Reptile & Amphibian Forums

We produced these hybrids in 2004. All of these animals came from the same clutch. They were produced by breeding an Angolan Ball (hybrid of Angolan Python and Ball Python) back to a Ball Python. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that an Angolan Ball has been successfully bred and proven to be fertile.

Since an Angolan Ball is 50% Angolan Python, 50% Ball Python, many might consider the animals above to be 25% Angolan Python, 75% Ball Python. We believe the offspring from breeding an Angolan Ball to a Ball Python may range anywhere from 25% Angolan Python, 75% Ball Python to 50% Angolan Python, 50% Ball Python. This would explain the range of appearances of the animals pictured above.

Very nice, I especially like the one on the top right. Tom Stevens

.

Ya, and I like the one on the bottom right.

...that's my favorite too. I especially like the eyes.

Thanks...

I understand this cross would be capable of creating animals that have visual appearances that seemingly exhibit more or less of the founding pure adult influences. But to say they will be variable in blood is wrong by most standards. These percentage numbers used are reflecting the mixed blood heritage involved in making them, not which parent they visually appear to look most like. No matter how ya cut it, your crosses are 75% Ball ancestry and 25% Angolan ancestry. Just like pure snakes, hybrids will vary within one clutch...and generally moreso with hybrids than pure animals. They are going to be a highly variable bunch exhibiting many more characteristics than usual. But that's just my understanding of it.

Your snakes are neat hybrids, proving once again that boid crosses can be fertile. That's fantastic IMO.
Congrats!

-Yasser

SR

-----

Hi Yasser...

Thank you very much for your comments.

I guess one way to explain our beliefs would be to give the following explanation:

Let's represent Angolan Python genes by odd numbers, and Ball Python genes by even numbers.

When an Angolan Python is bred to a Ball Python, the resulting offspring inherit 50% of their genetic makeup from the Angolan Python, and 50% of their genetic makeup from the Ball python. The offspring, therefore, have a genetic makeup that is equally balanced between odd and even numbers.

When an Angolan Ball is bred to a Ball Python, the resulting offspring inherit 50% of their genetic makeup from the Angolan Ball, and 50% of their genetic makeup from the Ball Python. In the case of the Ball Python parent, the result is all even numbers. In the case of the Angolan Ball parent, however, some genes are odd and some are even, so which will be inherited by the offspring? Our position is that the potential exists for the Angolan Ball to pass along all odd numbers, all even numbers, or some of each. Any offspring inheriting all odd numbers from the Angolan Ball would, therefore, be 50% Angolan Python 50% Ball Python. Any offspring inheriting all even numbers from the Angolan Ball would, therefore, be 100% Ball Python (I misstated this percentage in my original post). The most usual occurrence would be for the Angolan Ball to pass along roughly the same number of odd and even numbers, resulting in offspring that are 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python.

One of the offspring in the group above is basically identical in appearance to Angolan Balls produced from breeding an Angolan Python to a Ball Python. One of the offspring in the group above is way more "Ball Python"-like than Angolan- or Angolan Ball-like. The rest have widely varying appearances of both color and pattern.

Perhaps we will see a greater variation in the appearance of Angolan Balls as more are produced. Possibly the variations in appearance seen above (both color and pattern) are a natural variation of 25% Angolan 75% Ball "blood". Possibly the variations in appearance seen above are indicative of a varying degree of Angolan influence being present for the reasons discussed above. Hopefully, time will tell.

however, there really is no room for debate or interpretation in this. your F2 animals receive 75% genetic material of ball python ancestry and 25% genetic material of angolan ancestry.

to state anything else is misrepresentation.

Let's take a real-life example about which there should be little debate:

My mother has blue eyes. My father has brown eyes. I have brown eyes. Since my mother has blue eyes, I have 1 allele for blue eyes, but the allele for brown eyes that I inherited from my father is dominant to the blue allele.

My wife has blue eyes and so does our son. What this means is that our son inherited a blue allele from my wife (she has 2 blue alleles) and he inherited a blue allele from me.

Using your logic, I am 50% blue-eyed and 50% brown-eyed. Continuing with your logic, since my wife is blue-eyed our son should be 25% brown-eyed and 75% blue-eyed. In reality, this is not the case...our son is 100% blue-eyed.

