Reptile & Amphibian Forums

O.K. this is my thinking and hasn't been proven in any way shape or form.

I believe that the extreme hypo is its own gene and NOT just a nice version of the original hypo line?

When mike falcon breeds his two hypos together he gets about 25% extremes and the rest are normal hypos.Its just like breeding het to het?

When Kevin Hanley bred his extreme to a sibling he didn't get any extreme hypos and that didn't shock me at all?I figured he wouldn't get any at all or he would get about 50%.
I think all the normal hypos in Falcons clutches are all possible hets for the extreme gene.

Now, the only thing that throws me off is that when Mike Alvarez bred his pair of extreme's together and got 5 out of 6 extreme's and the other just a light hypo?
I would chalk this up to maybe the extreme is a dbl-homozygous animal?(showing both hypo traits).That would make since and he would be expecting 25% normal hypo's in the clutch.We know that it has to carry the normal hypo gene cause its parents were normal hypos?

Go ahaed blow holes in it??/LOL..

Later shannon

p.s. yes this meens that I think there will be "het for extreme" but not yet till proven.

Shannon, your theory makes a lot of sence!

Was the provenance of the original Falcon pair ever determined?

Wasn't Hanley's pairing done with a normal hypo sibling (Extreme gene carrier)? You'd think he would of gotten some Extremes! Maybe it wasn't a related extreme gene carrier..

As for the Alvarez outcome, the fact that a normal lighter hypo was produced from homozygous Extreme to Homozygous Extreme would suggest some type of incomplete dominant gene i.e. co-dominant Extreme? in this case, your Het-Extreme theory would be correct! I hate to use the word "Super" here, but this applies to other snakes mutations, like the Super Pastel in ball pythons where a regular pastel is considered the Heterozygous form of the Super Pastel...

Just throwing this out there, so many if and but to be answered with these extremes.

It would be nice to have all the cards on the table, anybody care to share the extreme history from its inception? Terry?

Marc,

Kevins breedings were from his extreme to a sibling hypo female (possible het in my eyes)and to some other original hypo's.

Mike couldn't track down exactly were his hypos came from but he said he thought they were from dunham's line?

as far as the one not being extreme in the clutch of alvarez I think that the one gene can mask the other and yes that snake would be considered a het in my eyes?

I will try and get him to come in here and clear some stuff up.

later shannon

Falcon has been breeding a hypo to a het-hypo (not hypo to hypo). The parents of Falcon's Extremes can be seen on Hanley website if you look hard. Given the theory of a recessive case, only 1 in 8 (12.5 %) of the offspring would show this trait. Of course, these percentages don't usually pan out as neatly as that, but Falcon does seem to produce a lot more Extrems than just 1 of 8 year after year.

Also given that not 100% of Alvarez's Extreme x Extreme pairing were Extremes, I think there's a pretty strong case right now that Extreme is not a recessive trait. In the very least, there shouldn't be animals advertised as "het for Extreme" until it is proven conclusively one way or the other.

Paul

a pic of the parents.I asked him on the phone and in person and he sent me pics (ofcoarse I lost everything four months ago when puter crashed hard)of the adults and 5they were both hypos.
he produced four this year out of two clutches from that pair?

shannon

I had an old email from Mike describing them as a hypo and a het. At least that's what produced the Hanley male. Here's the link to Hanley's site with the parents of his:
http://www.hanleysherps.com/htm/sp_honduran_89.htm

Mike has also talked about bringing raising up some of the hypo offspring of his pair, so maybe that's the hypo x hypo pairing he was referring to? You're right, better to ask him directly.

But I do think it's a bad idea to label any animal as het-Extreme unless Extreme can be proven to be recessive.

I e-mailed him just now and asked him to come on here and clear up some stuff and maybe post some pics of the adults.

