Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What morphs are out there and what are the combos making thm?

Simple Morphs:

Hypomelanistic

Lavender Albino (Ruby eyed) (Variations: Sulphur, extreme Red/orange, NEW Flame line)

Amelanistic Albino (red eyed)

Axanthic (Lemke, NE, outcrossed lines of them both & LemkeX NE lines)

Anerythristic (BHB Anery and "Black & White" lines)

Peanut Butter

White-Sided

Double Morphs:

"Snow" (LavXAxan OR LavXAnery)

"Ghost" (HypoXAxan)

*Unnamed line of "Ghost" from Flame HypoXAnery (black & white line)

Hypomelanistic-Lavender AKA "Hybino" (HypoxLav)

"Peabino" ("peanutbutter"XLav)

"Phantom" ("peanutbutterXAnery)

Axanthic White-sided

Hypomelanistic White-sided

Lavender White-sided

*So Called "True snow" AmelanisticXAnery (i think the Amel X Axanthic/Anery should be called Blizzard for better differentiation)

3x Morphs:

i was told a White-sided Ghost was produced by BHB ENTP... I have yet to see it personally.

"Unique Morphs"

"Jelly"...... intermediate btwn Amelanistic and "Peanut butter" (i.e. Amel x "PB" = Jelly in the 1st generation)

"Pewter" Said to be an axanthic Jelly... it (the "pewter"has yet to be reproduced... presence of Axanthic is unknown in the original pairing that produced it... breeding trials should answer some questions.

Phenotypes:

"Sulphur"

"Flame"

"White-phase"

"Mosaics" (Amazon and Fusion lines)

****To Be Tested****

"White-Face" Brooksi

There is one another but i can't name it for ethically reasons...

Believe it or not all the morphs above are merely scratch on the surface... there is ALOT more potential morphs that have not been attempted yet... I'll leave it to "you" to figure them out.

~ZF

What is the difference between the two? so the ghost is not a hypo white-sided like in the bull snakes..

is the snow and blizzard the same or do they look much different.

can you get a ghost with both anery and axanthic?

Has there been a homozygose anery x axanthic?

Are all the hypo line compatible?

Here are some pics of an Axanthic and a B&W(Anery)side by side.

Is this the one your talkin about?

When i can pull a little extra Cash Or BEG... which ever comes 1st... i'll get one of those... i feel like a "collector" i just gotta have at least on of those.

WS-Lavender from Tom is doing Great!

it started out pink but slowly there is white pigment coming through... not like on a Amelanistic Albino... it looks like someone is slowing panting the snake from the inside (in white)... can't wait to see it this time next year.

~Z

I have some interest in how that ws lav project turns out. do you have any recent pics? very cool that you got one.

daveb

-----
in the light, you will find the road...

White-Sided Lavender:

Comparison Shot: Lavender (Sulphur line) & WS-Lav...

Posted by: Boneyard at Wed Oct 29 15:59:48 2008 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Here are some pics of an Axanthic and a B&W(Anery)side by side.

Maybe it is the pic quality but those both look like what I would call anery.

What is the hsitory on the axanthic and which one is the axanthic that you are refferring to? The top or the bottom snake?

What is the difference between the two? so the ghost is not a hypo white-sided like in the bull snakes.

Axanthism is a genetic abnormality where Xanthophores is unable to synthesize yellow pigments. This results in an individual that lacks of yellow pigmentation. An individual displaying axanthism is typically black and white, but within this subspecies, axanthic specimen can express a blue/purple/gray coloration.

Anerythrism is similar to the genetic mutation axanthism. The difference here is Erythrophores are unable to synthesize red pigments, which results in an individual that lacks red pigmentation. An Anerythristic individual may appear black and white, however yellow pigments are still present.

Ghost in Floridana/Brooksi are named as they should be and have the correct components (Axan & Hypo), They are NOT Hypo-WS... "Ghost bulls" are not true "Ghosts"

is the snow and blizzard the same or do they look much different.

