Reptile & Amphibian Forums

First of all I want to start off by saying I don't know jack about colombian morphs but really love them. This is my attempt to understand. I didn't read all of th Bill Cagle "American Jungle" post because I didn't think it was productive.

The jungle that Bill Parks posted was mothered by an animal that I raised for 4 years. I have 5 of the sibling well now 3. They are awesome animals to say the least. I saw the very slightly abberant Jungle first hand that Craig Tanner, who by the way has an outrageous collection, and Bill bought. I really couldn't tell the jungle-like characteristics difference between that and the "chainlink female he had. It did have a slightly different color but still looked IMO like an abberant Columbian.

On to the babies. I picked up a baby that was normal. The color of it looks just like Bill's Jungles (it's siblings). Now I notice that Bill's male is slightly abberant almost normal. What defines abberant? What makes my normal sibling different from Bill's slightly abberant Jungle.

Does pattern define Jungle?
Does genetic define Jungle?
Do both define Jungle?
Are all Jungles derived from the Sweden bloodline?
Where did those come from?
Were the orginal Jungles anomolies from the wild?
Could there be any other anomolies that we are brining in now?
Have there been any other bloodline of Jungles if so what are they and where did they orginate from?

Breeding a jungle to junge do you get super jungles.
What happens when you breed to slightly abberant jungles together and get slightly abberant jungles are those still super jungles?

Should abberancies determine the price of Jungles or just the fact that it is a jungle.

The reason for all these questions is because I just bought a snake from MnR reptiles that is jungle-like but I have a ton of animals that are jungle-like. Again it is a pattern or genetic thing.

Are we using Jungle-like in the wrong way. Does it imply that the genetics have been proven.

Sorry for all the questions.

Thanks,
Alex Smith

That stems from a particular bloodline.(that should be understood above all else,in my opinion.)there is only one bloodline of "Jungle" boas,(the "Swedish" founding bloodline.)every "true Jungle" is divergent from that original line. I have no real way of answering some of the more detailed aspects of your other questions,because I don't own,nor,have I ever bred,(to my knowledge) any animals from that line,and,I truely believe that many of the questions you posed,should be answered by those that have the actual firsthand experience with them.Much of what I know about them,comes secondhand,and,I shouldn't be the one to answer these questions.The short version of the "history of origin" of the line,can be found on Pete Kahl's website. I can tell you that the trait expression(s) is/are,a combination of coloration,and,(often)pattern mutation,both aspects stemming from the same genetic anomoly. Certainly,new things are discovered all the time,both from wild caught individuals,and,from captive breeding.the problem is many people will try to cash in on something perceived as "popular",or,"sought after",without putting forth the effort required to determine what "it" really "is"...the truth "is out there" as they say,you may just have to do a little digging to find it...(nice new boa,BTW,can't go wrong at those prices.)

R left off. Again I would like to know where the orginal bloodline originated from. Were they WC and/or selectively bred?

What happens when you breed two normal Jungle offspring together?
Is there a such thing as 100% het for Jungle?
Are the genetics such as the albinos and hypo's?
Can someone breed an animal with the color of a jungle and the pattern of a jungle together and would that be considered a jungle? Is it then proven if the offspring of that breeding produced jungle-like animals.

Can you tell a jungle just by looking at it?

I'm going to Pete K. website now to research some of this but I really hope that someone can answer these questions.

"Jungle Boa:

Jungle Boa Morphs --->

Jungle Boas originated in Sweden and were produced by a good friend of mine by the name of Lars Brandle. He had purchased a very large boa with a zigzag (for lack of a better description) pattern down it's back from a Zoo in Sweden. He bred this animal to a normal boa and produced some jungles and normal looking boas from the first breeding. He then bred one of the jungle males back to its mother and produced some super Jungles and jungles. Also a jungle was bred to a normal last year here in the states and half of the babies were born jungle. This proves finally that this is NOT a simple recessive genetic trait but dominate. We are scraping the term heterozygous for jungle, possible heterozygous for jungle boa constrictor. There will be jungle boa constrictors and super jungle boa constrictors. In other words the old jungle boas are super jungles and the possible heterozygous with the zigzag pattern are jungles

If you would like to see what you can produce by breeding a Jungle Boa with another type of boa, go to our Genetic Section. The Genetic Section will give you a Punnett Square and list your potential offspring"

Okay now this is interesting. The original Jungle is defined as a "zig zag" pattern bred to a normal that produced zig zag boas that was bred back to the mother. I would LOVE to know where this zig zag boa came from. I find it hard to believe she is the only one around and the efforts have never been duplicated accidentally or on purpose which leaves me to my next questions is Jungles. Are we only accepting the Swedish line of jungles?

