Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Ok.. so I have a question about the Boas that look like Jungles. A few posts down there were pics of Junglish type boas that appeared to have the Jungle patterns. Lets say that whoever posted was able to get pictures of the parents as well as the grandparents of their Junglish looking boa and they ALL had that same look. Does the Boa then become a JUNGLE boas instead of Jungle looking Boas?

If we have to prove genetics by going back.. then how far back do we have to go to prove and label the animals as Jungle?

Thanks in advance.

Shawn Morelan
www.SouthernBoids.com

np

sorry...

No, this would not neccessarily make them "Jungles". The Jungle mutation has been proven to be a dominant gene, like the hypo gene. Also, a jungle to jungle breeding will produce super-jungles which have a very distinct look to them and are easily distinguished from the regular jungles.

If the jungle-like boas posted below turn out to be genetic, but are not compatible with the true jungle gene, then they would be a new morph with a similar look to the jungles.

Hope this helps,
Matt Crabe

P.S. To answer the email you sent me, they were not produced by the breeder you mentioned, but rather a private breeder here in Northern California.

>>No, this would not neccessarily make them "Jungles". The Jungle mutation has been proven to be a dominant gene, like the hypo gene. Also, a jungle to jungle breeding will produce super-jungles which have a very distinct look to them and are easily distinguished from the regular jungles.
>>
>>If the jungle-like boas posted below turn out to be genetic, but are not compatible with the true jungle gene, then they would be a new morph with a similar look to the jungles.
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>Matt Crabe
>>
>>P.S. To answer the email you sent me, they were not produced by the breeder you mentioned, but rather a private breeder here in Northern California.
>>
-----
"To be the best..........You must lose your mind."

Hi i think i got a couple from the same guy in n-cali I think you got their right befor i did but i got what i could.here is a couple pics

:

The jungle trait is a co-dominant color and pattern mutation originating from a line of boas produced in Sweden (or somewhere out there). The only animals that can be HONESTLY called Jungles must originate from this line, which should be traceable back to Pete Kahl at some point or another. Just because it may look like a Jungle does not make it a Jungle.

On another note, the Harlequin boas being produced by Tim & Brenden Magee fall in the same category. Pattern and color mutation (I will refrain from designating whether it is a co-dom, because I have minimal experience with them). You will only be able to call your boa a Harli if in fact this boa originates from the Harli line. There really is no if ands or buts!

Here are some links for the educational part of my sermen....lol

JUNGLES
www.pkreptiles.com/collection/boas/jungle.asp

SUPER JUNGLES
www.pkreptiles.com/collection/boas/super_jungle.asp
PETER KAHL REPTILES

-----

that if the boas pictured yesterday in a few posts below have babies and half of them look like the Jungle (pattern) that since they are not directly from the sweden line the breeder could then coin a new morph name for them? Only after proving to be genetic of course?

I am not wanting to start a battle of any sorts.. I am only curious. I have only seen a few real Jungles in person, but have seen alot of pictures. Many are unmistakenly Jungle, where others look more normal but carry the Gene.

I purchased 1.2 Boas in Daytona that appear to be VERY much like the Jungles. However not traceable back to Sweden that I know of, or Pete Kahl either.

I happened to be on the same floor as Jeremy Stone and invited him to check them out. He held them all and inspected them and said that they looked like they could have come from the same litter as his jungles. NOT that they were from his litter, but pattern wise etc. they were very similar. (Not meaning they WERE from his litter.. just that by the appearance they looked very similar, I dont want to get this mis-interpreted).

So I guess the meat of my question is.. Mine are NOT Jungles since they are not from the Jungle line.. however if I beed them back to a sibling and have ALL the same junglish pattern or to a normal and half a litter with the same junglish pattern, I would have a Mutation I could then name??

Does this also mean that if 3 other people who posted the Jungle look alikes yesterday also breed and get the results of all or half the litter looking Junglish they would also have the right to name their morph as well?

Again.. I am not looking to start anything but merely gain more knowledge so that I may express what morphs I have with clarity and truth and not call them something they are not. At the moment.. I have been calling the Jungle Hopefuls. But I guess I should change that to something else.

I know what you mean by the Harlequin line example.. I was lucky enough to get a true Harlequin Male from Brendan. He is ready to breed now.. got my fingers crossed.

