Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have heard much debate over the breeding possibilities of a Hypo Motley(het snow) X Non Hypo Non Motley( such as a normal snow). The one that causes the most concern,questions, and misunderstanding is the thought that this pairing will produce NO Motleys with the Hypo Gene ( Motley: Hypos, Sunglows,Ghosts, and of course, the Moonglow)

I am looking for anyone who has actually done this breeding or similar ( Hypo Motley het snow X NON Motley NON Hypo) to backup or disprove this theory. Any pictures would be appreciated but more than anything, I am looking for facts and not just all opinions, if possible.

Thanks guys!!!

Jamess

Get in touch with Jeremy Stone. He has done this breeding many times, in fact he is the one I believe who first made it known that breeding hypo motley x normal will only produce motleys or hypos, with no hypo motleys.

I have never personally done this breeding, I was going to but I was turned off to the idea when I heard the news, however I have several friends who have tested the theory, all with the same results, being no hypo motleys.

There is debate that it COULD happen, due to motley being someone of a goofy gene in that pairings of motley x normal have produced "super" motleys, so there is room for speculation, but nobody has even proven the super motley to be a super, it may just be a freak that occurs randomly within motleys. They dont seem too healthy due to imperfections in their physical make-up and typically die early.

If you want to speak with someone who has done the breeding many times and can attest to the results, get in touch with Jeremy Stone. If you can't trust his opinion, you can't really trust anyones.

I have not bred any Motley successfully yet but these are the results as documented by many others

Hypo Motley(het snow) Paired with a Snow Boa will produce
Motley Boas het Snow and Hypo Boas het snow ;(

Here is a Helpful Motley explanation post made by Josh Ketchum

. . . Lar M

Click link below Hope this will be helpful
HYPO MOTLEYS and MORE

-----
Boas By Klevitz

I Support USark.org

Not that I disagree with the Hypo/Motley part but taking those genes out of the equation, Het Snow x Snow will produce a variety of snow related animals...

Snow
Albino het Snow
Anery het Snow
DH Snow
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

I think that's the first time I've read publicly (below in this thread) that "super motleys" may not be supers...it's these kinds of results that make me wonder about the "supers" in other "codom" morphs, especially the newer ones not having had many breedings yet, very especially those that cropped out of motley "sibs," Aztec "sibs," Mandarin "sibs," etc.

It's common that breeders will jump the gun and identify a trait as genetic with a defined mode of expression prior to all the necessary breeding trials being done to prove the theory. Various reasons including the almighty dollar and having their name used as the "Joe Blow fantasmic" snake.

Sometimes necessary to lay stake to their claim for a new trait but that can be done while still being clear that breeding trials are still needed to fully prove the trait.
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

Very well put! Great post 8)
Jake

I'm not saying that a "super motley" won't turn out to be a super, because it might..... I'm just saying it hasn't been proven yet, because to my knowledge, nobody has successfully bred one yet?

As far as I know, the same exists with "super jungles." I don't know of anyone proving them to actually be super, or even be fertile yet. Ive heard rumors the super jungles are just as unsuccessful breeding as the super motleys, and practically almost the same concerning health issues considering they die early. Have to be very careful with them from what I've heard.

Hypos have already proven to be fertile and be a super. So check that one off the list.

But there is still room for speculation with aztecs as you mentioned, however I do think that one will prove out actually, just my prediction....

Also, my prediction long term. This is JUST A PREDICTION or a guess based on my opinion, so don't jump all over me for it.... Super motleys will never succeed and breed, or prove out as a super. The fact that "super" motleys pop up in single motley breedings leads me to believe it's a fluke gene.

I do think super jungle will succeed someday. I think they need to be severely outcrossed, but I think it's a matter of time before it happens. Atleast I hope so, because the super jungles are FLIPPIN AWESOME LOOKING!

Just my opinion.

There has been a female super jungle that has bred. The litter wasn't large but there was one viable jungle baby and he is doing fine.

