Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Just wiundering how many of you were considering buying a het leceustic?

HAHA Have fun

I'm sure they will be out of my price range for a decade or so but I don't think they are a joke. There are people out there who spend big bucks on ball pythons so eventually when enough are produced they will find a high but sellable price.

To rich for my blood. However, I will likely purchase them once the prices drop to $5000 for hets. Until then, my sights are set on lavender albinos.

I was absent from the bp world for a while......missed a lot it seems.......but can't find anything about a fire ball/het lucy.

Who has it?

Thanx
Tom

I beleive VIN RUSSO has the (fire balls)

nm

Negative... Bob Clark has the fireballs (the het form of the codominant leucistic [black eye) condition).

I seen that, but didn't read anything about "fire" ball......must be some kinda code name.

Thanx for the update
Tom

nm

Sorry to have to corrext you Karm, but I have the Fireballs, Bob Clark has a few that he purchased from me, which are poss.66% het for leucistic(Black-eyed) Eric Davies UK.

Yes, I believe Bob Clark mentioned you on his site

(please note: I did not write that Bob Clark is the ONLY person who has the fireballs)

Also, Mr. Russo (as far as I know) is not working with the same strain that Mr. Clark as yourself are working with.

>>Sorry to have to corrext you Karm, but I have the Fireballs, Bob Clark has a few that he purchased from me, which are poss.66% het for leucistic(Black-eyed) Eric Davies UK.

SORRY,those posts went so fast i couldn't remember who had what

.
-----
Brian Oakley
Phoenix, Arizona
BrianOakley@cox.net

Fire Ball is the name Bob Clark gave his 66% poss. het Leucys he bought from Eric Davies. Eric Davies....who goes by the name Herpquest here on KS, is the owner of the black-eyed Leucy.

Thankyou for pointing that out 'slappy', but prior to our difference of opinion, Bob Clark contacted me and asked if I would consider changing the name of the morph from Phantom, a name already coined by Ralph Davis, to Fireball. This I agreed to, so in fact the name of the morph became Fireball, not just those that I had sold to Bob Clark. Bob Clark and Mike Wilbanks are sure that this particular morph is co-dominant, but Bob only knows what I have told him! The next few months shoud give me an insight into whether the gene is a simple recessive or co-dominant. It may be co-dominent, but I do not make claims that I cannot prove beyond doubt. Eric Davies

Eric,
After it was determined that the trait was co-dominant, we had to name it. It didn't make any sense to call them Phantoms. Even Ralph admits that his Lucy is different than yours. Why would you call them Phantoms? That name has already been used. Why not just call them Mojaves or Pastels? When a new genetic trait is produced, we have to call it something different than existing traits.
Bob knows that you told him you bred Fire to Fire twice and got Fires, Normals and Leucistic. You also told him that you bred Fire to Normal and got Fires and Normals. That is all the evidence that we need to determine that the Fire gene is co-dominant.

Mike

>>Thankyou for pointing that out 'slappy', but prior to our difference of opinion, Bob Clark contacted me and asked if I would consider changing the name of the morph from Phantom, a name already coined by Ralph Davis, to Fireball. This I agreed to, so in fact the name of the morph became Fireball, not just those that I had sold to Bob Clark. Bob Clark and Mike Wilbanks are sure that this particular morph is co-dominant, but Bob only knows what I have told him! The next few months shoud give me an insight into whether the gene is a simple recessive or co-dominant. It may be co-dominent, but I do not make claims that I cannot prove beyond doubt. Eric Davies

The Fire is like the Pastel gene. It is co-dominant so there are no possible hets. NERD has an excellent article on their web site that will help you understand how Co-Dominant genetics work.

Here is a link.