Statistically, I would agree that "on average" any offspring from my wife and eye would be 75% blue-eyed and 25% brown-eyed. From a practical perspective, however, they will either be blue-eyed or brown-eyed. Any blue-eyed offspring are 100% blue-eyed. Any brown-eyed offspring are 50% blue-eyed and 50% brown-eyed. Using your logic, this is impossible. Using your logic, all offspring should be 25% brown-eyed and 75% blue-eyed.

Having said that, I would like to address a couple of specific comments that you made in your reply:

"your F2 animals receive 75% genetic material of ball python ancestry and 25% genetic material of angolan ancestry."
The Angolan Ball is an F1 generation. To produce an F2 generation, you must breed F1-generation animals together. A successful breeding of an Angolan Ball to an Angolan Ball would result in F2 offspring. Our animals are not F2 animals.

"to state anything else is misrepresentation."
We are not selling these animals. I stated that our beliefs regarding the genetics of these animals were exactly that - our beliefs. I am not sure how you can interpret this to be "misrepresentation".

"however, there really is no room for debate or interpretation in this."
I disagree. I feel that I have already explained why your theory of "25% Angolan 75% Ball" does not hold up from a genetics perspective. I would certainly like to hear the basis for your position that "there is no room for debate or interpretation". Why does your theory so readily fall apart in the example of blue and brown eyes that I gave above? I would certainly like to hear your explanation for how my blue-eyed son is somehow made up of 25% brown-eyed genetic material.

Your initial explanation I found to be very confusing. I mean no offense but I did not see where your argument was supported. Your odds explanation seemed very strange, almost as if we were discussing betting odds, not genetics.

I must point out that you nor your wife are chimps. With that said, your blue/brown eyed hypothesis has no bearing on this cross as you and your wife did not produce a Human X primate with brown or blue eyes. What I am trying to get at is that inheriteed traits take on a whole new form in the visual expression in hybrids.

I just need to make sure we are on the same page here...
So you are saying when you cross an Angolan and a Ball, you will actually get anything from a pure 100% Angolan to a pure 100ºll and every percentage in between? You stated initially:

"Any offspring inheriting all odd numbers from the Angolan Ball would, therefore, be 50% Angolan Python 50% Ball Python. Any offspring inheriting all even numbers from the Angolan Ball would, therefore, be 100% Ball Python"

This is a concept I don't think any geneticist would agree with.

Just my chunk of change.

-Yasser
-----

When you cross an Angolan Python to a Ball Python, the offspring (Angolan Balls) all have 50% of their genetic makeup from the Angolan Python and 50% of their genetic makeup from the Ball Python.

When you cross an Angolan Ball to a Ball Python, the offspring will have varying genetic makeups...
At one extreme they would be 50% Angolan Python 50% Ball Python.
At the other extreme they would be 100% Ball Python.
The likelihood of either of these extremes occurring would be extremely small.
The most common outcome would be animals that were either 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python or something very close to these ratios.

While I completely understand the point you made regarding chimps, I fail to see the relevance with regard to this subject. The issue is not simply how genetic material is inherited in a hybridization, it is how genetic material is inherited in any breeding.

Diploid organisms inherit half of their genetic makeup from each parent. Each parent does not pass along it's entire genetic makeup, but instead passes along half of its genetic makeup. Although the genetic makeup passed to each offspring is consistent in quantity, it is not consistent in content. If parents always passed identical sets of genes to their children, all of their children would be identical.

The Angolan Ball will always pass its half of the genetic makeup to the offspring. Although the "quantity" of this material is constant, the "content" is not.

It's really not a huge deal to me whether folks disagree with our perpective, whether they are open to our perspective, or whether they agree with our perspective. I certainly have no problem "agreeing to disagree".

"I certainly have no problem "agreeing to disagree"."

I completely agree lol!

I must say this is a great topic. Your ideas are interesting to try to wrap my little brain around.

