Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Just a question,I realize a morph is a proven geneticly reproduceable trait in ball pythons but,do you guys think
all morphs are as refined and distinguishable(looks wise)in the begining(when imported),Or are they refined through line/selective breeding
to have a unmistakable morph characteristic?It seems a ton of breeders almost use this "definition of a morph" to slow down the "new morph" chance production,by amatuer breeders.I realize you must prove something out in order for it to be called a "morph"no arguments there)But the quick gun shot,to disprove
a ball pythons poss. of being a new morph is getting pretty old
and against the whole theory of science and experiment,which in turn slows the production of new morphs(by whom ever)This is
the problem that we have in this forum by some breeders(greed and envy)A ton of really interesting and quite poss. new genetic characteristic slip through the importers and secondary sources into the pet trade daily.Just because you didn't find it first,does not mean it is a
normal destined to be a normal.Be brave and a part of science,take chances on animals that truly look different and you will be surprised at what you will find.Do you think the mojave ball looked as good as it does now,or did they become more distinguishable with cb breeding?Just curious.
Thanks,Aera

Preach on! Preach on! Halleluja! Great statement about the breeders not wanting to believe that "morphs" do and will slip through the cracks. Or something to that effect.

They slip through on a daily basis during the season. Cinnamon Pastels are everywhere in baby imports. They are "normal" to most people till they prove out.
Alot of big name breeders have been offered stuff like that and didnt want them because they are not so and sos line......and thus nothing at all.....
Well those same snakes have been bought by prviate none known breeders and that is why there is new mojave lines, cinnamon pastel lines, pastel lines, ghosts lines, etc.....due to that.
I personally sold about 50 snakes this and last year to big name breeders and not that I was shut down upon in forums and the classifieds which have proven new co-dom mutations, which I was asking a reasonable price in reflection of the price of the proven "lines" and sold them dirt cheap because I was convinced by everybody that they were nothing.
I sold three cinnamon pastels this year for $400.00 because EVERYBODY I offered them to said they werent.....well they were.
Morphs slip through cracks all the time. Good thing is theose cinnamons were out of a group of 8 I had found, luckily I didnt sell them all!!!
The first piebald came into this country as a 8.00 ball python because the exporter thought it was sick and threw it in the shipment in 1983.
-----
"Quality isn't Quality without customer service so I guess I sell quality"

I think that the appearance of all BPs is genetic. Some of the appearances are polygenetic. I think those are the ones that get shot down as normals. The ones that are accepted as morphs are the ones where a certain genetic trait can be nailed down to one gene and isolated. I am on the other side of the discusssion from you. I see some BPs being passed off as morphs that I believe are not the result of one gene.

Denver Tom

Great answer(I love the fact you responded without taking my message to heart)Thats why we are here.
OK,
I agree with you on the point of people selling normals as something other than normals but, every unknown,visual characteristic is considered polygenetic until proven out.Captive breeding will make that call.My point is,there are
numerous ball pythons that are ugly examples of the refined,proven genetic traits we see being created.Some small hints(not visual het characteristics)But lets say,pastels(I see this one on the classifieds constantly)Some one sells a ball python and describes it as pastelish(lol)OK,I know you all are laughing,but,this is a perfect example.The "ish" morph.In some cases,but not all,why couldn't these "pastelish" animals be a lesser degree of pastels,needed to be worked on and selectively bred.Do the BEAUTIFUL examples that have already been worked on for years,create a unfair comparison to what they looked like in the begining of that project?Do the lines already created,that have thier own unique route and idea to establish thier visual morph pastel,negate what the "proper" pastel should look like?Or,are people being scorned for having a new project "ish" by other breeders,to keep the "new line" market monopolized by a few breeders.If I am not making sense,I apologize,hopefully you
all will get my drift.Lets not forget why we are all interested in the sciences"learning,experiment and answers to questions.Then again,maybe it's money(take a look at your reasons)
Once again,just curious
Aera

Now don't get me wrong I love my "wild type" lol.

But she is different than a lot of normals I see on here and I often wonder the same thing that you have... is this a possible start of something that right now others would throw into the "just a normal" bin but really isn't.
-----
All my Children: 0.2 female humans (1 is 10 and the other is a 6 month old hatchling), 1 Saint Bernard, 2 maine coons, 15 leopard geckos, 1 pacman frog, 1 oscar, 1 jack dempsey, 1.1 ball pythons, and "Lilith" the black meowing kitty