I also believe another super that should do well is the Roswell.
-----
Brandon Nixon

An example of part of what may be going on with "supers" is a possible parallel in Manx cats: It's "dominant with modifying genes," so that 50% from an outcross will have the "Manx gene" but the modifying genes may cause this to vary from missing one tail bone, missing all tail bones or any number in between. Because of the effects of the modifying genes, when breeding Manx to Manx you are more likely to get kittens lacking all tail bones (to the point of having nowhere for sphincter muscles to attach causing bowel incontinence), etc. The numbers MAY coincide with the numbers expected if it were a "super form," but they may also occur (much more rarely) in outbred litters from more typical Manx not having the extreme version of the gene. At least one morph I know of cropped out of motley sibs...is this a totally separate gene? A case of a "modifying gene" operating without the other gene being turned on (that it normally occurs with)?

Super J bred successfully two seasons in a row. Last year preemies babies

This year "SJ " fem produced again , , , ,preemie babies with single survivor named Pipsqueak !

This season and last both Super Aztec Boas produced litters successfully also !

. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz

I Support USark.org

I was kind of worried to see what kind of responses I might get from my original post but I was pleasantly surprised after I started reading them once they came!! Thank you for your input and for the Josh Ketchum link!!!

I dont want to get off topic and talk about Jungles or Aztecs or anything so I will keep this short and sweet with the Motleys. I am not sure how the Motley gene differs from that of the Arabesque but if there are Arabesque Moonglows I dont see why it's seemingly impossible to produce a Motley Moonglow. I am going off the many attempts the past few breedings seasons of all the people I know who worked for one and not just my own breeding.

I put a TH to a Motley DH Snow after being repeatedly told the motley gene must come from the opposite parent as the hypo. That was only last year and now I am being told that the "new story " is that breeding a hypo motley to a normal will yield absolutely no Motleys at all. Completely confusing. I am glad that people actually have done this breeding though so there is evidence instead of just opinions.

With all of that said, it makes me wonder if it will no less than a regular moonglow X something like a motley sunglow het anery or ghost motley het moonglow to produce a motley moonglow. That way, you have the hypo gene as strong as it possibly can be to go up against the motley gene and , hopefully, get an animal that carries both. Who knows..yet! lol

Again, I appreciate all the input given by everyone on this!! I will take you up on the advice and see what Jeremy Stone has to offer to this topic. And I am extremely excited to see what come out of this year's breedings!!! Good luck to all of you and I look forward to seeing a ton of pics as well as posting some of my own if I am lucky!!

Jamess

Larry, If you don't mind me asking where did you hear that we had a Super Aztec breed successfully this year.? Andrew

Maybe I got confused but I thought 1 of your Super Aztecs bred successfully this year.

Sorry if I was mistaken.

I could have swore you stated this in a thread posted else where.

Once again Andrew sorry if I was mistaken !

Super Aztec has bred successfully I'm certain I read that.

. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz

I Support USark.org

Larry no big deal, with all that goes on around the boa world I suspect even the best of us can get info overload. Thanks for giving props to the Aztec, much appreciated. Take care, Andrew

Andrew I confused myself it was 2010 that the Super Aztec produced the litter !

. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz

I Support USark.org

Yes, but no SUPER JUNGLE HEALTHY full term litters...one baby is not much of a statistic considering the hundreds of super jungle adults out there.

Out of such a small sample, how can conclusions be drawn? Are every embryo codom jungle when bred to normal, or are there occasional "supers" like with motley? Why would codom jungles out of super breedings not be viable? Are you referring to only super X super breedings?

The following is quoted from what Josh Ketchum wrote. LarM posted the link repeated below earlier in this thread.

"We have bred hypo motley to normal over 15 times and never had anything except Hypos and Motleys. Same thing I have bred hypo motley jungle to normal and produced salmons, salmon jungles, motleys and motley jungles. Strange and interesting... And this is a very large sample size... To confuse matters YOU CAN PRODUCE NORMALS... OR EVEN A HYPO MOTLEY CAN POP FROM A HYPO MOTLEY TO A NORMAL... " (Emphasis in original)

From What Josh Ketchum wrote, it seems like normals and hypo motleys can appear rarely. If he controlled for retained sperm and possible parthenogenesis, then hypo and motley are not compatible (IOW, are not alleles). A possible explanation would be linkage -- the two mutant genes are located close together but in opposite chromosomes in a chromosome pair.