-Yasser

-----

easy as that. As it was stated before to say anything other than it being 75ºll 25%angolan is misrepresentation. There is NO way that breeding the two together will ever produce 100% ball. Its just not going to happen. I can see why you would want to try to rationalize your backwards logic, afterall it is a great marketing ploy. but all it is is back woods logic based on extremely subjective math.

they all look more ball than anything to me.
-----
-echo-

nice snakes btw
-----
-echo-

ren.,

i'll try to give you the short version. if you want more info, i suggest you head to a library and check into a few books on quantitative genetics.

essentially, the reason your argument is flawed is because you are talking about a very large number of genes.

to provide an anology, if you flip a coin, you get 100% heads or 100% tails. no inbetween. this is the case for your one gene example, of eye color. however, if you flip 30,000 coins, you get damn near 50% heads, 50% tails.

lets start with the original cross. we are in agreement, no?, that this F1 animal received one allele each from its two parents. so it is 50% ball/50% angolan.

(incidentally, within genetics circles, F1 refers to the generation since the orginal cross, within a closed breeding system. so if we adhere to that definition, you are correct the backcrosses of the hybrid to a parental species are not F2s. however, within animal breeding circles, and especially among snake breeders, F1,F2,etc is used to denote the generation from the orginal breeding of interest regardless of whether subsequent crosses are retained in an inbred system or not)

now, when that hybrid animal is crossed to a ball, the hybrid again passes along one allele and the ball one allele FOR EACH GENE. because there are thousands of discrete genes, the chances are extremely high that the F2 animal (or second generation animal if you prefer) will receive from its hybrid parent nearly exactly 50% ball alleles and 50% angolan alleles (so combined with the pure ball parents alleles 75% ball alleles and 25% angolan alleles).

so, you would be correct to say an F2 animal (or 2nd gen. animal) MIGHT have 100% ball python alleles for eye color. however, to say that it has anything but 25% angolan alleles (ie. genetic material) overall is incorrect.

incidentally, there are likely only a small number of genes (just guessing, perhaps 5-30 or so of the thousands the animal has) that affect color and pattern. so the animal could, quite by chance, receive say 8 ball alleles of 10 color/pattern genes from its hybrid parent (plus 10/10 ball alleles from the pure parent) and thus have 2/20 angoloan alleles in the color/pattern genes. and so, look very much like a ball python. but it is still 25% angolan.

as far as the misrepresentation thing. i suppose as long as you present the whole thing as just your opinion, and also disclose that the animals are crosses between a hybrid and one parental species, it isn't misrepresentation, you are just giving an (incorrect) opinion to go with the facts.

i didn't mean to be insulting, i am however, sensitive to the proliferation of poor information available with hybrids. very tired of seeing "candy mastodon het for firedragon" instead of "25%speciesX, 25%speciesY, 50%speciesZ" in describing hybrid snakes.

Thanks for the library suggestion. If I do decide to study quantitative genetics in more depth, I've probably got everything I would need on a bookshelf about 3 feet from where I'm sitting.

While I appreciate your explanation of the meaning of "F1 within genetics circles", this is a concept with which I am reasonably well acquainted. If you notice, I used the "genetics circles" definition of F1 in my rebuttal of your statement that our animals are F2 offspring. I am also aware that the terms F1, F2, etc. are used by some snake breeders in several incorrect ways. Aside from the example that you quote, F1, F2, etc. are also used by some snake breeders to specifically denote how many generations removed from the wild certain specimens are; F1, for example, would be considered by these breeders to be the offspring of wild-caught parents.

I find your closing statement of particular interest:

"...i am however, sensitive to the proliferation of poor information available with hybrids. very tired of seeing "candy mastodon het for firedragon" instead of "25%speciesX, 25%speciesY, 50%speciesZ" in describing hybrid snakes."

In perhaps the same way that you are sensitive to the issues you discuss above, I am sensitive to the proliferation of inaccurate terminology within snake-breeding circles. The continued inventiveness of snake breeders in discovering new and wonderful ways to misapply filial-generation terminology is cause for wonder. Even worse - in my obviously humble opinion - is when apparently more thoughtful and well-educated folks such as yourself similarly pervert the otherwise precise definition inherent in the expression of these terms. On the one hand you blithely refer to our offspring as "F2 animals" (which they are not), and yet on the other hand you express your displeasure with those who use terminology that does not meet your specific criteria of acceptability. A case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps...???

I understand - probably better than you appear to consider that I do - every single statement and every single example in your post. There is absolutely nothing in your post that I find confusing or beyond my "need to visit the library more frequently" capability to understand. This is not to say that I agree with everything that you say, but merely that I understand it.

