Jungle. (Who gets to make that call btw?) The difficulty in this scenario is that Jungle is highly variable and seems much more complex (probably more than one gene?), as it is a color and pattern morph. Identifying supers is easy, but identifying Jungles (hets as some people refer to them), can be very difficult, even within a clutch bred from known Jungles.

So, I'm back to the only way to know is by breeding for supers, if we accept that Jungle is only a morph and not a line, which many do not...

Personally, I think that once proven, its OK. You have the evidence to prove your claim (from a morph position, but not from a line position). But to imply anything is "possible Jungle" when it is not at least from a known Jungle breeding is not OK (or any other morph for that matter, just my opinion). Otherwise, I may have an entire collection of "possible leusistics"! woohoo! (just kidding!)

Hope that didn't smell too bad!! lol

Mark

-----
uncommonboa.com

produces a "Jungle" type animal that is unrelated to the proven Swedish line, and proves compatible with the existing line I believe it can then can/should be called a jungle. It should also be designated with a "line" tag so that there is no confusion...
-----
Chris & Alliey
www.bloodyleopard.com
E-mail Us

Agreed. Last year John Berry bred an El Salvador Blood boa X Nicaraguan. He got Bloods, so evidently the Nic was a het, and compatible. So he still called them Bloods, but added his name giving the label of Berry Bloods so that people would know the correct lineage. I think the Blood morph is an excellent example because there are two starting points, both that Nicaraguan het female and the El Salvador origin with Ron St. Pierre. And then there is the line originated from the El Salvador Blood X Salmon breeding that Rich Ihle did which is where a lot of Blood boas, and all Bloody Salmons today can trace their lineage too.

So if a boa when bred to a Jungle produces a Super Jungle then the boa in question is also a Jungle. Not the same line, but the same mutation. So it isn't a Swedish line, but it is the still a Jungle.
-----
http://www.GilbertBoas.com/
http://www.BoaList.com/

glad to see you are one of the few that can take a joke.

No problem Vinnie, I try not to be too serious. We're not curing cancer here, just trying to have a little enjoyment out of the hobby and maybe learn something from one another. I can assure you I don't have all the answers (have ya noticed??), I don't even understand most of the questions! lol

Mark
-----
uncommonboa.com

just throwing this in
lesser to lesser= blue eyed lucy,
mojavey to mojavey= blue eyed lucy
lesser to mojavey= blue eyed lucy
lessers and mojaves are two different morphs(close but different)and they produce the same super,so maybe a farm raised boa could produce a super jungle and not be a jungle. who knows, just playing the Devil's Advocate, it's all in good fun.

vincent

Bravo !!!
-----

Ashley Lopez's Black Forest Constrictors.
blackforestconstrictors@gmail.com
www.blackforestconstrictors.com

You appear to contradict yourself here.

Let me use "Kahl" (used only to recognize this as different to a Sharp say) albinos as an example. To follow on from what you and your learned friend are saying here, if a similar looking albino came from a farm breeding, then it is not a Kahl line albino, even if it breeds true with that 'line?' The genetics are identical, both heterozygous and homozygous animals can be produced, and it crosses with other Kahl's to make more Kahl's? But because the animal did not originate from Peter Kahl's animals, and it came from a farm, that it CAN NOT BE A KAHL ALBINO (pretty much the order of the original post). This, to me at least is a ridiculous notion.

To use Kahl again, he was the first person to breed pied balls right? And yet, nobody calls them Kahl pied's, you must be surprised by this? Or maybe I'm missing your idea of a 'line?' OK, so Kahl bred loads of pieds and they are everywhere, but then another pops up in a farm in Africa. But again, to follow on from what you are saying, this new animal is not a 'Kahl' pied? I breed this new animal with the 'Kahl' pied, get hets, then get pieds in the next gen. But still, "...if its not from the original line and you didn't get it from a known [pied] breeder then its not a [pied]?

My point is that there is NO way you can determine, simply through origin alone, that that snake does not carry the exact same genetic mutation as the 'Swedish Jungle.' Because that is what we are talking about here a genetic mutation, (/heterogeneity) not just a name attached to a line. As is mentioned there is a super jungle, and therein, we can consider it an incomplete dominant gene. Whoever bred the thing first makes no difference to me. Such 'lines' are usually applied to non-morphs such as is common in say Surinam's, South Brazilians, Brazilian Rainbow's etc etc.

Or maybe the sun is getting to me????
-----
_____

signature file edited, contact an admin. 2/13/06

It appears to me we are all getting wrapped up around compatibility. I would look at as Swedish Jungle Where Swedish refers to the specific line that came from Sweden and Jungle refers to the specific morph. Then if (when) there are animals not from Swedish descent but compatible with the Swedish Jungle they could be named as a seperate line of Jungles, aka Joe Schmuck Jungles or New Jersey Jungles......