And I said that we wouldn't call anything het for extreme till we prove it?

later shannon

>>Falcon has been breeding a hypo to a het-hypo (not hypo to hypo). The parents of Falcon's Extremes can be seen on Hanley website if you look hard. Given the theory of a recessive case, only 1 in 8 (12.5 %) of the offspring would show this trait.

I THINK i know what you mean: IF the extremes are double-mutation animals, then IF mike falcon's producing pair is a homozygous for regular hypo & het for regular hypo and BOTH animals are het for the 2nd/new/ hypo trait, then 1/2 would be regular hypos, and 1/4 of those would be homozygous for the 2nd/new trait that both parents are merely het for, therefore 1/8 of the babies would be both, double-homozygous babies--and thus extremes, right?

(sounds like the "witch" skit on the monty python holy grail script in which a bunch of peasants use convoluted logic to conclude that a woman IS a witch--i'll try to find that script and add it here--all in the name of science, of course!

>>Of course, these percentages don't usually pan out as neatly as that, but Falcon does seem to produce a lot more Extrems than just 1 of 8 year after year.

I'm not sure i agree with you on that, paul--as one who's been on mike's waiting list for 3 yrs, i'd have guessed the frequency was less than that!

oh, and paul, i DO agree with you, we shouldn't be calling anything "het" for extreme yet. I've been calling the male hypos i have here, that were fathered by the extreme hypo x a regular hypo, "hypos from an extreme hypo father," language like that.

peace
terry

>> (sounds like the "witch" skit on the monty python holy grail >> script in which a bunch of peasants use convoluted logic to >> conclude that a woman IS a witch--

OR a duck ?!?

Hey Paul,

That really is a nice looking snake. Do they keep that look throughout their lives? Thanks, Derek Lee

well he's only a year old now, but basically looks about the same as when he hatched.

>I believe that the extreme hypo is its own gene and NOT just a nice version of the original hypo line?
>
>When mike falcon breeds his two hypos together he gets about 25% extremes and the rest are normal hypos.Its just like breeding het to het?

Sounds to me like a combination effect. Both parent snakes are homozygous for the usual hypo and heterozygous for whatever produces the extreme in combination with hypo. I think this second lightening mutant gene must be a recessive. Otherwise one of the parents would have to be an extreme.

>When Kevin Hanley bred his extreme to a sibling he didn't get any extreme hypos and that didn't shock me at all?I figured he wouldn't get any at all or he would get about 50%.
I think all the normal hypos in Falcons clutches are all possible hets for the extreme gene.

Check.

>Now, the only thing that throws me off is that when Mike Alvarez bred his pair of extreme's together and got 5 out of 6 extreme's and the other just a light hypo? I would chalk this up to maybe the extreme is a dbl-homozygous animal?(showing both hypo traits).That would make since and he would be expecting 25% normal hypo's in the clutch.We know that it has to carry the normal hypo gene cause its parents were normal hypos?

Six is a pretty small number. I'd like a repeat breeding. Could there have been retained sperm or a different male to sire that nonextreme?

I'd like to see an extreme X normal mating to see if any of the F1 babies are not normal. Then F1 X F1 to give F2 babies. Fifty or more F2s would give enough numbers to get a handle on the problem.

Paul Hollander

Hi Paul, thanks for contributing. Some more info interejected below....

>>>Now, the only thing that throws me off is that when Mike Alvarez bred his pair of extreme's together and got 5 out of 6 extreme's and the other just a light hypo?>>
>Six is a pretty small number. I'd like a repeat breeding. Could there have been retained sperm or a different male to sire that nonextreme?

Paul, this IS a possibility, however remote, because mike alvarez bought the extremes as adults, I think, from someone else who might have put the female with some other male the prior year. I'll ask mike a to post the details of WHEN he got them, see if it allows for this theory (retained sperm) as a possible explanation.

>>I'd like to see an extreme X normal mating to see if any of the F1 babies are not normal.