----H-------
------M-----

I e-mailed both Josh and Jeremy Stone about this possibility but got no answer. So I still have more questions than answers.

Paul Hollander
LINK

Yes, indeed, more questions than answers!!

I brought this whole thread up because I was planning on pairing up a motley TH (100% Het) Moonglow male with a Snow female but it's starting to sound like my Motley DH Snow is a better choice if the Hypo coming from only the Motley is going to completely cancel out any chance of making any kind of motley baby with Hypo in it.

When I bred the same DH Snow Motley last year with a TH Moonglow girl, I ended up with 2 moonglows, motley sunglows, 5 ghost motleys, and a hypo motley ... I have heard that others put together the same genetics with their pairs and did not hit on moonglows at all.... not sure if that is 100% the case though.

So much to learn but it sounds like I can trust that with all of the pairings done already by others that a Motley with the Hypo gene should only be bred with a Hypo. Will this then cancel out the possibilities of producing a Super Hypo ( not to be confused with a Super Motley!!!!!) Any thoughts or opinions?!?!

Thanks everyone!!!

Jamess

with added Anery genes involved.

Actual pairing was Hypo Motley het Anery x Super Ghost. The babies visually appear to be Motley Ghosts, Hypo Motley het Anery, Super Ghosts and Super Hypo het Anery.
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

> So much to learn but it sounds like I can trust that with all of the pairings done already by others that a Motley with the Hypo gene should only be bred with a Hypo. Will this then cancel out the possibilities of producing a Super Hypo ( not to be confused with a Super Motley!!!!!) Any thoughts or opinions?!?!

You can breed a hypo motley to any other boa you want. That includes another motley or motley combination if you are willing to accept the chance of getting a super motley.

Each baby from a hypo motley x hypo mating has a 1/4 chance of being a super hypo.

Paul Hollander

Paul,

Thanks for your post. I just wanted to make sure that if the Hypo was coming from both parents that it would still produce motleys. I have only done a motley to a hypo but was curious if a hypo to a hypo motley would still produce hypo motleys since its being talked about that a hypo motley to a non hypo would create no hypo motleys?

So, what youre saying is that if both the motley and non motley parent are hypos .. the offspring will not only have hypo motleys but will also give you the 1/4 chance of being a Super hypo?! Well, that is super good news! Seems that a TH X TH Motley is still one hell of a pairing then with some neat outcomes if everything goes well!!

Thanks for the input!!

Jamess

The 1/4 that are super Hypos will not also be Motley.
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

Thanks for pointing that out as well Dave! So, I'm really starting to think a hypo motley morph X anything Non-Motley ( even if it is a Hypo) is really just not a "good" pairing. If the hypo cancels out the motley meaning you will get no motley babies with hypo in them... then the "best" offspring you could hope for would be a motley snow, correct?!

From what I have gathered, even a TH motley X Moonglow would not produce a moonglow motley, is that right? And the hypo X hypo breeding in that would produce 1/4 Super Hypos, but none could be a motley( because there wont be even a motley with the hypo gene,yeah?

Sounds like, over time, it has become accepted truth that a hypo motley is really not what most would think it would be.. ?!?!

Yikes!!!!

Hypo and Motley seem to be two DIFFERENT morph genes on the same locus. Hypo Motley x Hypo results in.....

1/4 Hypo Motley
1/4 Motley
1/2 Hypo (50% Super)

Factor in Albino and/or Anery separately.

A TH Motley Moonglow x Moonglow will produce 1/16 Motley Moonglow

Just remember each adult can only pass one of the two different genes Motley or Hypo. To get both in one baby each parent will have to provide one or the other.
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

As I understand it, it would be better to use only one codom hypo parent in the mix because any "super hypos" might take the place of possible hypo-motley....moonglow to albino motley het anery/or snow would give the better odds, would it not?

Should not make any difference if both parents have Hypo genes. Using M for Motley, H for Hypo and n for normal and focusing on the single gene pair there are six possible two gene combinations possible in one single baby

nn
Mn
Hn
MM
HH
MH

Breeding MH to Hn would yield 1/4 each...