What differentiate
the zig zag original female from any other abberant boas?

Does anyone have a pic of this animal or know who produced it was it wild caught, or was it an anomaly? It seems to me that the whole concept of the jungle stems from these questions.

I sincerely hope that the original Jungle isn't just an aberrant animal that was bred to one of its offsprings animal and given a name and a super high price.

Guys I beg of you to forgive my ignorance but I would really like to know. Everyone has been fighting over the Jungle controversy so I really would like these questions answered. I know that there are some experts out there that can answer these questions.

Thanks again guys and gals,
Alex Smith

It seems to me that the controversy surrounding this morph is that they named the bloodline in Sweden "Jungle Boas" the same as if they named it "Alex Boas". Anything other than the original line is not a Jungle in most everybody's opinion. In other words it would not be prudent for someone else to call their snakes "Alex Boas" if they are not directly from that line.
Conversely I find it kind of odd that they used such a name as there are already "Jungle" morphs in other snake species that represent a similiar look...which is where I think the confusion comes in....no one person claims to have coined "Jungles" in the other species (I think). I compare it to the "Motley Boa" as we know what these look like, and we know the morph regardless of the bloodline when we see it. I think the line between "Jungles" and similiarly patterned Boas that you can pick up for much less $ is a bit blurred. Additionally however I think until you have at least proven the genetic traits to be similiar to the original definition of "Jungles" (from Sweden), these other similiar Boas you should not be claiming to be "Jungles", "American Jungles" etc. The latter does not appear to me to a true representation of what we see in the Swedish line...as they really lack the patterning involved from what I've seen. I expect we will see new "Jungle" bloodlines as time goes on, some of which will occur from outbreeding of the original strain, and probably some new proven lines. Hope some of this helps....bear in mind it's mostly opinionated.
-Dino

I don't care nor do I care to bring this topic up on ethics of naming. I'm just looking for information on the jungle boa. Thanks,

BTW you got kick butt animals.

What separates the Jungles from other aberrant boas,yours,or,mine,or,anyone elses...the specific BLOODLINE,and,the proven production of a "super"...if you,or,me,or,anyone else has aberrant boas that you think are genetic...breed them! then look at the results...THEN,breed those animals,then assess the RESULTS...if you can prove that the trait is dominant,and,can be compounded geneticlly to produce a "super" that shows visible suggestive evidence that there is dramatic difference between the "co-dominant(heterozygote)",and,the "dominant(homozygote)"...THEN....you might have something SIMILAR to the Jungle mutation...if you cannot show a direct bloodline connection to that original line then...NO,it's not a JUNGLE boa. it's really just that simple. if the line,or,line combination already has a name,then it may need to be re-examined...if it doesn't,then you might consider naming it yourself,for the purpose of presenting it to prospective buyers,fellow breeders,etc.,to be honest I've never liked the term Jungle,(love the morph,hate the name.)it's used in several other species mutations,I assume it's used as a descriptive term...but,if it was meant to compare it to a "Jungle carpet python" (they are called that because of the restricted jungle enviroment in which they are found,not to describe the way they look!)they don't look anything like one,neither do Jungle ball pythons?...so,I would consider something other than that name to describe something new...but,hey that's just me!? and,as for everyone jumping to the conclusion of "proving genetic compatability"...think about it for just a minute...how would you ascertain which parent had what effect on which individual offspring,if both animals are genetic,one is proven,but,the other is not....you'd have a series of multi-generational breeding trials to perform,and,you'd still have to return to square one at some point to prove the "challenger"!(which should've been done prior to introduction to the original,in the first place???)I'm just trying to help anyone/everyone understand what seems very plainly obvious to me??? I'm no genetics expert,but honestly...this ain't "chinese algebra",much of this is just plain old common sense,and,applied Mendellian theory??? who's still confused?*LOL*

Tim I really respect the fact what you are doing with the Harly line. I really admire that.

As far as genetics go is this the common agreement on Jungles.

If I have an animal that is virtually identical in every aspect to a Jungle, that has been proven somewhat at least genetically speaken, the fact still remains it isn't a jungle because it hasn't originated from the Swedish bloodline.

Is this the popular opinion?

I encourage ALL the forum members to get into this discussion. I know I'm not the only one that is clueless.