Thanks
Shawn Morelan
www.SouthernBoids.com

I do not want to encourage 50 people to name new morphs from this thread. DOHHHH!...lol

In essence, yes, however, in the nature of honest business and representation, you would owe it to yourself and us to do several generations of the breedings and unmistakeably prove them to be something. Also, you and whoever else may have animals from the same litter, would they have different morph names, I would hope not.

Good luck with your project and I hope you have something, but research them and document everything, you may actually have something, and people will want proof.

Chris
-----

You could not call them Jungles because Jungle is NOT a morph, it is simply the term for a certain persons line of a mutation.

Better explained, Rich Ihle breeds Hypomelanistic Boas - they are Called SALMON BOAS, because he bred and 'created' his own line of these animals through selective breeding!
For the most part, Salmons are much cleaner than average Hypos.

So the 'Jungle' trait is simply an aberrant pattern that this person (Swedish gentleman) 'coined' Jungles!
Yes, I do know that the actual Jungles are MUCH more than just aberrant- they have several distinct characteristics.

Another example -
Jeff Ronne / Boaphile produces beautiful high colored boas with reduced black pigment through years and years selective breeding. He 'coined' these PASTEL DREAMS.
Does this mean that everyone that produces nice colored, clean boas has produced and can call them PASTEL DREAMS? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Most people say they have Pastels, amd most of those animals didn't even come from a descendant of the Pastel Dreams... but that's another story... lol

So a perfect example is Tim's Harlequin Line.
This is also an aberrant, high colored, very special line of animals, 'Jungle' like animals, that were 'coined' Harlequin.

IF you have proven your line out several years in a row and have without a doubt confirmed their genetics, you would then have the right to 'coin' them whatever you want!

but it's true, if we go call every aberrant boa a Jungle or Jungle-like, then just about EVERY boa out there will be a supposed 'Jungle', EXACTLY the way just about every other boa out there is a PASTEL! lol LOL lol

Hope this cleared things up!
Take care guys...

I have SEVERAL 'jungle-like' boas, but have never even thought to call them Jungle's and am taking my sweet time in trying to prove them out. Good luck!
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

I will have to make a few more calls I guess. The person I purchased from in Daytona has pictures of the parents and I believe the grandparents as well and a few litters inbetween and they all showed the same charateristics as what I have, that "Junglish" look. So in all honesty, HE would be the one that has proven it out I guess and it would be him that would be able to coin the new term for them.,, maybe Jungle2??? JungleUSA, or something totally new. But if it looks like what is being called a Jungle and is Genetic, it seems another name would just get very confusing as the Hypo/Salmon or Pastel/Pastel Dream.

I have emailed and called the breeder a dozen times and he appears to not want this task or not want to be involved becasue he has never emailed or called back. I have not mentioned his name for just that reason. I am not looking to take his credit or start a new name or anything like that, but at the same time I do not want to sell them as Normals if they show and have a genetic proven trait that is selling for $3000. That would just be foolish. So that is why I asked if they could be called Jungles. So.. back to the calling and emailing etc.

I wish I would have taken a pic of the pictures he had in Daytona, but I didnt think it would be that difficult to get them emailed to me after the fact. That will teach me. At the same time I can understand his reluctance to start a new name as he would surely have a hassle from many on this site saying he doesnt have enough documentation, difference in appearance etc, as Tim and Brendan had to endure with the Harlequin.

Thanks again for the replies and I guess I will have to research a little more and try for the pictures of the parents/grandparents.

Shawn Morelan
www.SouthernBoids.com

Well Shawn, this just came to mind. If you do prove yours out to be genetic and the pattern/color, etc. appears to be that of a jungle, you could always call them Shawn Line Jungles. I say this with the Motleys in mind. Jon Roylance bought an unproven motley from someone. Now, Jon didn't produce the animal, but he did prove it genetic and thus coined them Roylance Motleys. Nobody has looked down on him for this that I know of, and they may even be compatable with the other motleys....either way, his name is attached, so I don't see why you couldn't do the same. Best of luck. Take care!

Paul

it is a genetic color and pattern mutation...... IE morph.
-----

technically (at least in my pinion), the mutation is the morph, not the 'brand'.
Like hypos are a morph, salmon is a brand..
albino's are the morph, sharp or kahl is the strain/brand..
doesn't matter to me either way, I still love them and would love to produce them
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

IMO, if the animal is genetically the same as the original Jungles...as in the same color/pattern morph but not directly related, it's still that genetic animal. That would be like saying that a newly imported albino boa isn't an albino because it wasn't a Sharp or Kahl strain; or a hypo isn't a hypo, an anery an anery, etc. because it wasn't produced by 'X' breeder. The morph is still true if it proves out, the first person to breed it just gets the recognition for discovering it and the honor of naming it. That's not the same as animals produced by selective breeding like Ronne's Pastel Dreams - those are only Pastel Dreams if they're produced by him because it's a selective breeding process not an immediate genetic one. By naming an existing morph something else entirely because it can't be proven to the original line doesn't make sense and just makes the morph subject that much more convoluted.

