As we all know Jungles can be a very confusing morph. Its certainly not as cut and dry as many other mutations out there (motley, albino, etc). There are degrees of expression that can throw us off.
One thing that surprises me regarding the thread below is the lack of emphasis on the pattern aberrancy trait. Why is it some do not see that aspect as one of the primary jungle traits? To me, the best jungle animals are ones that possess everything. Crazy pattern...crazy color... crazy contrast, etc. The great thing about jungle lines that throw wild pattern aberrancies are when you start mixing albinism into the mix. To me that seems to be a very desirable trait in jungles and should be considered as a primary factory in determing the level of expression.
Question for you jungle boa folks out there - does anyone have doubt's about jungles being a single gene mutation? I personally never did until a very well known and respectable breeder brought it to my attention. Have you guys ever seen a jungle litter from a low expression lead to a number of other low expression animals and possibly even a low number of jungles in general? I know people say "low expressions will throw high expressions"... and I dont dispute that. I think there are certain lines of jungles that do throw high expression jungles, even if the particular individual from the line is not high expression. But I do see evidence that it can be "bred out". I've seen a jungle litter from a possible jungle (that proved out) in which all the jungle animals came out low expression. It wasnt my litter but it also appeared that there werent many jungles. So is it possible that the jungle mutation is not a single gene mutation and is more like that of other pattern stuff - like harlequins and aby's? Personally - I'm skeptical. Why? Super-Jungles. It seems to me there is a clear "next level" phenotype in the super versions. People produce these super-level jungles consistantly from many jungle breedings.
So how can we prove, with total certainty, that jungles are indeed a single gene mutation? Breeding a super-jungle and producing all jungles would be a rather good start I would think. Has this been done? Depends who you ask. At the recent daytona show I walked up to Pete Kahls table and asked his wife. She was quick to say "yes..... well wait... I think... I'm not sure... let Pete answer that". So I made my way over to Pete and he said no, he hasnt produced from a super jungle yet. Later on in the show I made my way to Jeremy Stone's table - in which they claimed Pete had produced from a super. So who knows!?
I'm sure many will completely shun any notion that goes against the grain in this regard. There are many motivating factors to do so. And dont get me wrong - I'm with you. I believe jungles are a single gene mutation. I just dont think its quite as cut and dry as many would have you believe.
Thoughts?