It seems to me that people had a lot to say about jungles a while back so let's talk intelligently with personal attacks and present your theory.

We really need to define what a Jungle is and why it is a Jungle and what differentiates it from a zig zag nice color abberant animal so that no one is mislead.

Now the next question is. If a Jungle is a Jungle because of it origination then does that say that only the persons who made the name up and are breeding from that line has the right to use that name.

Can I breed red boas identical to EBV's red group and call them Alex's red group even though the line stemmed from 2 wc Colombians. I'm just paralleling this to the Jungles.

Tim thanks a million for your help but let's see if we can figure this out.

I really don't know too many herpers can you get some of the "Big Whigs" involved.

Thanks,
Alex

I agree with most of what has been said on the Jungles, but to state my opinion, intermixed with the facts on this.

I know that a jungle boa is a codominant trait that was originated in Sweden and has shown by multiple breedings to be a color and pattern mutation (in various degrees). And the homozygous/dominant form shows a drastic difference in appearance over the codominant trait. I also know and agree 100% that the only jungle boas are and will always be descendents from the original line of Swedish jungles.

BUT, I have had a somewhat change of mind toward the animals Bill Cagle has shown as "american jungles" If he can show these animals to carry a trait that is similar to that of the Swedish Jungles AND GENETIC he should be allowed to call them American Jungles, regardless if they are genetically compatible. (the main reason I have changed my mind on this subject is look at the Central American motleys, and 2 lines of Colombian motleys. None have been proven to be compatible genetically, but because of the similar appearance they are acceptable names)

Sorry for the added offshoot, but thought it would be as good a place to post that as anywhere else.

Later
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.

You never experience life until you have kids..then you realize what you should have done rather then what you did do

I think that people are agreeing that the Jungle can ONLY be the SWEDISH line. If this is the case how do we define pastels? Did Jeff Ronne coin that term with snakes the way Tim did with his Harleys.

lol, I actually know some about the pastels. The Ronne pastel name was given to them not for the coloration but for the very washed out body (lacking black throughout the entire body accept the tail,a nice pastel rivals a nice hypo in cleanliness)

I also know that a very washed out animal that shows the characteristics of a pastel, can morally be called a pastel because the pastel is not a "genetic" trait, but a line bred trait..And I have heard Ronne refer to animals that he did not produce as pastels on numberous occasions.

Later
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.

You never experience life until you have kids..then you realize what you should have done rather then what you did do

Jeff Ronne doesn't derive the "pastel" appearence from one "specific bloodline"...his are a composite,or,"distilate" of numerous different unrelated lines bred together,in fact,animals produced from other breeders are even sold as "pastel dreams" if I'm not mistaken?so,it's not quite the same thing, regardless,I think it's tough to try to compare apples to oranges,and,come out with a better understanding of grapes?(*lol*) Originally the Jungles were thought to be recessive,because when bred to a non-gene carrier,the resulting offspring did not look like the Jungle parent. These babies were mistakenly thought to be "hets" for a recessive trait,it was not until several years later that what were called Jungles,were discovered to be "supers",and,the "hets" were actually Jungles...(maybe this is what Jeff Risher was talking about? I don't know???)

In 3 or 4 years Bill Parks, Celia, Mike, or any other persons that has Jungle wills probably produced them. It will be ever so hard to verify the bloodline and any abberant animal would be produced by Bill Parks, Celia, or Mike, or it parents are from Bill Park's Jungles

Even scarier is the animal I got from Craig Tanner whose color is identical to Bill Parks male, in fact the two are similar, could bred to a animal that produces abberant babies. How would one tell if it is Jungle or abberant? After all it has the Swedish original bloodline. Can anyone just look at an animal and tell it is a jungle? It has the pattern, color and bloodline.

That might have been a better name for them to begin with!*lol* certainly these thoughts have passed through the minds of others as well,I'm not sure if you read my original post,a couple of weeks ago,that contained the latin phrase: "Caveat Emptor",but,the importance of it's meaning will,no doubt,become increasingly important,in the years to come,especially when dealing with those that seem to have missed the concept of integrity?...I'd feel confident with any of the people you mentioned...if they offered me a Jungle,I'd be willing to bet it probably was one.as for the animal you mentioned,that came from that particular source,I'd say breed it,and,see what happens.

It is just frightening because one can say "hey this abberant is a decedent of the Swedish Jungle bloodline" Technically they will be correct.