NERDs article on Co-Dominant Genetics

Here is part of the article(in bold) from NERD's site:

One advantage of a co-dominant gene is that we are able to identify the heterozygous and homozygous gene carriers by their physical appearance; these animals will be visibly different from the normal (or wild-type) offspring. From a breeding perspective this is especially useful as there will never be "possible-het" offspring. A great example would be the color/pattern mutation of the Pastel phase ball python. This co-dominant mutation expresses itself as the Pastel being the visible heterozygous form of the Super Pastel. When a Pastel is bred to a normal form the resulting babies in theory are 50% Pastels and 50% normals. When two Pastels are bred together we may expect 25% normals, 50% Pastels and 25% Super Pastels. When a Super Pastel is bred to a normal all of the babies are Pastels. Breeding Super Pastels together results in all Super Pastels.

Hope this helps.

Mike

I know that you know how co-dominant genetics work....there are no poss hets with a co-dominant trait.

Entered from h000625c15730.ne.client2.attbi.com at 24.147.22.189

>>Fire Ball is the name Bob Clark gave his 66% poss. het Leucys he bought from Eric Davies. Eric Davies....who goes by the name Herpquest here on KS, is the owner of the black-eyed Leucy.

That may be my IP, but it wasn't me.

Ever hear of routers?
Ever hear of shared IP addresses?

I post under one name and one name only...Renaissance.

If I've got a question or a comment for you, you'll find it under "Renaissance".

Nigel,
OK....good, I am glad it wasn't you. I should have known you wouldn't post under an alias. Sorry for the mistake, but it was the exact same IP address, so you can see how I could have made it. Take Care.

Mike

>>That may be my IP, but it wasn't me.
>>
>>Ever hear of routers?
>>Ever hear of shared IP addresses?
>>
>>I post under one name and one name only...Renaissance.
>>
>>If I've got a question or a comment for you, you'll find it under "Renaissance".

No problem, Mike.

You should know me by now...if I have something to say to or about you, I'll say it to your face, or I'll say it on this forum as "Renaissance".

I think I have been active enough on this forum as "Renaissance" that most people know I post as "me" and not as "someone else". I won't mention them now, but there were a couple of controversial threads that I got involved in a few weeks ago that ended up getting pulled...

I have come to the conclusion that "Forum Wars" are a lousy way to pass the time, and try to limit myself to matters about which I feel really strongly.

Catch you later.

I have come to the conclusion that "Forum Wars" are a lousy way to pass the time, and try to limit myself to matters about which I feel really strongly.

I know what you mean, I rarely get involved in that stuff. This topic is so frustrating because while the genetics are simple, there is an obvious agenda to confuse the issue. This "we just don't know" stuff never happened with Spider, Pinstripe or Pastel. It's kind of funny. See you at the shows.

Check out the IP address of this post...

Look...it's me "Renaissance"...but different IP address...

IP addresses can be very misleading...

Haven't seen you here since the war.... That was such a masterpiece...you should have copywrited it...lol People tried copying your style for weeks!

LMAO

I'm not arguing with the definition of codominant, but I do disagree with labelling fireballs as codominant.

The following text was taken from Bob Clarks web site

This is probably the most sought-after snake in herpetoculture today, a solid white, patternless ball python. This is an incredible animal! He's bright white with jet black eyes. The trait is co-dominant and in the heterozygous is attractive as well. We have named these animals "Fire balls". A fire ball bred to a normal ball python produces fire balls and normals. Fire balls bred together produce both fire balls and leucistics. This is an exciting joint project with my friend Mike Wilbanks of Constrictors Unlimited We'll keep you posted on the progress.

As I understand it, Eric Davies in the UK produced a single black eyed lucy. You and Bob Clark got 1 or more of the siblings to the black eyed lucy. These siblings look different than a normal ball and you and Bob are calling them fireballs.

Here are some questions I have for you.

1) Based upon a SINGLE breeding you are ready to declare that the black eyed lucy is a codominant trait and that ALL fireballs are het for black eyed lucy? In my opinion, this is a totally irresponsible thing to say. It may at some time in the future prove to be correct, but to make this statement based upon a single breeding is totally irresponsible. What will you do if you sell a bunch of so called fireballs for a lot of money and then find out that the trait is not codominant?