MH
Mn
HH
Hn
(of course visually distinguishing between HH and n is not reliable so visually would be 1/2 Hx 50% possible HH)

Breeding MH to HH would yield 1/2 each...

MH
HH

A lot like breeding Super Hypo's together in that none of the babies will get a normal gene in the hypo/Motley location.

While I understand your ultimate desired result are Motley Moonglows, ignore the Albino and Anery traits to better understand the workings of Motley/Hypo. Think of Motley and Hypo as ONE single trait with two visual outcomes.

On paper the way to produce the MOST Hypo Motleys would be a Super Hypo x Super Motley but there seem to be problems with Super Motleys not being viable animals. The second most Hypo Motley outcome would be either a Motley or a Hypo Motley x Super Hypo. 1/2 the babies would get the Motley Gene and ALL would get a Hypo gene. The advantage of Hypo Motley x Super Hypo is the babies are either Hypo Motleys or Super Hypos.

I've done Hypo Motley het Anery x Super Ghost and 1/2 the litter were Motleys, ALL Hypos. The other half the litter were Super Hypos. and a 50/50 mix of Anery thrown in as well. Should work the same way with Albino thrown in the mix.
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

>As I understand it, it would be better to use only one codom hypo parent in the mix because any "super hypos" might take the place of possible hypo-motley....moonglow to albino motley het anery/or snow would give the better odds, would it not?

A motley moonglow has a pair of albino genes, a pair of anerythristic genes, and (for the sake of argument) a hypo gene paired with a motley gene.

To get a snake with a pair of albino genes, the odds go (from highest to lowest) if the parents are as follows:
albino x albino
albino x heterozygous albino
heterozygous albino x heterozygous albino

To get a snake with a pair of anerythristic genes, the odds go (from highest to lowest) if the parents are as follows:
anerythristic x anerythristic
anerythristic x heterozygous anerythristic
heterozygous anerythristic x heterozygous anerythristic

hypo motley x hypo -->
1/4 super hypo
1/4 hypo
1/4 motley
1/4 hypo motley

hypo x motley -->
1/4 normal
1/4 hypo
1/4 motley
1/4 hypo motley

So the odds of getting a hypo motley from a hypo x motley mating are 25%. This is the same as the odds of getting a hypo motley from a hypo motley x hypo mating. But you would not get any super hypo babies from a hypo x motley mating.

Dave and Paul ( and the others who have emailed me directly....oh, and the phone calls too,lol)..

Ok, I realize my last post was incorrect in what I wrote ( it happens, as punnet squares are my evil mother in law). I think I was more caught up in thinking that the TH Motley males I have were suddenly reduced to just cool looking boas that were no longer what I "needed" for my breeding projects. I have to admit, some of the info I was reading caught me by surprise. But I understand what you are saying guys, thank you!

I need to work on my Punnets... thats my homework for the night! Thanks tho, seriously!!! It's not the only project I have but it would be nice to actually get it right so I just want to make sure I am putting the best possible pair together ( and hopefully not buying anything new to make that possible!!!!!) Crazy you NEVER see a moonglow any older than a few months old for sale....geeez

THANKS AGAIN!!!!

jamess

...in Palm Bay, but I don't think he's selling her...
Sorry, buddy. Had to do it!
Aaron
-----
www.voodoomagicboas.com

so mean to me

Another case of the BIG GUY beating down the little man!! LOL
Thats cool Aaron ...I cant even respond cause you have that Kung Fu grip and karate chop action stuff going on with you so I'll just take it and let my boas do the talking at the F.I.R.E. Show in two weeks!!

lol, youre awesome
( tho, you know , now that you've posted on my thread no one will add to it!)
It's that damn Voodoo!!!!
lol

Yes, your boas WILL do the talking at the FIRE Show!
I can't wait...8 more days!
Sorry I "Voodoo'ed" your thread!
Aaron
-----
www.voodoomagicboas.com

It can all be broken down to simple math....

There are two basic outcomes of interest.....

1) What visual phenotypes should/could pop out

2) What are the probabilities of any of those specific outcomes

Both are easily answered with just a little math....