Please excuse the colors, thought it might help keep things clear. They don't call me "rainbowsrus" for nothing?
-----
Thanks,

Dave Colling

www.rainbows-r-us-reptiles.com

0.1 Wife (WC and still very fiesty)
0.2 kids (CBB, a big part of our selective breeding program)

LOL, to many snakes to list, last count:
24.36 BRB
19.19 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

Posted by: rainbowsrus at Mon Sep 3 12:57:57 2007 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

It appears to me we are all getting wrapped up around compatibility. I would look at as Swedish Jungle Where Swedish refers to the specific line that came from Sweden and Jungle refers to the specific morph. Then if (when) there are animals not from Swedish descent but compatible with the Swedish Jungle they could be named as a seperate line of Jungles, aka Joe Schmuck Jungles or New Jersey Jungles......

Sure you could call a new line of jungles by a differant name, like Schmuck Jungles. But compatibility means it is the same mutation located at the same locus. Which means no matter what you call it it's the exact same thing. I'm not into referring to traits by giving them a line name. If it's the same gene it's the same thing...the rest is just polygenics.
The only time I feel you need to add line info is if this trait is found in differant locales or subspecies.

Actually I was thinking you couldn't call an animal a "swedish" jungle unless it descended from that line, even if it were compatible.

The true value being the ability to cross with genes that were not inbred to the original line. For example using the Kahl albino example. There have been instances of eye defects in babies thought to be related to the inbreeding necessary for recessive traits. Every single albino can trace it's heritage back to one single animal. A "new" albino line that was compatible would blend quickly but could also strengthen the existing population.
-----
Thanks,

Dave Colling

www.rainbows-r-us-reptiles.com

0.1 Wife (WC and still very fiesty)
0.2 kids (CBB, a big part of our selective breeding program)

LOL, to many snakes to list, last count:
24.36 BRB
19.19 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

Hi guy/gal (sorry, your name is omitted),

Actually, I don’t think we are that far apart. There is currently only one recognized line of Jungle, the Swedish one. And until another is proven, IMHO, we should avoid using “possible” Jungle without any genetic basis.

You may not have seen my later post, but I think my confusion lies in whether Jungle is a considered a line, a morph, or both. I’m really not trying to be argumentative, and am trying to work through it too. To me if it is a line, then there is no question, Jungles have to be decedents of the original.

If it is a morph, then it is feasible that there may be others that carry the genetic make-up to present the same characteristics/traits. However, one cannot make the claim based on appearances, it must be proven. Once that happens, from a morph perspective, I’d much rather have one recognized morph than a dozen or so names for the same thing. (Don’tcha just love marketing!?)

Which is what Chris/Ashley also said. I think if another line came to be, it should be called Jungle, once proven. I think that is the key for me. It must be proven before it is implied that it “may” be Jungle based on physical characteristics alone (which was the original question in this thread). I really believe that we should avoid calling anything “possible” something unless we have a genetic basis for making the claim (i.e. if one or both parents were known Jungle in this case). A nice looking colorful or aberrant snake is not possible Jungle unless it meets that criteria, or is proven via breeding. Those of unknown origin or not of (currently the only proven) Swedish Jungle decent, should not be called Jungles or possible Jungles until that fateful breeding occurs, and supers pop out…

As for your Kahl examples, I agree with you from a morph perspective, 100%. If they were independently discovered, yet compatible, would anyone even bother keeping up with which one they had? Probably not. Why would they? If they are compatible, how could they? They’d be crossed out so many times, it’d be impossible.

So if I follow the jest of most of the posts, Swedish is a line (currently the only line) of Jungle, which is a morph. No other BCI should be called Jungle unless proven via breeding with the original strain and producing supers. And if someone creates a different “brand name” around his/her animal that later turns out to be compatible with Jungle, we’re going to hang them from the highest tree and call his/her snakes Jungles… line designation optional.

I can live with that!

I have typed way too much today...I need a nap...

Thanks everyone for your participation in my madness!

Happy Labor Day!

Mark
-----
uncommonboa.com

"Such 'lines' are usually applied to non-morphs such as is common in say Surinam's, South Brazilians, Brazilian Rainbow's etc etc."

Yes. "Line" should only be used to show polygenic relationships bred down from a certain animal(s). NOT single mutant genes. The jungle gene is the jungle gene is the jungle gene no matter where it comes from or who produces it. It's the exact same gene.

""You are way off the mark. Do you understand anything about the nature of genetics? The beauty of it? The very basis of evolution?

Just because that animal was farm raised does not mean it does not carry similar genes to the Swedish line. Do you think those genes simply erupted in Sweden?

That snake PROBABLY isn't a jungle, but that has NOTHING to do with its origin!""

Right on! To many people confuse linage with trait.

Great looking super...thumbs UP!

Hi,Joe Schmuck here and I am not working on Jungles
-----
HTTP://WWW.JPCBOAS.COM