As far as I can see, the issue comes down to one of interpretation. If I toss a coin 100 times I might get all heads. If I toss a coin 30,000 times I still might get all heads...probaly not, but I might. While it is true that as the number of coin tosses approaches infinity the distribution of heads and tails approaches the "perfect" 50/50, the smaller the number of coin tosses, the more likely that this distibution will be skewed. If you believe that Angolan Pythons and Ball Pythons have an infinite number of genes, then I can certainly understand your postulate that our animals are 25% Angolan Pythons 75% Ball Pythons. Since I do not believe the number of genes involved to be anywhere close to infinitity, however, I am more inclined to believe my postulate.

I would like to refer you to the following statements that I made in a separate post:

"When you cross an Angolan Ball to a Ball Python, the offspring will have varying genetic makeups...
At one extreme they would be 50% Angolan Python 50% Ball Python.
At the other extreme they would be 100% Ball Python.
The likelihood of either of these extremes occurring would be extremely small.
The most common outcome would be animals that were either 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python or something very close to these ratios."

If you will note, I indicated that the most common outcome would be animals somewhere in the range of 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python. Since I do not believe that an infinite number of genes are involved, however, by belief is that is is possible for the offspring to have a genetic makeup more biased towards one or other of the indicated extremes.

You may regard my opinion as "incorrect"...that is your prerogative. You may believe that my knowledge of genetics is in need of a trip or two to the library...that is also your prerogative. You state that you "didn't mean to be insulting"...and I believe you; I think that "being insulting" just comes more naturally to some than it does to others. But there again, now I am expressing more of my opinions...and I already know what you think of my opinions.

How about if we agree to disagree and go on to more fruitful endeavors...???

"On the one hand you blithely refer to our offspring as "F2 animals" (which they are not), and yet on the other hand you express your displeasure with those who use terminology that does not meet your specific criteria of acceptability. A case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps...???"

touche.

"I understand - probably better than you appear to consider that I do - every single statement and every single example in your post. There is absolutely nothing in your post that I find confusing or beyond my "need to visit the library more frequently" capability to understand. This is not to say that I agree with everything that you say, but merely that I understand it."

if, as you claim you have some understanding of these issues, then you have no excuse. i revert to my earlier statement that you are misrepresenting your animals.

"if, as you claim you have some understanding of these issues, then you have no excuse."

Did I miss the part where I offered anything vaguely resembling an "excuse"...???

It is because I have some understanding of these issues that I am unwilling to inaccurately represent these animals as "25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python".

I could not tell you how many genes are involved in the phenotype of these animals. I could not tell you how many genes are involved in the genotype of these animals. My guess is that you would be similarly unable to provide these numbers. In the absence of specific knowledge regarding the numbers of genes involved, how is it possible to accurately predict the precise genetic composition of these animals...???

In what I would consider to be an ill-advised and ill-informed leap to conclusion, you appear determined to specify that the specific genetic makeup of each and every one of these animals is precisely 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python. If the numbers of genes involved were infinite, I would agree with your position - at least as far as the genotype goes. Since I share your views that the number of genes involved in the phenotype are most likely relatively few, I would still take the position that the phenotype would exhibit varying degrees between the two extremes which I have previously discussed.

My position, however, is that the undetermined number of genes involved means that precise statistical interpretation is impossible. Even if precise statistical interpretation were possible, anything short of an infinite number of genes leaves open the possibility for deviations from your 25%/75% ratio.

Which of the following is a more accurate statement regarding the genotypes of these offspring...???

1) The genotypes of each and every one of these offspring is precisely 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python.

2) The genotypes of each and every one of these offspring vary. At one extreme they would be 50% Angolan Python 50% Ball Python. At the other extreme they would be 100% Ball Python. The likelihood of either of these extremes occurring would be extremely small. The most common outcome would be animals that were either 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python or something very close to these ratios.

Obviously you consider statement #1 to be the more accurate statement; I do not. Statement #1 would be accurate in the numbers of genes involved were infinite. Since the number of genes involved is not infinite, and since the number of genes involved is unknown, statement #2 is absolutely the more accurate of the two.

"i revert to my earlier statement that you are misrepresenting your animals."

Perhaps I should similarly revert to my previous response:

"We are not selling these animals. I stated that our beliefs regarding the genetics of these animals were exactly that - our beliefs. I am not sure how you can interpret this to be "misrepresentation"."