Just my .02 .....Raven

Yes they can ALL be genetic aberrant animals, like Jungle's or Harlequin's or whatever, but not necessarilly Jungle's!

The Jungle is very distinct is it's appearance, aberrancies, stripes, colors.. those common perfect circlesin their saddles, that tell-tale weird, strong yellow color..etc..

If I proved out something that looked like this, I still would not be so confident as to offer it as gauranteed or 'certified' Jungle's unless I know they came from the original Swedish/Kahl Line.

What you're saying, sounds to me like if you discovered a new albino and proced it to always have the extra orange coloration of a Sharp Strain Albino, you will call it a Sharp, even though you have no idea where it came from. but yes, obviously it is an albino. see?

just my $.02
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

Quote: "The Jungle is very distinct is it's appearance, aberrancies, stripes, colors.. those common perfect circles in their saddles, that tell-tale weird, strong yellow color..etc.."

What I'm saying is that if it IS genetically the same...compatible to the Swedish line and exactly the same in every way...and Jungle is the name of that morph, then it would be a jungle.

Quote "What you're saying, sounds to me like if you discovered a new albino and proced it to always have the extra orange coloration of a Sharp Strain Albino, you will call it a Sharp,"

No, just that it is an albino - as albino is the given name for that morph. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the Jungle moniker and it is not a morph but something selectively bred? Assuming (and we ALL know about assuming lol) that I do understand and Jungle is actually a morph and IF we are JUST talking about the pattern abnormality and it lacks the rest of the designations for the true Jungles, then I agree that it can't be called a Jungle. However if it DOES have all the trademarks of a true Jungle, it should be called a Jungle. Am I coming through clear as mud?

Raven

mutations then it would be a Jungle.

By this I mean, if you bred a "jungleish" boa to a true sweedish line jungle, and got SUPER JUNGLES, then it would be a jungle boa would it not?

I think that would be the only way to solve that issue.

As for the albino from the wild, I will again use the same logic. If you breed that to a kahl albino, and got all albinos, well then its a kahl. Now if you did, and got all commons, ie hets, then its not a kahl. At that point you would need to breed it to a sharp, and again same thing. At that point were it not to be compatible with each of the other albino strains, it would then become "yournamehere"strain ablino.

But as always, what do I know.

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Repttiles

Where you're getting confused...amelanism,and,anerythrism,(two of the examples you used above.)have distinct genetic definition,"across the board" so to speak,in that their cause,and,effect can easily be attributed to a common deficeit that is seen the same way in a wide variety of other species that also exhibit the anomoly...for example,I can show you amelanistic birds,mammals,turtles,etc...they all show key visual identifyers of the mutation. I can show you examples of anerythrism in other species of reptiles,birds,amphibians,etc...again,same cause,and,effect,but,I can't show you across the board examples of "Jungle-ism" (*lol*)because there are no distinct parallel representations,that can be accurately identifyed by just one,or,two consistant visual cues,in part because we don't know exactly what causes the anomoly,from a biochemical,or,biomechanical perspective to reach a definative answer on what "it" really "is"...(geez,talk about "clear as mud"! I hope this makes some sort of sense? *lol*) the bottom line here,as I see it,IS...if it cannot be irrefutably traced back to the original "Jungle" bloodline,and,I mean above any,and,all reasonable doubt...it just AIN'T a "Jungle"! and,to my way of thinking,it would do a serious injustice to the validity of anyone's particular line,or,project to make that assertion in naming it something similar,regardless if you could tell them apart,or,not.

So your saying if a "jungle ish" boa was bred to a sweedish line true JUNGLE boa, and super jungles were produced from this pairing, you still couldnt call the first boa a jungle boa.

To me that would just muddy up the who situation worse. If the jungle boa is a naturally occuring mutation, not the result of selective breeding, then if another unrelated animal posses the same traits, passes them in the same manner, and is compatible with the "original" trait, to me that would make it the SAME TRAIT.