SNOW = LAVENDER ALBINO x AXANTHIC OR LAVENDER ALBINO X ANERY

The term "Blizzard" is NOT used within Floridana Morphs as yet.. for now it's just a suggestion... i hope doesn't fall on deaf ear as having multiple animals called "Snow" or "True Snow" will lead to more confusion than clarity.

can you get a ghost with both anery and axanthic?

This is a HypomalanistiXAxanthic "Ghost"

This is HypomalanistiXAnery "Ghost" (the name ghost has not been assigned to this morph... it may be called something else... they were produced for the 1st time this season and waiting to see what the adults will look like then naming them may be better)

Has there been a homozygose anery x axanthic?
There are 2x hets out there... we have yet to see a definite 2x HomoZ AxanXAnery... but both of these morphs have been around a long time and bred into many things so it wouldn't surprise me if they are floating around in someone's collection.

Are all the hypo line compatible?

Simply put YES

there are tons of variations with hypos... it is THE MOST variable Morph, but Floridana/Brooksi are very variable so it would make sense that the hypos would be as well.

I guess I am to blame for the axanthic anery confusion since I was the first one to come up with seperating the two types because of the lines and phenotypes. Both the names can be used interchangably and have nothing to do with different strains. Different lines is what the original designation was intended for to make it easier to tellw ehich is a better looking morph.. For instance a better looking lighter New England line or Lemke line was reffrred to as a axanthic. But then there were lines of dull and almost ugly appearance that were allelic with the nicer looking lines I decided to sperate the two names for ease of marketing and describing them. However there really is no correct distiction between the names anerythristic and axanthic.

The anery is refferring to a mosly red snake that lacks red pigment and the axanthic is refferring to a mostly yellow snake that lacks yellow pigment. Since snakes like tricolors and Florida kings have both xanthophores the whole designation or anery and axanthic are flawed since the beginning.

Today there is some discussion if a line from BHB that is not allelic with other lines. But i have some from BHB and they ARE allalec with the "so named" axanthics so there is a new line of anery (which I have not test bred to see if this is even true)but they had also have a line of identical looking "anery" that is allelic with the axanthics..but in either case this new strain can be reffrred to as axanthic and anery as well.

Dr. Bern Bechtel who wrote the book on morphs told me when i asked him about the anery axanthic and he said the two line can be used interchangably since the brooks (aka florida kings) have yellow and red pigments.

You really need to stop telling people axanthic and Anery are the same thing because they are not. You're adding to the confusuion rather than helping sort through it.

They don't react the same when they are bred into other morphs. have you ever seen a HomoZ or 2x HomoZ Axanthic specimen that displays any degree of yellow pigmentation ... No! Because it is impossible. While when you breed an Anery to hypo or Lavender you'll see degrees of yellow (remember your sulphur snow? did u see the anery line "ghost"... do u see the yellow?)... you do NOT see that with the original ghosts or snows from an axanthic line.

while colored pigments are derived from a common source, mutations that affect similar colored pigments do not affect the same alleles so they are not the same.
Chromatophore: any pigmentary cell.

- Melanophores (Black)

- Erythrophores (Red)

- Xanthophores (Yellow)

- Leucophores (White)

Different Mutations of different genes found on different alleles affect different pigments/combinations of pigments in different ways.

so while The TERMS Axanthic and ANERY may be used interchangeably in reference to the colors they effect it does not mean that these mutations are the same and they are not the same.

Additionally BHB has a line of anery... that line is more what you call a Floridana it's an ugly/dirty looking phenotype that dulls out anything bred into it... like those outcrossed sulphur lavenders.

There is another line of anery (SAME MUTATION) that is more Brooksi, which Tom agosta has. He calls them "black and whites".

Two definite separate lines of axanthic (Lemke New England)

Two definite separate lines of Anery (BHB and B/W)

Anery and Axanthic NOT THE SAME MUTATION, NOT ALLELIC.