In my opinion, categorically stating that each and every one of these animals is precisely 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python is misrepresentation.

It would appear that we are at an impasse. You are willing to adopt a position that is unsupportable by factual evidence (unless, of course, I am supposed to accept your "say so" that it is true). I am unwilling to accept that position, and prefer instead to specify a 100% guaranteed accurate range that I know with absolute certainty the genotype of these animals will fall within.

I see no point in repeating or reiterating any of this ad nauseam. I still haven't finished looking at all of the pictures in my genetics comic books, and I still have several coloring exercises to complete. Give me a couple more years and I may yet graduate to pop-up books...

By the way, you inspired me to consider one particular name for this particular hybrid. What do you think of...

"Candy Mastodon het for Firedragon Angolan Balls".

I bred a cornduran (50% corn and 50% honduran ) to several different pure corns morphs, basically what we have been calling 25% hondo and 75%corn.
What i got was some that looked 50/50 and some 50/25 AND there were a few that looked identical to a pure cornsnake.

It's the animals that look identical to pure cornsnakes that concern me! How do we know down the road that these might end up in somebodies breeding colony. Only that person thinks it's a pure corn?

Hybrids, not so innocent any more....

>essentially, the reason your argument is flawed is because you
>are talking about a very large number of genes.

Nuclear genes are part of the DNA that makes up chromosomes. Reticulated pythons have a diploid number of 36 chromosomes. There is a fair liklihood that Angolan and ball pythons also have that number. Assuming that is so, an F1 Angolan-ball hybrid will have 18 chromosomes from the Angolan parent and a matching 18 chromosomes from the Ball parent. Since the hybrid is fertile, meiosis is probably normal with the chromsomes of each species matching up pair by pair and gene by gene. It is likely also that crossing over can occur so that some of the cromosomes resulting from meiosis will contain genes from both species.

An egg or sperm from a hybrid will contain one set of chromosomes, here assumed to be 18 chromosomes, and the set of genes contained on those chromosomes. Assuming crossing over, i.e, genetic exchanges between pairs of chromosomes, some of those chromosomes will carry Angolan genes, some will carry ball genes and some will carry a mix of genes from the two species. The exact combination will vary widely from gamete to gamete. Even if a gamete receives exactly 9 Angolan chromosomes and 9 Ball chromosomes without crossing over, however, the gamete will not likely carry exactly half Angolan genes and half ball genes simply because individual chromosomes vary in size and hence in number of genes. Even if the gametes carried exactly half the genes from each species, the half from the Angolan parent would all be different from the half from the ball parent and no two gametes would carry exactly the same combination of Angolan-ball genes.

>to provide an anology, if you flip a coin, you get 100% heads
>or 100% tails. no inbetween. this is the case for your one
>gene example, of eye color. however, if you flip 30,000 coins,
>you get damn near 50% heads, 50% tails.

But since genes are on chromosmes, and there are probably only 18 pairs. There is going to be much wider gamete to gamete variation in numbers of genes inherited from one species or the other in a Angolan-ball hybrid than if one assumes each gene of a pair is inherited independantly of every other gene.

>lets start with the original cross. we are in agreement, no?,
>that this F1 animal received one allele each from its two
>parents. so it is 50% ball/50% angolan.

True

>(incidentally, within genetics circles, F1 refers to the
>generation since the orginal cross, within a closed breeding
>system. so if we adhere to that definition, you are correct
>the backcrosses of the hybrid to a parental species are not
F2s.

True.

>however, within animal breeding circles, and especially among
>snake breeders, F1,F2,etc is used to denote the generation
>from the orginal breeding of interest regardless of whether
>subsequent crosses are retained in an inbred system or not)

They need to stop doing that. It is a corruption of the terminology and leads to confusion.

>now, when that hybrid animal is crossed to a ball, the hybrid
>again passes along one allele and the ball one allele FOR EACH
>GENE. because there are thousands of discrete genes, the
>chances are extremely high that the F2 animal (or second
>generation animal if you prefer) will receive from its hybrid
>parent nearly exactly 50% ball alleles and 50% angolan alleles
>(so combined with the pure ball parents alleles 75% ball
>alleles and 25% angolan alleles).