I understand not wanting to call unproven "jungleish" boas jungle boas. But were someone to go through all that effort, and prove one out, then why name it something else. If not, whats the value in buying a jungle boa anyways?

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Reptiles

You'd have to first identify the anomoly from a genetic,or,scientific standpoint,which seems rather enigmatic, to me? the term "jungle" isn't really a genetic descriptor,(neither is Harlequin,Motley,Arabesque,or,for that matter,Pastel Dream,,but they all are names given,that do describe the "look"in some way,shape,or,form.)I've never seen the term Jungle as an adequate descriptive name,however,it may have had some descriptive significance to the originator that isn't clear to those of us that lack experience with them,(me included.)given the variably expressive nature of the trait,once you bred the theoretical jungle-look-alike to a jungle,how would you assess the outcome in terms of which parent had what to do with which percentage of the offspring?the only way to find out if your breeding results actually yielded the theoretical "super" you mentioned,would be to breed it to a normal,and,have some protocol,or,criteria for interpreting the outcome??? it seems that you would be better off keeping them separate,and,developing a comparative protocol for deciding how they differ...or,how they are similar,and,what genetic consistancies could be isolated,if any?

I will never pay big money for a Jungle boa.

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Reptiles

That is not exactly correct. Unlike with the hypos and super hypos, the super jungle has a very distinct look. Much like the super tiger retic which is very distinguishable from the tiger retic. Now if the breeding did not result in any super jungles, then I agree that this would "muddy the waters" so to speak. But how will you know if you don't try. I'm sure the Sharp albino was paired with a Kahl albino in order to determine if they were compatible. How is this any different?

Matt Crabe

I'd have to think it's a pretty good point,if it weren't such an extremely variable trait...perhaps the "supers" would be visibly distinct? collectively we've only seen pictures of a very small cross section of what the dominant form of the trait can look like,who's to say they always look the same?and,without any firsthand knowledge from actually breeding them,and,seeing the outcome of more than just a given breeding,or,two,I don't really think I have enough information to be able to say with any real degree of certainty,one way,or,the other.there are several ways that it differs from the albino example,again,once you reach the homozygous state with amelanistics,there really aren't many variables to consider?(paradox's perhaps?,but,nothing along the comparative lines of a "super amel".)my comments above were not so much concerned with the muddying of the waters,as much as to say "how would you judge the perspective influence from one parent,or,the other,especially if the true genetic nature of the look alike wasn't fully understood prior to the breeding?????"

.
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

.
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

"The Jungle is very distinct is it's appearance, aberrancies, stripes, colors.. those common perfect circlesin their saddles, that tell-tale weird, strong yellow color..etc.."

If they were so distinct, why would there be any question as to what a certain animal is or is not? If simply by looking at the animal you can not tell 100% if it is or is not a TRUE Jungle, then I would say the trait is not all that distinct at all. Within a short period of time, will a boa keeper be able to buy just ONE Jungle to establish he has them, and be able to sell normal abberant boas as Jungles? I mean if you can't tell just by looking, and you need to be able to trace the lineage, how are you going to be able to prove the babies offered for sale came from the male Jungle the breeders has, or just from a litter of abberant boas, which he may claim the Jungle male sired??? From what I've seen, you'd be stuck taking his/her word for it, just like hets. Either way, it cracks me up that people say nice things about abberant boas, while they'll almost do backflips for a pic of a jungle boa. I guess any time you put a couple thousand dollar price tag on something it becomes....AMAZING!!! LOL! Tell me this, how JUST BY LOOKING, could you tell a Jungle Salmon from Rich Ihle from an abberant salmon-JUST BY LOOKING? If you can't, then the morph/trait becomes just as questionable as buying hets from unknown breeders. What is now known as Super Jungles....I would agree, distinct appearance. What is now known as Jungles-appearance is to variable on too many possible phenotypes. Just my opinion, take it for what it is. Take care!

Paul

Im not sure Rich has ever produced Jungle salmons. If you are referring to the boas I posted as "jungleish" salmons, the ones I have were not produced by Rich. Rather the parents of them were, and as I stated I noticed Rich produced babies that look nearly identical this season. So when you put two and two together you would ASSUME they are related.

On that note, I did email Rich today, sent pics of the boas I have, and asked him if he had any opinions on what may be going on geneticly with the boas.

I want to again say I never claimed my hypos are jungle salmons. The whole conversation and the pics got me thinking.

I also agree if you cant look at an animal and tell without a doubt it is what someone claims, then how can you justify the upcharge for that trait?