For example Jungle Sunglow het Moonglow x Jungle het Snow (complicated on purpose)

Expand that out to show all the genetics involved......

Jungle, Hypo, Albino, het Anery x Jungle, het Albino, het anery

Now separate them into the individual traits, remember to show both animals for each trait......

Jungle x Jungle
Hypo x Normal
Albino x Het Albino
Het Anery x Het Anery

Then work out the visual phenotypes and odds for each trait.....

Jungle x Jungle = ¼ Super Jungle, ½ Jungle, ¼ Normal
Hypo x Normal = ½ Hypo, ½ Normal
Albino x Het Albino = ½ Albino, ½ Normal
Het Anery x Het Anery = ¼ Anery, ¾ Pos het Anery

The total number of visual phenotypes equals the product of the individual trait phenotypes (multiply them all together)....

#Jungle x #Hypo x #Albino x #Anery = 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 24

Which says if the litter were large enough and the odds gods were totally fair, there would be 24 different looks in all the babies.

To figure out the odds on any one of those outcomes (yeah, if you want all 24 you have to repeat the process 23 more times) Pick one phenotype from each of the visual traits. Then multiply the odds for each of those phenotypes.....

Examples....

Super Jungle, Hypo, Albino, Anery (yeah, might not able to visually ID all the traits with all that's going on, for the sake of this discussion, all are visible one way or another))
¼ x ½ x ½ x ¼

Or 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 over 4 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 1/64 or one in 64 babies from that pairing would be a Super Jungle Moonglow

Hope this helps, I know many get confused at first but once you grasp the concept, you'll always know how to figure out even the most complicated outcomes.
-----
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 (02/01/2010):
42.61 BRB
27.40 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

I do it like Dave does, too. This method is called a branching system or forkline.

Using a Punnett square and Dave's example, you would have a 64-cell Punnett square. Then you'd have to convert the gene combinations to traits and add the likes together. Very time consuming.

The predigital, rotary mileage meter in cars is an example of a branching system. Wrap each of the four trait sets around the outside of a rotor. Every time the outer rotor makes a full circle, the next inner rotor ticks over one place. Continue until the leftmost rotor makes a full circle. Multiply the fractions for each configuration.

The nicest thing about this method is that you can get the probability for only one set of traits if you are only interested in one. With a Punnett square, you have to do the whole square.

Dave,

Thank you for the crash course!! I was doing great until the

"The total number of visual phenotypes equals the product of the individual trait phenotypes (multiply them all together)....

#Jungle x #Hypo x #Albino x #Anery = 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 24 " part!?!?!

I am lost as to where those numbers representing the individual trait phenotypes are coming from?! I get everything before that part, and afer... but not sure where yoiu are getting the 3x2x2x2 part from?!

Last question, PROMISE!!!!

Thanks Dave

Jungle x Jungle = ¼ Super Jungle, ½ Jungle, ¼ Normal = 3 phenotypes
Hypo x Normal = ½ Hypo, ½ Normal = 2 phenotypes
Albino x Het Albino = ½ Albino, ½ Normal = 2 phenotypes
Het Anery x Het Anery = ¼ Anery, ¾ Pos het Anery = 2 phenotypes

In a branching system, the breeding problem's answer has 3 branches x 2 branches x 2 branches x 2 branches = 24 branches, each of which contains a unique phenotype. The corresponding Punnett square would contain 4 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 64 cells, each of which contains a genotype. The cells would have to have their genotypes converted to phenotypes and then the like phenotypes added together to reduce them to the 24 unique phenotypes.

AHHH, OK OK OK OK !!!! I just wasnt seeing where the "3" and "2"s were coming from, but I totally see what you guys are talking about now!! Alright, I do understand what you're saying now! Which is good considering , as Dave said, this was a deliberately tricky one to figure out. But , ok , now I see what I am multiplying and where I will be getting those numbers from now. That was the only part that I was caught up on in the post.

I definitely see why this is going to be MUCH easier and more helpful at a glance as well as in the long run versus Punnets!!! Thanks for your patience and the input!! Seriiiiiiously, thank you Dave and Paul!!!

Jamess