I posted a want ad for Jungles about 2 months ago. I was only willing to pay $2500 for one. Only one person responded and the was Dallas Quarles and there was NO WAY he was going to let his little gem go for that. Someone could of offered me an imposter Jungle for $2500 and I would of bought it like an idiot. I say an idiot becase I'm a poor black man and if I spend $2500 on an animal I better be able to get a return on it or liquidate it if I need the cash.

Again is there any way to tell the difference between an nice colored abberant animal and a jungle.

Please forgive me for not being up to speed.

No,I was responding to the post that stated Jungles are Dominate.
All i am saying is that they should of said they were co-dominate since the possible dominate form was produced from breeding two jungles together,and that there were normals from a jungle to normal breeding.This is based on the information posted here witch i believe was taken from Pete Kahl's web site.

Has anyone bread a super to a normal to see if all babies are jungle?

Jeff

How can they be called dominate when normals where produced from a jungle to normal breeding.If it was dominate all babies would be jungle.Where any of the normal offspring bread together to see what they produced?Just asking.
Jeff

I think, (but could be wrong) that the terms codominant/dominant, are not as cut and dry as they sound.

A codominant animal such as hypo shows a visible difference between a non carrier littermate, a "heterozygous" form, and "homozygous" form. thus meaning the het is visible, but also different from the "dominant" form..

A dominant animal shows a visible difference between a non carrier litter mate compared to a "het" form, but the het form is also the same in appearance as a homozygous form..

Anyone please feel free to correct me if I have it wrong.

Later
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.

You never experience life until you have kids..then you realize what you should have done rather then what you did do

A dominant animal shows a visible difference between a non carrier litter mate compared to a "het" form, but the het form is also the same in appearance as a homozygous form..

It was stated that jungles are dominate if so there would be no normal looking babies.
Ex. Dominate hypo to normal produces all hypo babies some are co-dominate and some are dominate.There are no non carrier littermates.
Wouldn't the jungle be working in the same manner.Co-dominate and Dominate forms not just Dominate

Jeff

This is very interesting and why i have stayed far away from getting a jungle or jungle look alike. From reading some of the responses it sounds like if a salmon didn't come from the first person that discovered and bred them then there not a salmon. Now if i goto Columbia and catch a white boa with yellow high lights can i call it a albino or do i have to find a new name for it. The part where i read if it didn't come from the sweden bloodline then its not a jungle i have a hard time with. I can't believe this was the only boa that carried this genetic trait in the whole world. So if i bought a jungle look alike and proved the genes and they looked just like the jungles but didn't come from a sweden breeding then does that mean i have a new morph or would it be called a jungle?.
-----
SNAKE!!!!HIT THE BRAKES!!!!!!! SCREEEEEECH , What is it , ohh its just a stick sorry honey

I think, that if you were to go to Colombia and pick up a white boa with yellow highlights that looked just like a Kahl Albino or a Sharp Albino, in order for you to call it one of those two, what you would need to do is to breed it to one or both of these Albino lines. You can prove out your white and yellow animal to be genetic, yet it could be different from the currently established lines of Albinos if it were not compatible with either one of them. In that case, you would have discovered a new line of Albinos.

I believe that the same applies with the Jungle issue. I think that many people are having problems with Bill Cagle calling his animals "American Jungles" because he hasn't done enough research/experimentation/breeding (call it whatever you want) with his animals. I may be wrong about this and someone please correct me if I am. So far, all I have seen is one generation of babies. I don't know if Bill has produced other litters of "American Jungles" or not but I believe that before someone can declare a new morph, they need to prove that morph out to be something genetic by outcrossing it to several unrelated, normal boas. Only IF the results that they get from these breedings are consistent with your hypothesis have you proved out the morph to be something genetic.

Now I think you can call an animal a Jungle if you can prove it to be similar and compatible with the Jungles from the Swedish line. What this means for this situation is that, if someone wants to try and prove that their aberrant/jungle-ish looking animal is in fact the same as the Swedish line of genetic Jungles, what they would need to do is take their animal and breed it to a genetic Jungle from the Swedish line. The first step towards proving that the "aberrant" animal has the same genetics as the Swedish Jungles is if that breeding produces Super Jungle babies. You would then take one of those Super Jungle babies and breed it to a normal Colombian. The babies from this breeding should all be Jungles. I believe that this would prove beyond a doubt that the original "abberrant" animal has the same genetics as the Swedish line of Jungle Boas.