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Reptiles

And soo far Rich has not replied to me.

Whoever said that the Jungle can't be identified from its litter mates....Those that have produced Jungles and those that have real jungles know what to look for and know if what they have is a jungle or not. The "upcharge" is justified because you can predictably predict what the litter will consist of on a percentage basis. Now as for Mickey breeding his "Junglish" Hypos to Jungles and getting Super Jungles would not mean that his animals were Jungle boas it would mean that his "Junglish" animals are compatible with the Sweden line.

As for a point that rainshadow made (and it was a good one) in order for something to be proven, one must first isolate the gene and see how it works. This would best be done by breeding the desired phenotype to a normal and noting the results. If the desired phenotype were produce in the first breeding the trait would then be what is referred to as codominant. If not then subsequent breedings must take place to see if the trait is an inheritable one. This I believe is what they (Rainshadow and his brother) have done with the Harlequin line.

Finally, to address another point that Mickey made about a "wild" caught albino being bred to a kahl line albino and producing albinos. He said that the "wild" albino would then be a kahl albino....This is incorrect, what it would mean is that it would be compatible with the kahl line albinos.

This is a rather long post and I know for a fact that there are grammatical errors and spelling errors in to so forgive me.....I look forward to people replies.

Russ Lockenwitz
-----
Russ Lockenwitz
RL Reptiles
http://www.visioncages.com

Well, I never said you can't tell a jungle from it's littermates. The question is can you tell a jungle from an abberant boa that is so "similar" to a jungle. To that end, can you tell if someone is telling the truth based on the following scenario-SO and SO buys a jungle from "big name schmo", assume it's a male. Now, a couple years later SO and SO, breeds his jungle and gets a litter of babies, some coming out as jungles. Now, SO and SO, also gets two more litters of NORMAL boas, but due to whatever phenom, they are abberant. Well, SO and SO decides to cash in and call these abberant babies jungles. He does in fact HAVE a jungle, how could you PROVE, again, JUST BY LOOKING....that SO and SO was trying to pull a scam??? I'm not talking about buying them, breeding them, and finding out if you got ripped. I'm talking about right then and there, DAY ONE...how can you tell with 100% Accuracy? If you can not give a plain, definite answer, what good is the morph/trait? To address the Salmon Jungle, I wasn't gearing that toward the hypos pictured below, which by the way are very nice. I believe that Rich did in fact produce a litter of Jungle Salmons. I could easily be misinformed, but I think he has. Take care!

Paul

No problem Paul, I must have jumped the gun on that one.

And you very well could be correct about Rich producing a litter of salmon jungles.

But that would bring me to the same point someonelse got at (cant remeber who now...lol). What if Rich were to decide he wanted to make a bit of extra cash. With what a jungle goes for theese days, I would assume a proven sweedish line salmon jungle, especially as clean of ones as thoose hypos are, would cost a good deal more. Now lest assume rather then getting his normal 1500 plus on theese very nice abberant salmons, Rich were to decide to tag theese animals as "salmon jungles". Again Rich has jungles I assume, and theese hypos do look very "jungleish" how would someone know when they purchased the animal on sight alone that rich was selling them salmons that were abberant, and not jungle salmons ( I WANT TO STATE I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY DOUBT RICH WOULD EVER EVEN CONSIDER THIS ). He could go from chargeing 1500 ea on top of the line salmons, to upwards of what 3000-7000 (wild ballpark guess here) per animal for SALMON JUNGLES.

That senario above is what makes me nervous about jungle boas. That also makes me nervous about multiple descriptions of the same trait.

Again my little peanut hurts

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Reptiles

Mickey,

You first need to really watch what you are saying about Rich, whether it is, a what if or not. He is one the most trust worthy people around and you should take a step back and show some respect.

Second, if you knew anything about morphs at all, you would know that Rich HAS produced salmon jungles, and that there is obviously a difference between them and abberant salmons.

Please research what you are saying before you say it.

K, I am better now, play ball!
-----

Hold on a second man.

I thought I was VERY VERY VERY clear when I said I have NO DOUBT IN MY MIND RICH WOULD NOT DO SUCH A THING. I mean seriously, I was just giving an example. Maybe I should have said "joe schmoe" but hey I dont know if Joe Schmoed owns any jungles.

As for researching Richs projects. I am very sorry I didnt realize he had allready produced jungle salmons.