Regarding interchangeable terms, I gotta agree with Rainer on this one. While there is red and yellow pigment in BPOF, there isn't a wild type or a morph that produces 100% offspring with red pigment ( Maybe Tom Aogsta's are?). If you can't demonstrate the positive (erythrism), then you can't prove the absence/ negative (anerythrism). Of course you can never 100% prove a negative, but....
I think I have even seen debate whether there is true anreythrism in snakes with red pigment, like hondos and tricolor kings (e.g., hypoerythrism). So which term do breeders use? the one they like? the one they can spell? the one that sells?
I have already spent too many hours thinking the same thing trying to differentiate the difference in brooks, hahaha. I got nowhere (maybe not enough brain power) and I'm less satisfied than when I started. I decided this: Once someone can show me a 100% erythristic line crossed to a "anerythristic/axanthic" then we can see if there is a anery effect. Until then I generally agree for the use of the terms to be used interchangeably.

???
daveb
-----
in the light, you will find the road...

Dave,

Totally understandable. and i agree... the TERMS can mean the same thing when we talk about florida kingsnakes.

My issue is not the terms, rather my issue is the implication that what we call axanthic and what we call anery are the same mutations and will result in a HomoZ morph if you were to breed them.

The Terms are wrong to a degree. but what we call anery does behave like an anery in that it does not affect yellow pigments.

Interestingly i spoke with Tom A. on Friday and as far as we told me his "Black and Whites" came from his lines of Flames Or the Flames came from the "Black and Whites" something along those.

I'll be at his place next weekend to take some photos and to chit chat... i'll be sure to share.

~Z

You really need to stop telling people axanthic and Anery are the same thing because they are not. You're adding to the confusuion rather than helping sort through it.

LOL! I was the one who told everyone to call them anerys and axanthics to begin with. Before then everyone just called all of them axanthics(and this went on for years as debate on THIS forum) until I finally got everyone to start using the two terms for the ease of detrmining the northern Florida type from the southern Florida. I think you missed out on those years of arguements.

The two terms are and can be used interchangable. The terms in themselves mean NOTHING. Whowever the message that you are trying to say is there is one type of aneyry that is not allelic with the other anerys and axanthics. And that is what is confusing people.

Also the black and white line has been around for a long time. Before Tom Agosta had them. You are just loking at the last couple years and think everything is new to the breeding when it isn't.

Dude... i don't really care about the history you keep bringing up

i don't care who had what and when they had it. no in the mood for a long debate... i'm tired of the exchange that goes on here on this forum... yeah i missed alot! and i'm pleased i did... i did my own reasearch, i talk to people... i read up on different pigments and mutations that affect certain pigements, i've examined these animals personally, i have animals that are HomoZ for one trait and het for the other, so i know what i'm talking about.

The problem is the use of the TERMS in repect to the mutations... We have the habit of lumping things together when they appear similiar in order to simplify... but there is an over simplification here and in many of the other morphs...

Point blank there are two mutations that affect pigments (pigments derived from the same or similar "places".) but GENETICALLY! they are NOT the same.

you lumping them both in the same category and saying they are the same morph is incorrect. that is all i have to say on this matter and i will waste no more time on it... i won't dedicate any more time to this and trying to prove anything more to YOU. "You know it all.. you know how all the morphs work..." lets leave it at that...!

~ZF

Dude... i don't really care about the history you keep bringing up

If you were more civilized you would at least call me sir.

LOL! I was the one who told everyone to call them anerys and axanthics to begin with. Before then everyone just called all of them axanthics(and this went on for years as debate on THIS forum) until I finally got everyone to start using the two terms for the ease of detrmining the northern Florida type from the southern Florida. I think you missed out on those years of arguements.

I don't remember where I heard it - but it may have been here.
But that agrees with what I heard - axanthic were the classic brooksi form and anery were the classic floridana form.
-----
Arrrggg!
It's like Shalom, but for pirates.
- iCarly

Great job Z,
I would agree on the true snow thing if the anery is used it should leave total pattern and be called a snow but if a true axanthic is used it should take that layer out and be called a Blizzard.

