Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I was told recently by a friend that albino brooks/florida kings actually originated from cross-breeding with Cal kings. I had always thought they were a pure mutation. I guess it could be tested by breeding one to an albino cal king. Does anyone have any different information as to the origin of this morph, or is what I described pretty much accurate?

>>I was told recently by a friend that albino brooks/florida kings actually originated from cross-breeding with Cal kings. I had always thought they were a pure mutation.

Both. There were some pure lines out there, but many have been bred to Cal-Kings, too. The secret is to verify your bloodlines before purchasing them, I guess. That's what I do. Mine are descended from the Ruskin albino line, I'm happy to say. Can't wait to start breeding them in a couple of years.

>> I guess it could be tested by breeding one to an albino cal king.

Nah, it might prove that YOUR line isn't allelic with Cal-Kings, but that won't mean it hasn't been crossed with a cal-king in the past, so you'd kinda be wasting your time. Furthermore, many lines of albinism ARE allelic across subspecies. In other words, even if you have a PURE albino Cal-King and breed it to a PURE albino "brooksi" phase florida king, you might STILL get all albinos. All it means is that the mutation arose separately at the same place. That's very common withing and among subspecies.

KJ

I don't know how many ways that albinism can be caused through genetic mutation but if I were to say 100 it would be my guess that I would be off by orders of magnitude!

Do you know of specific examples were "pure" albino CA kings and "pure" albino FL kings are allelic or was this a hypothetical statement? The reason I ask is that if it is not hypothetical the odds that allelic mutations would arise independently are exceedingly slim. An alternative, and more probable, view would be that the mutation was allelic due to common ancestry. This would mean one of two things. We either don't have good lineage info on these animals and one or the other isn't "pure" or the notion of a "pure" subspecies is nonsense.

an example being the gene said to exhibit the white sided mutation in ghost glades as well as black rats, would most likely have been the result of either one or the other as due to common ancestry since allelic mutations that would arise independently are exceedingly slim?

Rich Hebron

what I think you are saying then yes. However I don't think it quite the "stretch" that glades and black rats have common and "relatively" recent ancestry in contrast to the example of FL and CA king.

>>If you are saying what I think you are saying then yes.

Every time I read this the following line keeps popping in my head. (Sorry if I misquoted it a little bite.) "You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means."

KJ

What movie?

This was covered already...in this forum, I believe. Look to the archives if you are really interested. I'll list some of the known allelic mutations, though, just since you seem to think it is so unlikely: Kane bred a mex-mex to an alterna and got anerythristics (both had to be het for the same gene), Fankhauser bred an albino cal-king to an albino cornsnake and got albinos, ... heck, find the old thread and read it. It went into this in more detail than I care to again. I'm tired of trying to retype a basic genetics lesson and a history of hybridization of morphs in herpetoculture lesson every other week....lol.

The point being that it just breaks the chain in the same place even if the actual base substitition is different. I'm sorry to spill your milk, but I'm the one that cries because hybrids aren't as easy to prove out as I would like.

No milks spilt here! You just seem to be proposing a third alternative as to why seemingly unrelated morphs might be allelic. That, " it just breaks the chain in the same place even if the actual base substitition is different" however doesn't exactly jive with my understanding of mendelian genetics but since I'm not a geneticist or self proclaimed expert I'll admit to gaps in said understanding.
Actually, I think for once though we might, almost, kind of sorta agree on something! LOL Perhaps the only difference is the weight we put on each of the three alternatives.
As for admonishments to go look in the archives, since recently admonishing another to do the same I learned the search engine here aint what it used to be! It's much easier to bait people into giving up the information for the nth time. Thanks BTW.

There is also hoolbrooki in the mix as well. These look much more like "Brooksi" than do the Cal X FL. Especially in the generations to follow. And according to some, nearly genetically identical. Although I have heard of "pure" amels from FL. I am not convinced.
:Mark

...and a line of almost definitely pure Desert kings
...and a supposedly pure WC albino Chain king
...and at least 2 other lines of known pure albino Chain kings (that either "died" out or are unavailable to most hobbyists since they are in a zoo)
... et cetera.

You'd have to check it with most of those bloodlines to be sure, but i'd bet a nickle that MANY, if not all, of those lines are allelic to each other.
KJ

I should have been more clear in saying that hoolbrooki amels have been used to cross with the Brook's and that THOSE animals look much more like a Brook's than the Cal (amel) X Brook's and is closer genetically too. In other words the lines with hoolbrooki in them look "better" than the lines with Cal in them. But with all the outbreeding done (by now) there may be little evidence of either Cal or hoolbrooki in there. Who knows? I have always been skeptical, since often the guys who come up with the new albinos are also the ones who often hybridize and otherwise cross their animals. I'll let the smart guys figure it all out. My head hurts.
:Mark