Given that only 18 pairs of chromosomes are involved it is unlikely any given backcross will be nearly exactly 75% ball, 25% Angolan. That ratio is a generalization and applicable to any given snake only as an approximation. For any given pair of genes in a hybrid x ball backcross, there are 2 possibilities, one Angolan allele plus one ball allele or both ball alleles. The variation from the ball phenotype will depend on the specific mix of Angolan genes inherited that are dominant to their respective ball alleles and what epistasis is involved.

>so, you would be correct to say an F2 animal (or 2nd gen.

Actually a 1st generation backcross.

>animal) MIGHT have 100% ball python alleles for eye color.
>however, to say that it has anything but 25% angolan alleles
>(ie. genetic material) overall is incorrect.

25% can only be an approximation. Individual backcross snakes would vary widely in the percentage of genes inherited from the Angolan parent.

>incidentally, there are likely only a small number of genes
>(just guessing, perhaps 5-30 or so of the thousands the animal
>has) that affect color and pattern. so the animal could, quite
>by chance, receive say 8 ball alleles of 10 color/pattern >genes from its hybrid parent (plus 10/10 ball alleles from the
>pure parent) and thus have 2/20 angoloan alleles in the
>color/pattern genes. and so, look very much like a ball
>python. but it is still 25% angolan.

As an approximation, not as an exact or even nearly exact percentage.

>as far as the misrepresentation thing. i suppose as long as
>you present the whole thing as just your opinion, and also
>disclose that the animals are crosses between a hybrid and one
>parental species, it isn't misrepresentation, you are just
>giving an (incorrect) opinion to go with the facts.

I fail to see the incorrectness of his opinion. Looks to me like the two of you are looking at the same thing from different angles. He's emphasizing the potential backcross individual snake to snake variability. You are emphasizing that among a large number of backcross progeny, the gene ratio among them will be close to 75% ball, 25% Angolan.

Bigfoot

That is probably the most informative post that I have read on any forum in a long time...

Exactly. the percent does not apply to how much of a certain trait something has, it applies to the percent of offspring that will inherit a certain trait, and its just an estimate. If you are using a punnet square , consider this.

F1 : BB x bb where B= an alele for brown eyes and b=an allele for blue eyes. this would be a cross between a homozygous dominant brown eyed person and a homozygous recessive blue eyed person.

the children would all have brown eyes no questions asked, but they would be heterozygous for blue eyes which means that they could produce blue eyed children , but they cannot have blue eyes themselves. According to the the theory you have, since the children are "1/2 blue eyed and 1/2 brown eyed" they would have a 50/50 chance of being blue eyed or brown eyed. However this is not so.

Then lets examine F2

that would be a cross between

Bb x Bb okay these are two heterozygous parents , both are brown eyed, but carry the gene for blue eyes. In a perfect world, if the couple had four children, three would come out brown eyed (BB, Bb, Bb) and one would come out blue eyed (bb). However , the ratio is 1:2:1 this means that each individual child has , at conception, the following percent of chances to be brown eyed or blue eyed.
Homozygous brown eyed: 25%
Heterozygous brown eyed: 50%
Blue eyed: 25%

This does not mean that exactly 25% will have blue eyes, nor does it mean that the offspring are 25% blue eyed. It means only that the offspring have approximately a 25% chance to be blue eyed. The only way that the children have a 50/50 chance of having blue eyes is crossing a heterozygous brown eyed person to a blue eyed person. and even then there is no guarantee that exactly 50% will be blue eyed. it all depends on chance really. the only way you get a recessive trait 100% of the time is by crossing 2 homozygous recessive individuals . you cant really call your cross a new morph because its nothing new . its just AB(codominant )crossed with BB (normal ball) that would mean that your pythons have a 50% chance of being normal ball pythons and 50% chance of being angolan balls. There is no new morph in between. And that doesnt meant that they are half normal and half angolan, they either are or they are not.

We're not sure what to call these hybrids.

The term "Angolan Ball" is used to describe hybrids from an Angolan Python Ball Python breeding.

We would like to use a term to describe these offspring.

Does anyone have any suggestions...???

Thanks...

Well.... they will always be ANGRY BALLS in my eyes!!!!

Jason

They will always be "Angry Balls" to me, too...

They certainly are a bunch of grumpy little things...