2) Do you and/or Bob actually own the black eyed lucy pictured on Bobs site? Isn't that the animal produced by Eric Davies? Isn't that animal still in the UK? How come no mention of Eric Davies on Bobs web site? How come the animal is not credited to Eric?

Some fireballs MAY be het lucy. ALL fireballs MAY be het lucy. Fireballs when bred together MAY produce lucys. Based upon a single breeding, to leap to the conclusion that ALL fireballs are het lucy and that black eyed lucy is a codominant trait is totally irresponsible.

This is of course just my opinion.

np

Eric and Bob are no longer partners on the project, so Erics name is has been removed from the site. Bob and I PURCHASED all the male Fireballs that have been produced. When you buy animal for a project, there is no obligation to give credit to the person that you purchased the animals from. How many people have piebald ball pythons that they have purchased and are breeding? They don't credit Pete Kahl. They paid their money and have bought into the project. It is the same here, we bought the animals and are breeding them now.

I am not sure where you heard that there was only a single breeding. Eric has bred these for the past two years. We have more breeding data from the fireballs than we have had for any other trait that has been labeled co-dominant. Eric has bred Fireball to Fireball for TWO years in a row and produced Fires, Normals and a Leucistic both times. He has also bred Fire to Normal and produced normals and Fires. We called Tiger retics co-dominant before we had a Super Tiger. We called Pastel Co-dominant before we had a Super Pastel. Only recently has a Super Pastel been bred to a normal and we called Pastel co-dominant LONG before this. With the Fireball, we have a SuperFire, it is the Leucistic. It will be done again for a third year. Eric has bred a Leucistic to a normal and a Fire this year. So, within a few months, we will have seen every possible breeding Fire to Fire, Fire to Normal, Leucistic to Fire and Leucistc to Normal. What more data is there than that? What other gene has been held to this standard?

Anyone with even a basic understanding of genetics can see these breedings and determine that the Fire is co-dominant and works just like Pastel.

When you buy animal for a project, there is no obligation to give credit to the person that you purchased the animals from. How many people have piebald ball pythons that they have purchased and are breeding? They don't credit Pete Kahl. They paid their money and have bought into the project. It is the same here, we bought the animals and are breeding them now.

I agree. However, how many people that DO NOT have a piebald show a picture of Pete Kahls piebald and DO NOT say it is Pete Kahls piebald? Do you and Bob have a black eyed lucy? Is the black eyed lucy on Bobs site actually Eric Davies lucy? Does Bobs web site show a picture of an animal that Bob DOES NOT own without saying who OWNS the animal? Do you and Bob have a black eyed lucy? No. You DO NOT own a visible black eyed lucy, yet Bob shows a black eyed lucy on his site, mentions that the project is owned by you and him, and DOES NOT AT ANY TIME mention that the animal is owned by Eric Davies. How about if I get a bunch of pictures of animals that YOU OWN (and I do not even own the visible mutation) and put them on MY web site and DO NOT say that the animals belong to you? According to you that is OK? How convenient that Bob removed all references to Eric, but forgot to remove the picture of Erics animal.

I don't really care what genetic label you and Bob want to hang on the so called fireballs. Eric apparently has more experience breeding them than you and Bob do (you haven't actually bred them yet, have you?). When Eric sold you the males, did he sell them to you as codominant or as possible hets? My understanding is that he took the responsible position and sold them to you as possible hets. If you and Bob want to rush into labelling them as codominant, that's up to you. I'm sure you have your reasons.

I'm off to search for animals that you own that I can put on a web site and not actually mention that they're yours. Hey, that sure is a nice striped boa. It will look great on my web site. LOL.

How about if I get a bunch of pictures of animals that YOU OWN (and I do not even own the visible mutation) and put them on MY web site and DO NOT say that the animals belong to you? According to you that is OK?

When you buy hets, most breeders are happy to for you to put pictures of the homozygous up to advertise the project. If you buy hets from me, I expect you to advertise the project with pics of the homozygous.