I don't think that the case is: "If it doesn't come from Sweden, then it's not a Jungle" BUT rather: "If you don't prove out any of the genetics, then you can't call it GENETIC (Swedish, American, or otherwise)". I think it is very possible to prove out that an aberrant looking Boa has the same genetics and is compatible with the Swedish line of Jungles but before you call anything genetic, you have to do the leg work and prove it out! To prove to people that what you have is a Genetic Jungle or a Genetic whatever, you need to show/prove that the genetics are there and show/prove how they are inherited.

Any and all opinions are welcome

Celia
-----
Celia Chien

Celia Chien Photography
My Snakes

www.ExoticsByNature.com
www.BallPythonMorphs.com
www.CornsnakeMorphs.com

So essentially you are saying that you believe that one can have a Jungle if he/she can prove it's genetic one way or the other. A Jungle can be a jungle without stemming from the Swedish lines

You can have several lines of Genetic Jungles as long as you can prove it out. Just like there are two seperate lines of Albino Boas. You can prove out your aberrant boa to be a Jungle and that Jungle can either be compatible with the Swedish Jungle line or incompatible in which case you would have your own line (i.e. Alex Jungles or whatever you decide to call your line).

A good example of this is the Axanthic gene in Ball Pythons. There are four different forms of Axanthism in Ball Pythons. They all look similar. One form is believed to be co-dominant but the other three are recessive. While all of the Axanthics lack yellow pigmentation, NONE of them are compatible...Genetics can be funny like that...

Celia
-----
Celia Chien

Celia Chien Photography
My Snakes

www.ExoticsByNature.com
www.BallPythonMorphs.com
www.CornsnakeMorphs.com

ok i get what your saying , The American jungles haven't been proven out and thats what the mess is all about. I thought they were proven but i guess i was wrong that. thanks for clearing that up.
-----
SNAKE!!!!HIT THE BRAKES!!!!!!! SCREEEEEECH , What is it , ohh its just a stick sorry honey

My prediction is the following.

All the "jungle" look alikes as is a better term or "unproven jungles if you want to be a bit more technical will be labeled as the albinos are.. We will have Swedish Jungles, Cagle Jungles(if the prove to be co-dom, or dom with further breedings), Alex Smith Line, Bill Park Line, John Doe line, Miami Line, etc...etc.....it is all going to depend in the end who produces the most unusual ones that are genetic, also the most robust, colorful, etc, etc.....

The confusion is going to lie within what the majority of the customers WANT or are looking for.

Also is going to depend on price. If it is expensive and NICE and has what people are looking for , people will invest in them. If they are not, they will eventually die in the long run as a line as teh demand wont be there in a sense.

All in all, everyones "jungles" are no where near the picture of one I saw in a pete kahl ad, that snake was amazing....was motleyish, yet very white and grey, real unusual......anyone know if it was a super or not?

Also by everyone santching up all these abberant boas it doesnt mean they will produce jungles/abberant boas. They misght produce something totally different.....just look at abll pythons and see what really stupid abberancies that people actually made FUN of on teh classifieds, etc, have been producing!

Its just the beggining but I cant wait to see that light!!!
-----
"Quality isn't Quality without customer service so I guess I sell quality"

Your predicition is EXACTLY what I don't want to happen. If this is a real line then I want to make sure it stays that way. I do want to emphasize IF. I'm not convinced yet that the Swedish line is unique.

It really boils down to the original animal that had a zig zag pattern. What was she? If she was no more than an abberant animal with zig zag patterns then what are we discussing. I truly hope she was an anomoly of nature.

I was once told you can just tell a Jungle is differenct. Something about their head size, (which by the way I couldn't tell) their color and just overall look is different. I hope this isn't just proving the genetics of a color and zig zag pattern then we can techinally label it as an Alex Smith line Jungle. I hope what we have with the Jungles is unique and can't be duplicated with some selective color and pattern breeding, if that is the case I think you are correct and the most desirable Jungle will be the Swedish line and for the people who can't afford them will buy the "knock off Jungles" that is really sad. I would like to see the evidence go the other way. With three of four breeding the "knock off Jungles" prices will drop and look will completely be muddy and tainted. I would like to prevent this if possible. It truly sounds like we are headed that way. I could be wrong.

Anyone thoughts??

to clarify what I tried to imply was I WANT people to have different jungles in a way. I want the jungles people produce from all these unproven lines to be better than swedish jungles.
It will boil down to who has the best ones.
Mike
-----
"Quality isn't Quality without customer service so I guess I sell quality"