"Attitude" with a capital "A"...

np

The term "Angolan Ball" was coined (by NERD, I believe) to describe a hybrid that is a cross between an Angolan Python and a Ball Python. Personally, I really like the term "Angolan Ball"; I think it is very descriptive of the hybrid; I think it has a "nice sound" to it.

Since the term "Angolan Ball" is already used to describe a "50/50" Angolan Python Ball Python hybrid, I was thinking that perhaps we could find a term to describe an Angolan Ball Ball Python hybrid (which is more Ball Python than Angolan Python). Looking to the future, it is probably a matter of time before someone produces an Angolan Ball Angolan Python hybrid (which would be more Angolan Python than Ball Python).

Even if we were to coin terms that indicate an "Angolan Python Ball Python hybrid that is more Ball Python than Angolan Python" and an "Angolan Python Ball Python hybrid that is more Angolan Python than Ball Python", I'm not sure how practical these terms would be. Say, for example, we bred an "Angolan Python Ball Python hybrid that is more Ball Python than Angolan Python" with an "Angolan Python Ball Python hybrid that is more Angolan Python than Ball Python", how would we have any idea which side of the "Angolan Ball" midpoint any particular offspring fell...???

Referring to all Angolan Python Ball Python hybrids as "Angolan Balls" (whether or not they are 50/50, more Ball Python than Angolan Python, or more Angolan Python than Ball Python) might well be the most practical solution. From a breeding perspective, however, I think that knowledge of "which side of the Angolan Ball midpoint" the animals are on (or may be on) would be extremely useful.

Perhaps the simplest solution is to refer to all of these hybrids as "Angolan Balls", but to also reference (if known) any bias that may exist towards one or other of the founding species...???

JMO but I think these are to may terms for a basic cross. These types (hybrid 25/75 ect)of crosses have been going on for a long time (ex cornduran) to complicate the terms is giving to much to credit to your individual project you have.

A simple angolan ball with a description 25% Angolan and 75% Ball is enough. It is up to the buyer to know the actual percentages as decribed in this thread.

The only thing that I am not especially comfortable with about the whole "25% Angolan 75% Ball" thing is the inherent implication that the genetic makeup is precisely defined.

Here is an example of one potential problem that I could see arising from this nomenclature:

Person X breeds an Angolan Python to a Ball Python and produces Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball).
Person Y breeds an Angolan Ball to a Ball Python and produces Angolan Balls (25% Angolan 75% Ball).
Person Z breeds an Angolan Ball to an Angolan Python and produces Angolan Balls (75% Angolan 25% Ball).
Person Y now takes one of their Angolan Balls (25% Angolan 75% Ball) and breeds it with one of person Z's Angolan Balls (75% Angolan 25% Ball). Since the average of 25 and 75 is 50, the Angolan Balls that person Y has just produced are now labelled "Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball)".
The potential problem as I see it, is that the Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball) just produced by person Y will in all likelihood look nothing like the Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball) produced by person X.

In my opinion, labelling any hybrid with an artificial percentage ratio is heading off down the wrong path. It's really not a question of giving credit to this or any other project; it's more a question of adopting some form of naming convention that does not misrepresent the animals.

Personally, I can see problems looming no matter which approach is adopted. Assigning relatively meaningless species-specific percentage ratios to a hybrid is, in my opinion, misleading. On the other hand, contriving names that represent specific back cross breedings also leaves much to be desired.

Perhaps the simplest way to describe any of these hybrids would be something along the lines of...
Angolan Python x Ball Python = Angolan Ball
Angolan Ball x Ball Python = Angolan Ball (Ball heavy)
Angolan Ball x Angolan Python = Angolan Ball (Angolan heavy)
Any other breeding of any of these = Angolan Ball (unknown)

n/p

What we call a hybrid produced from breeding an Angolan Ball to an Angolan Python (more Angolan than Ball)...???

Here is one of our F-2 Angolan Balls from 2003. These were produced from one of our Original Angolan Cross males that proved fertile. Now do not start asking about percentages, because that is a debate that I have no interest in diving into tonight... LOL !!! I have been working on this project since we produced our first Angolan Ball cross back in 2001, don't knock it if you have not tried it.

Thanks,
Wyatt

TW Intl Inc.
Dallas, Tx

***ALBINO BLOOD LINE***Thay would look great.