How convenient that Bob removed all references to Eric, but forgot to remove the picture of Erics animal.

This is not an oversight. We are advertising the project that we invested in and we had permission to use the picture.

If you want to use pictures of the Striated Boa, invest in the project and I am happy for you to use them.

Assuming for one moment that Bob and Mike did not have permission to post the picture of Eric's animal, that would make it OK for you to do the same thing with an animal of Mike's???

If someone robs a bank, is it OK for you to rob a bank...because they did???

How do you know that Bob and Mike did not have permission to use Eric's animal on Bob's web site? I do not know whether they did or did not, but I cannot imagine someone being dumb enough to put a picture on a web site as popular as Bob's without obtaining permission first.

I do not know what the arrangement is between Bob and Mike and Eric. If the animal on Bob's web site does belong to Eric, I am sure that Bob would acknowledge that on his site if Eric asked him to.

Hey...that's my opinion...

Did I mention that I'm sick of "Forum Wars"???
Blah!!!

Following the parting of the ways between myself and Bob Clark, I sent Bob an e-mail asking him to credit the photograph of the Black-eyed Lucy on his web page, to the person who took the pic; Chris Gillam of Boa Morphs here in the UK. I also asked Bob to kindly credit me for being the owner and breeder of the Lucy. I have not asked Bob to remove the picture from his website, but he is free to do so if he wishes. Bob has neither answered my e-mail, or given credit for the picture or the snake.
I would also like to point out that I have no axe to grind with either Bob or Mike and wish them every success in their ventures. Eric Davies

Thanks Eric, Bob is on vacation, but should be back tomorrow. That is why he hasn't been here or answered any emails.

>>Following the parting of the ways between myself and Bob Clark, I sent Bob an e-mail asking him to credit the photograph of the Black-eyed Lucy on his web page, to the person who took the pic; Chris Gillam of Boa Morphs here in the UK. I also asked Bob to kindly credit me for being the owner and breeder of the Lucy. I have not asked Bob to remove the picture from his website, but he is free to do so if he wishes. Bob has neither answered my e-mail, or given credit for the picture or the snake.
>>I would also like to point out that I have no axe to grind with either Bob or Mike and wish them every success in their ventures. Eric Davies

I was first aware of the leucistic ball from Bob's site (after all, he is well known in the United States among snake enthusiasts). I have a good memory when it comes to all things snake, and I know that the first time I viewed information on Bob's site about a leucistic ball python (many months ago) he mentioned a breeder in the UK as the producer, and listed the name of the breeder. When you posted here with your name, I recognized the name as being the UK breeder that Bob first credited.

That the data collected has been from a LOT more than one data point (one breeding)? It was the whole basis of your previous post, but after being told what actually happened, now you have nothing to say about it?

I have a lot to say about it. Obviously I was wrong about the 1 breeding, but Mike avoided many of the points I made.

1) Eric obviously has more experience breeding these particular animals than either Mike or Bob. When Eric sold the so called fireballs to Mike and Bob, did Eric sell them as GUARANTEED hets for black eyed lucys or as POSSIBLE hets for black eyed lucys? Mike? Bob? If Eric sold them as POSSIBLE hets, I think Mike and Bob are wrong to state that these are GUARANTEED hets. My opinion! How convenient you overlooked Mike avoiding my point!

2) Eric stated that he e-mailed Bob and asked Bob to credit the person who took the picture of the black eyed lucy AND to credit Eric Davies as the owner of the black eyed lucy on Bobs web site. Eric says Bob never responded to the email. Mike says Bob has been on vacation. I would love to know when Eric sent the email and when Bob went on vacation. I'm sure that once Bob gets back from vacation he will add the credits that Eric requested to his site, especially now that his omission has been 'discovered'.