Paul, been there, done that: i put a "regular" tricolor hypo poss het anery on loan to mike alvarez to breed x his extreme male (which i've since acquired) and all the babies were "regular" hypos. No extremes; no wild types.

But this outcome isn't real revelatory because a) the extreme came out of mike falcon's "regular" hypo line and b) the animals mike falcon bred from came from me, he thinks, so might be related to the tricolor hypo (which i hatched here out of my hypos) and contributed to the breeder loan with mike alvarez. So there is an added degree of diff in isolating the trait.

>>Paul Hollander

To me, the problem is separating hypo from the unknown mutant that is added to make extreme. Breeding extreme to hypo just makes hypos that are also probably heterozygous for the unknown mutant. The only way I know to do that is to mate an extreme to a normal. I expect, but can't guarantee, that all the F1 babies would look normal. If hypo is a recessive mutant and the unknown is a second, independent recessive mutant, then mating F1 X F1 would statistically produce 9/16 normal looking, 3/16 hypo, 3/16 unknown, and 1/16 hypo and unknown (extreme). That would give the breeder a chance to see if hypo and the unknown can be distinguished visually. If the two cannot be distinguished, then producing a pure line of the unknown without hypo is going to be difficult.

Paul Hollander

Yes, paul, that all makes sense. And fwiw, we did this test, too, this summer, in a way: I bred an anerythristic female X the "extreme" male. So there are (just) a few babies of that hypothetical genotype, to be tested as you propose.

Interesting that you mention the question of whether or not they suggested two types of hypos can be distinguished visually. Shannon's post prompted some thoughts i've responded to below (in post beginning "your excellent suggestion" that bear on this same issue.

peace
terry

>>To me, the problem is separating hypo from the unknown mutant that is added to make extreme. Breeding extreme to hypo just makes hypos that are also probably heterozygous for the unknown mutant. The only way I know to do that is to mate an extreme to a normal. I expect, but can't guarantee, that all the F1 babies would look normal. If hypo is a recessive mutant and the unknown is a second, independent recessive mutant, then mating F1 X F1 would statistically produce 9/16 normal looking, 3/16 hypo, 3/16 unknown, and 1/16 hypo and unknown (extreme). That would give the breeder a chance to see if hypo and the unknown can be distinguished visually. If the two cannot be distinguished, then producing a pure line of the unknown without hypo is going to be difficult.
>>
>>Paul Hollander

I am all over this as well.Mike falcon this year bred a extreme to a albino and I was lucky enough to acquire a pair of them (dbl-hets per say?)

Two years and we shall know for sure if the extreme is its own for sure.We could get just original hypos or extreme hypos or both out of this clutch along with albinos that are all possible hybinos?Another mad can of worms,

I can tell you one thing,once we have isolated the extreme gene for sure and get it into the ghosts we will have some out of this world ghosts that don't tip out as adults?

later shannon

Terry and Paul,
I find this very important and interesting from what you have stated or happened.
>>I'd like to see an extreme X normal mating to see if any of the F1 babies are not normal.

Paul, been there, done that: i put a "regular" tricolor hypo poss het anery on loan to mike alvarez to breed x his extreme male (which i've since acquired) and all the babies were "regular" hypos. No extremes; no wild types.
But this outcome isn't real revelatory because a) the extreme came out of mike falcon's "regular" hypo line and b) the animals mike falcon bred from came from me, he thinks, so might be related to the tricolor hypo (which i hatched here out of my hypos) and contributed to the breeder loan with mike alvarez. So there is an added degree of diff in isolating the trait.

I do not see how this can be brushed off. You felt that they were just hypos from the outcome. If you take an Extreme and breed with any other non related bloodline do you feel that they would not be compatible to pass on the Extreme Trait? Or are percentages much lower? I find this very interesting of what not to do. Please share more of your thoughts on this. As what has been done with Kevin and Mike this year to breed it with an albino, Do you feel the percentages of passing this trait on was greatly lowered and if so why? Terry - You tried with the anery and the outcome was? No Extreme Ghost or just not yet... I assume you may use them in the next generation to see what may have been passed on or not. I feel it is important to know what does not work. As others have and will breed Extreme with albino, anery and other non related bloodlines with hopes of passing this trait on.
Go Deeper on this, Please...