Again I NEVER SAID THE ANIMALS I HAVE ARE JUNGLES. Not in any way shape or form. I think you are missing my point. Im kinda playing devils advocate here. I am just trying to show how very confusing the "jungle" trait is to alot of people, and how if not very carefull someone could easily be "screwed" out of alot of money.

Again I want to clarify I IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM THINK RICH IHLE WOULD EVER EVER EVER DO ANYTHING SHADDY WHEN IT COMES TO REPTILE SALES. I was just useing him as an example.

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Reptiles

Hey Russ

Long time no talk...lol

Anyways, so Im a bit confused still (imagine that). When you say a wild caught albino that was compatible with the kahl line would not be a kahl line. Well then what would it be? I understand "kahl" is a tag, but again this would just lead to more confusion.

I agree that its best to prove the genetics of the trait on its own to commons, but again, should two traits prove out to be the same trait, doesnt it just make scence they would go by the same name?

Man my head hurts

Mickey Hinkle
The Lizard King Reptiles

I figured I'd erase any doubt by saying that,"yes" the Salmon/Jungles became a reality in 2002,(a joint venture between Todd Smith & Rich.)I thought pretty much everyone knew about them already?(you can check out one of the nicest examples on Rich's site,under the "featured animals" section.)

Mickey,

Yes, it has be a long hasn't it....Here is my answer to your question.

1). If a "wild" albino were brought in from the wild and it were compatible with the kahl line it would still be "wild" and need to be labeled as another compatible line. It really makes no difference what you call it as albinos are already well established so another line really would not make a difference other then to diversify blood.

Does that make sense.....It is the same with the hypo label...Jeff Gee and Rich both produce jungles that are compatible (I think they are the same but that is opening up a whole other can of worms)......Rich has Salmons and Jeff has Orange Tails.....The same thing only different....It is possible to have compatible animals with different names! What good it does I am not sure but I can, will, and does happen!

Russ
Vision Cages.com

-----
Russ Lockenwitz
RL Reptiles
http://www.visioncages.com

.
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

a 'typical Jungle', IMO, can be easily distinguishable from just about any aberrant boa.

You can't compare salmon jungles to aberrant jungles because most of the colors (which are a good deal of the characteristics of a jungle) are reduced, muted or not visibly different.

People ARE selling normal aberrant boas as jungles, even without having a male to 'back them up even a little bit'..

I know 2 well known breeders that purchased some pastel stripers/aberrant boas, which were sold to them as Jungle's...
and I know 3 people who bought aberrant boas at this past NRBE in Daytona fully believing they are Jungles..

only point i'm trying to make is that one shouldn't claim they have or produce these unless they can prove the lineage dating back to the Swedish/Kahl lines.

This doesn't mean that you can NOT produce true Jungle's unless you purchased one from Swedish'Kahl line, but it would be more difficult and take more time to prove, that is in a concervative way, if yur concern is to uphold your reputation.

I love striped boas, aberrant boas, Jungle's, Harlequins and just about every other different and unusual boa out there, so i'm not fighting or defending anyone...
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo

I think the common misconception with 'true' Jungles (so far as the general public is concerned anyway) is that they "assume" it's just a pattern abnormality, when in fact there are other factors there. I myself was under that same impression until this thread (Gee! I learned something! lol)...then again, I'm not studying up on a snake that runs $1000 because that's WAY over my budget no matter how cool it looks. LOL And that broaches another subject, what about the aberrant boas that look junglish? They should be worth more than the normal phase - if the genetics are proven out anyway - so how to label them and price them? Obviously the honest guys aren't out to mislead anyone, so how would you sell what you've proven and what do you then call it? Is there a commonly accepted moniker for the 'look' without describing it as 'junglish'? Which further convolutes the subject IMO.

lots of facts were pointed out... yes.

So most people that discover a new morph like this hold them ALL back for about 2-3 generations minimum to be absolutely certain.. and by that point, 3-5 years down the line, they can be pretty certain about what they have, and have had a long time to think about their names..

Honestly, if I discovered Jungle's, I probably wouldn't have called them Jungles at all! Who knows what I would've thought..

Well, hope everyone proves out their animals to be beautiful genetic morphs... it will add more variety and more beauty and intrigue to many of the present morphs of today.

Then maybe in several years we will finally see some of those wild 'pipe-dream' animals we all dream of but see to be physically impossible at this point, or 5 or 10 years ago..

take care guys
-----
'Tis not the stongest of the species that will eventually survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change' Charles Darwin
Thanks and take care - Joe Rollo