So, other than the fact that I thought there had been 1 breeding and there has actually been a couple, what else was I wrong on? It must be difficult being as perfect as you, who do you talk to? Maybe I did some good with this thread. Maybe Eric will now get the credit that he deserves for this animal. What about the guy who took the picture? Eric has asked that he be credited too. Know what copyright means? The picture on Bob's site is the copyright property of the guy who took the picture, not Bob.

My question to you then why the vested interest in it at all? What's your stake in it? Why MUST you know the inner workings of a deal that didn't involve you? I only said anything because sifting through this garbage of the daily forum war to get to any post worth reading is becomming tiresome, so I thought it would be fun to ask why someone who's whole post was based on a single point that was disproved, wasn't even addressing it in subsequent posts.

But being perfect is hard work, so I must check out the RDR forum where hopefully I won't have to muck through any of this crap.

You ignored my questions again.

Why do I need a vested interest? Why do I need a stake in it? Forums are meant for people to exchange ideas and opinions. If everyone on this forum only contributed when they had a vested interest or a stake in it, where would that leave the forum? At least we know now that you only respond to threads when you have a vested interest or a stake in it. Quite the little humanitarien aren't you.

Why didn't you jump all over the snakekeeper when they posted a reward for the stolen snakes? I'm sure they had no vested interest. I'm sure they had no stake in it. It was ok for them to try to help out some one they thought had been wronged, but it is not ok for me to do the same?

Enjoy the RDR forum. We'll try to figure out how to insulate racks without your help.

There isn't people who AUTOMATICALLY make threads personal when disagreed with. Instead of just explaining the facts, the default answer always has to be personal.

And that's too bad, because there's some real cool posters and herpers here. Don't wreck it for the rest of us.
-----

Obviously I was wrong about the 1 breeding

This is not the only thing you have been wrong about. You stated that there had only been 1 breeding with authority as if you knew something and then had to admit you didn't know at all. You will have to do the same with the genetics of this trait.

Eric obviously has more experience breeding these particular animals than either Mike or Bob.

I think that Eric will be the first to admit that Bob Clark has more experience breeding snakes than any of us. What does it matter who watched the snakes copulating? The experience is a factor when interpreting the results of the breeding and determining how the genetics work.

My opinion!

How long have you been doing this? Who are you? Why should anyone value your opinion if you are not willing to tell us who you are and what your breeding experience is? For all we know your breeding experience may just consist of hoping to prove a pair of possible hets.

So, other than the fact that I thought there had been 1 breeding and there has actually been a couple, what else was I wrong on?

The genetics of the trait. The whole premise of your argument was that there was not enough data to determine how the gene works. Now that you have been told there is much more data than you thought, you should have all you need to determine that the gene is co-dominant on your own and big enough to admit that you where wrong.

Is this the extent of breeding experience from which you are drawing upon to determine that you know more about genetics than Bob? There's nothing wrong with being a beginner, we all had to start somewhere. You're off to a great start, already knowing more than all of us.

Your post

Looks like we're in the same situation with poss hets. The difference is that I have pairs, you have a bunch of males. Guess I'll get the chance to prove mine before you get to prove yours. How long will it take you to breed the males, get some females, grow the females, breed them back to the original males? Wow, even if every thing goes flawlessly, you guys are many years away from actually having a black eyed lucy of your very own.

Will you be keeping a picture of Erics snake on Bobs web site until then? Will you credit Eric? Maybe I can win one too?

Now this is just getting silly. How do you support your argument that the co-dom fire ball is not proven now?

that the "Fire ball" should be easily thrown into the same catagory as the pastel, spider, pinstripe, and mojave. And the only one of there where a "super" exists is the pastel.

If the information that Bob and Mike were given about the breeding history of the fire ball/het. leucistic is correct, then it clearly falls into the same catagory as the previously listed morphs. The information changed hand long befor the parting of ways between Bob and Eric, so there is no reasaon that it would be anything less than accurate.

With the compiled breeding data, the fire ball is obviousy a co-dominant trait. It should be dificult for anyone to understand. There are so many "big name" breeders working towards the same goal, its a fast and furious race to victory.