>I do not see how this can be brushed off. You felt that they were just hypos from the outcome.

In my opinion, extremes are NOT "just hypos". I believe that, just as albino and anerythristic make snow when combined in one animal, hypo and an unidentified mutant make what we are calling extreme in this thread.

I had two reasons to want to see an extreme x normal mating done:

1. To use the F1 babies to make F2 babies. I hope that this would separate the unknown mutant from hypo so that we could see what what it looks like alone. If hypo and the unknown mutant cannot be separated visually, then enough F2s would prove that there are two mimic mutants involved.

2. As I recall, Mike Alvarez bred two extremes and got five extremes and one light hypo. There has been speculation in other parts of this thread that this result indicates that extreme involves a dominant or codominant mutant, in addition to hypo. I think there are other possible explanations for Alvarez' result. But crossing an extreme to a normal and getting a dozen or so normal babies would make the idea of a dominant mutant less attractive.

I believe someone posted that there had been an albino x extreme mating. That would probably do as well as a normal x extreme mating to start separating hypo and the unknown mutant.

>If you take an Extreme and breed with any other non related bloodline do you feel that they would not be compatible to pass on the Extreme Trait? Or are percentages much lower?

I think that the genes that produce Extreme could be put in any line of Honduran you want. Any line with the same hypo mutant as in the Falcon/Alvarez line should be fairly easy. Because I think that only the unknown mutant would have to be added. Getting it into a line without the hypo mutant would be more difficult. Because I think that two mutants, both hypo and the unknown mutant, would have to be bred in.

Around the end to the earlier thread on extreme, I posted about two "hypo" mutants in the ringneck dove that were lighter than normal individually. When put in the same bird, the combination was obviously lighter than either mutant alone. I think that Extreme may be like that, too. But a lot of breeding and testing is required before we really have a good solution to the problem.

Paul Hollander

To suggest this EXTREME is a double gene would be to suggest that a SINGLE unknown/UNID'd gene may be either masked or mimicked by the original hypo gene.My theory of a lavender albino on top of the original hypo to create EXTREME would hold true.NOW the difficulty would be in determining which is a LAV albino and which is a HYPO between the 2 variables seperate from the EXTREME.
In several instances now new morphs have popped out of inbred morph lines in several different species.I think the ODDS of this happening are getting easier to predict.If its ONLY 1/1000 or so that would be significant in predicting how long any of these lines SHOULD be bred/inbred.....as well rationalizing our NEED to inbreed to produce mass quantities of new mutants and at what risk to other "pure"lines.Just something else to think about in our rush to MORPH OUT.Jeff

>>When Kevin Hanley bred his extreme to a sibling he didn't get any extreme hypos and that didn't shock me at all?I figured he wouldn't get any at all or he would get about 50%. I think all the normal hypos in Falcons clutches are all possible hets for the extreme gene.

Shannon, I think that's a great observation because it points to a hypothesis that can eventually be tested.

You're proposing: (see if i'm right here)
a) extremes are double-mutation animals showing lightening effects of two diff hypo moprhs
b) both hypo morphs are recessives
c) mike falcon's original hypo x het pair would, then, both also be het for the new/extreme/2nd hypo morph, whatever it's called.
d) neither hypo type might be extremely light, but when combined on the same animal the combined effects would produce a very light animal, just as combined amelanistic and anerythristic produces snows, an entirely new looking animal.
e) 1/4 of the babies from Mike F's pairing would be homozygous for the new morph, so 1/4 of the "regular" hypo babies (half the clutch, if his pair is a regular hypo and a het/regular hypo) would be BOTH regular & new morph hypos and thus extremes, so 1/8 of the babies would be extremes
f) kevin's pair was two animals both of which are regular hypos, one of which is extreme (thus a double-morph) and the other would be a regular hypo possible het for the 2nd/new/extyreme morph and therefore--
--IF the sibling IS het for the 2nd type, the pairing would produce babies HALF of which would be "new/2nd type" hypos & thus extremes, the 50% you refer to
or
--IF the sibling is NOT a het, NONE of the babies would be homozygous for new/2nd type hypo
So half would be extremes, or none would be.