What about whitesided? is that a real morph or what?

L8r Shannon

The "White-Sided"... Well it's a Morph! whether it is a Hybrid (RatXKing) we probably will never know (unless we you some DNA testing)

"White-Face" (or what ever the Bells choose to call them next year) appears to be something new on the sense... but i guess after they are breed into a few things some questions will be answered. If this one proves out... there is alot of untapped potential in these.

~Z

"White-Face" (or what ever the Bells choose to call them next year) appears to be something new on the sense

The "White lipped" or "White face" is only new to the Bells. Myself and Don Shores had what (i think) is the same thing however a different line we called the patternelss side and then we changed the name to Bone White. This was before the Bells had their line avaliable.

I will know more about this line as I breed a male patternless back to it sibling female for the first time next year. Well see if anything more "pronounced" comes out of that, or not. Also I think I think the white-face "nornmals" are just hets of the patternless trait....(but again,, different line from the Bells). Just like there were different lines of the hypos when they came on the scene, there are different lines of the patternless side (aka white lipped, White face, Bone White)but I think they are all the same thing except for some phenotype influences..

Jelly:

Jelly:

Amel T negative (FROM A JELLY TO BUTTER BREEDING):
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/standard?pictid={0A895139-6621-45A9-BC3E-B02BD4DFE2FD}&exp=f&moddt=39753.9845718403&ssdyn=1

???-From a Jelly to PB breeding:

???-From a Jelly to PB breeding:

(this guy is more pink that in the photos)

PB (from a jelly to PB breeding):

Amel T negative (FROM A JELLY TO BUTTER BREEDING):

I know I'm being a stickler here but how do oyu know that animal is a T- albino? Am I missing something or do we generally throw this term around way too much?
-----
Darwin Rocks!

... at least half the snakes in this thread shouldn't be in the same sentence with the term "brooksi".

To my understanding this was considered a recessive gene. Why do you have it in the phenotype category?

Mosaics and several other morphs in that list would not be considered brooksi. Mosaics haven't even been outcrossed to brooks yet. I've got another FL king phenotype not too many people have. Maybe I'll post some pics later.

The anery is B&W but what does that mean? lacking red/ yellow/ orange?

and what about the axanthic? lacking yellow?

Mosaics and several other morphs in that list would not be considered brooksi. Mosaics haven't even been outcrossed to brooks yet.

Well the Mosaics have been outcrossed to the hypo and lavenders. I saw resulting double homozygots of a lavender Mosaic and hypo Mosaic from both examples this year at the expo.

Also after talking at length and researching the Mosaics it definetly appears, from all the information I received, that these ARE a reccessive trait. Hard for me to beleive but it seems true since I talked to the person who works for Bill Brant over at Gormet Rodent and I think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to reccessive traits versus simple traits.

I've got another FL king phenotype not too many people have.

And I would really like to see that

>>when it comes to reccessive traits versus simple traits...

i thought i was following successfully the several different arguments in this thread but this sentence confused me all over again.

I've heard people refer to "simple recessives," which i think is synonymous with "recessives". What is the distinction you make between recessive traits and simple traits? or, asked another way, what's a simple trait? By definition? By example? Thanks.

terry

Well Phenotype is pretty much How the Genotype is expressed (visually... what you see).

Looking now at the way i grouped them it would be a bit misleading to have Mosaics within that category.

Mosaic/Fusion should actually have it's own category "Pattern Mutation" but really the manner in which ALL genes are expressed would be the organism's Phenotype.

Yes Mosaics are not "Brooksi"

Neither are many others listed up there... but you know the old debate has been done over and over...

We can all agree: "All Brooksi are Floridana But not all Floridana are Brooksi"

I forgot to Add Mark's Mahoganys to the "Unique Phenotype" list

And please do share what you have... i'm always "itching" to see new/unique stuff.

~ZF

I'll try to get some pictures up soon. My hard drive just crashed so I'm having to reload all my software and I've lost some pictures. Shouldn't take me long, though.