That works, if your theory is right, and it's as good a working theory as we've had so far.

Let's not forget, in testing this hypothesis against various breeding results, that if Mike F's original pair is a regular hypo and a HET for regular hypo, both of which are also het for the 2nd/new type of hypo, then consider only the REGULAR hypo results first: HALF the babies from that clutch will be regular hypos, but half will NOT be--
I THINK the following is important...
--what happens to that other half, the babies that are normal-looking and het for regular hypo, relative to the 2nd/new type hypo effects? One -fourth of those "normal" babies should also be homozygous for new/2nd type hypos--the new or 2nd or extreme morph we're exploring here. So they'd be THAT NEW MORPH ISOLATED. But how would we know which ones they are? What do they look like? If the lightening or melanin reduction effects of that 2nd type are roughly comparable to the effects of the regular hypo, then it could be impossible (based on what we know now, at least) to distinguish them from the "regular" hypos of type 1.

OR what if those animals look like the "in-betweeners" we've been talking about over the past few days, the animals not as light as extremes but lighter than regular hypos. Is it possible they're the homozygous "type 2" hypos in isolation, animals that do NOT also show the "regular" hypo effects?

Terry

it still leaves open the question as to how 1 of Alvarez's animals was NOT an Extreme given Extreme x Extreme breeding. If it were another simple recessive gene, then ALL of his hatchlings should have been Extreme (unless, of course, there was another male involved somewhere along the line).

Also, there does seem to be some variation as to the degree of "Extremism", as some of Mike's animals looked like they had medium-gray banding but not as light as what I've seen posted of Mike Falcon's animals (hard to judge by pictures alone though).

As the previous post states Mike Alvarez's results prove that it can not be a double recessive mutation! I think Terry has been the only one to respond to any of my ideas on this subject and I can't tell if that is because I am really off the wall on this or people are still thinking. Why is it so hard to accept many phenotypic differances within one genome. we do it all the time with 'normal' offspring but never question it there. Why can 4 out of 5 'normal' hondos look normal but the 5th is something differant and we just say "that's cool" There is variance within the 'normal' genome controlled by MANY varying genes and genetic info why can't we have variance including darkness of melanin within the 'hypo' genome. I posted down below as a reply to Terry about the workings of cross overs during meiosis and how that works to "mix-up" genetic info without it ever deviating from genetic rules or loci of the info. It simply allows for info to line up differantly with its respected partner on the other chromosome everytime fertilization occurs. There can't be just ONE gene that contols the entire phenotypic outlook of an individual snake, including hypo-M. The hypo-M gene dictates that complete melanin production will not be achieved but it seems that surrounding info along the path will also have an effect. It just took time for the pathways that dictate early termination of melanin production to get to a point where they were paired across from one another or close to one another for the extremes to be seen. Under these situations you would expect a higher yeild of extremes from pairing these together just like other 'normal' phenotypes we selectively breed for. But there could always be that crossover of info that gets in the way and just produces a regular hypo or at least a darker hypo than the extremes. I don't think we should jump to conclusions on this and get the topic confused. IMO . Again look forward to input on this and thanks to all for their interaction.

Matt Woodhall

not to put words into his mouth, but Kevin Hanley suggested to me in an email a while back that he thought that Extreme was more of a mutation of a vanishing pattern or pinstripe gene. This makes sense to me, as my male that fathered an Extreme last year also fathered a nearly patternless hypo as well as a pinstripe hypo, though neither was an Extreme.

Which would fall right into the line in which I'am going. A combination of genes that can change from succesive breedings due to a mixture of genetic combinations from crossovers but is still governed by the hypo-M gene in that it will reduce melanin. thanks for your thoughts!

Matt

I'm always open to the idea of having two mutants linked on the same gene. It would be great if it's true. But linkage isn't necessary. The two mutants in the ringneck dove that I posted about late in the earlier extreme thread were proven to be on different chromosomes. Assortment of the different chromosomes put the two mutants into the same bird, just like it puts albino and anerythristic into the same snake to make snow. But if you can prove linkage, I will take my hat off to you.

Paul Hollander

I don't buy that?I have a yearling extreme here with real wide bands?It also is my favorite over the pinners/vanishings?
Once they are older the bands give them nice contrast?

later shannon

>>not to put words into his mouth, but Kevin Hanley suggested to me in an email a while back that he thought that Extreme was more of a mutation of a vanishing pattern or pinstripe gene. This makes sense to me, as my male that fathered an Extreme last year also fathered a nearly patternless hypo as well as a pinstripe hypo, though neither was an Extreme.

Paul,
the early hypos were always tangerines, too, and the wild-types they produced were tangerines. but we wouldn't propose that therefore hypos are "more of a mutation of a tangerine gene," would we? there's coincidence, and there's causation, and we have to be careful to seek to distinguish between the two as we formulate our hypotheses. As Paul H pointed ouit, some of the results necessary to draw conclusions might require dozens of offspring, not just two babies from a clutch, which is more anecdotal. Such incidents can suggest hypotheses to us, might be the first crack in the armor that parts to reveal the truth to us, but could also be coincidence.
td

>>it still leaves open the question as to how 1 of Alvarez's animals was NOT an Extreme given Extreme x Extreme breeding. If it were another simple recessive gene, then ALL of his hatchlings should have been Extreme (unless, of course, there was another male involved somewhere along the line).
>>
>>Also, there does seem to be some variation as to the degree of "Extremism", as some of Mike's animals looked like they had medium-gray banding but not as light as what I've seen posted of Mike Falcon's animals (hard to judge by pictures alone though).
================
true, but sperm retention COULD account for #1, and those medium gray ones COULD be "type 2" hypos, per the discussion above.

theories, at least. TD

if Mike A. ever attempted to breed that female before?

>>if Mike A. ever attempted to breed that female before?

Actually, i posted somewhat incorrect info here in the past day or so, saying mike bought them as adults prior to this season. actually, he bought them as adults prior to LAST season. My recollection is he got 3 eggs last year, only one hatched, and it is an extreme male that he was gracious enough to sell to me. I don't know whether mike ever put the female with any males other than the extreme male last year but i think he's told me he doesn't think he did. Unfortunately, what might not have seemed to be a critical move for five minutes or something, last year, now seems critical in hindsight, so whether or not he did, and if he did whether or not he remembers it, can't be considered 100% fact because of the time that's passed. As i often tell my kids, "I'm never 100% sure of anything." So we can say probably but not definitely. Good science like matt w is urging above requires experiments that are repeatable, so I'd say until we've seen a few more clutches from extreme x extreme, we have to consider the jury still out.

Anyway, correcting my earlier error, depending on when mike got the adult pair, there'd be the chance the female was exposed to an additional male either with the prior owner or wehilwe with mike, in 03. Stranger things have happened--someone either emailed me or posted just in the past few days, saying they'd just brought their milks OUT of brumation--at the first of nov! So whereas i'd normally say exposure would have had to have occurred in march or april, and we'd look at when mike acquired the pair, the fact is under odd but possible circumstances the female might have been exposed to another male at quite unexpected months like nov or dec.

terry

I still think he told me that it was hypo x hypo?I am waiting to hear back from him.So the fact that he gets ABOUT 25% extreme and the rest are original hypos fits right into what I am spraying here.

shannon

I mentioned this to Mike last year or so but, the Extreme Hypos look like a form of T albino to me. The ruby eyes especially. This would fit into your breeding results, 5 of 6 when it should be 50/50 is not unheard of; the “odds” will rarely work out in one or two clutches but will when the sample is much larger. If it was me and the odds were 50/50, I would be lucky to get one.
Has anyone bred Extreme to Extreme? The results should be 100 percent Extreme. Of course, that would be the case of a double homogenous trait too. How about Extreme to normal (not het for anything) then a het from this back to the Extreme? If a double het, this pairing would produce four different types one being normal (double het), one being Extreme, and whatever the other two morphs involved are (each being het for the other morph).

Hey Rick....the 5 of 6 was from extreme to extreme! which means the trait is NOT 100% reproducible through direct genetics. The facts remain they were ALL hypo lending to the idea that it is a combination of genes along the hypo-M pathway that give this phenotypic differance.

Matt

“Hey Rick....the 5 of 6 was from extreme to extreme! which means the trait is NOT 100% reproducible through direct genetics. The facts remain they were ALL hypo lending to the idea that it is a combination of genes along the hypo-M pathway that give this phenotypic differance.

Matt”

My bad, I guess that is what happens when you just skim through something and do not read it well. All true mutations (not caused by environmental influences) are reproducible “through direct genetics”. It is up to the breeders to figure out what the “direct genetics” are. All mutations are not simple recessives, nor is a dominant trait the only other alternative. What about sex-linked recessive? What was the gender of the all the young produced from these pairings?

The 6th young from Extreme to Extreme was a “light Hypo”; are you sure, it wasn’t just a poor example of an Extreme? There is always normal variation in the depth of the color etc. It is possible that the two Extremes were also het for Hypo and the light Hypo was an Extreme-Hypo. Since these two mutations (if they are two mutations) have been mixed together, it is hard to say for sure what is happening. To “figure it out” animals het for only one trait need to be used. That is easier said than done because there are no visual cues to determine what an animal is het for.

Most of my experience comes from breeding exhibition Budgerigars for many years. The mutations that are occurring in Milk snakes, etc. are very similar to the ones that have occurred within the Budgies in the last 100 years of domestication. In regards to color genetics, they are very similar (birds are like warm blooded reptiles). A T albino budgie that is also a hypo will look very different from one that is only a T albino. There are also examples of mutations that require various combinations of two pairs of genes; it is not a combination of two recessive traits but it’s own mutation that can produce itself in what seems to be both dominate and recessive.

It is purely a visual observation that the Extremes look like T albinos, I have not worked with them.

I find all this information and theories very amusing. Here is what I know...
The original pair of hypos I purchased for Terry are a hypo to hypo pair that has been bred for the past 4 years and routinely throw off 2 to 3 nice extremes from a cluth of 8 to 10 eggs.
Possibility of extreme being recessive. I also have an extra male hypo from the original anaimals.
The pair from Mike Alverez were sold to Andy Barr originally. This pair has the same mother as the one that produce Kevin's extreme but has a different father. The second male father this clutch.
It's still too early in the game to say if this is just an "extreme" variation of the hypo phase or something different that can be proven out to be recessive.
I also sell anaimals from the "extreme line" and do not label them as "het for extreme" because that not a 100% claim.
This makes it allot more interesting to work with the extreme line. I have offspring that will help fill in the blanks over then next couple of breeding season but for now the jury is still out! Have fun and God Bless! mike

>> Has anyone bred Extreme to Extreme? The results should be 100 percent Extreme. Of course, that would be the case of a double homogenous trait too. How about Extreme to normal (not het for anything)

The posts above answer both those questions. I'd be interested in your theories once you've read those.
peace
terry