Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Any of you guys working with sable genetics? I finally got a little something from Dan to help me make some sables, but I was wondering if some of you bigger guys were working with them. And specifically working on making any combos with them since Dan didnt start any combo stuff til this year. I know Dan said they were going out to a few people in the previous year, so someone out there has to have something cooking up.

Will

Yes, I have a pair of het Sables that I got from Dan last year. I probably won't breed the female for another year and though the male might be of size right now, I'm not interested in producing a lot of 50% hets, so I will just be patient until the female is of size.

I just hope they are what Dan claims them to be. I have to be honest, I'm a little on the fence about them as Dan wasn't really clear with me on specifically how he "proved" them out, but I figured it was good enough gamble to trade into.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Hey Will,
Not working with the sables. In my personal opinion, not enough is known about the genetics in order for me to drop that kind of cash on them. They are cool looking snakes for sure but as I said, I am unsure of the claims that it is a recessive. That can just be based on me not working with the sables so what I say on this is not worth much.

With that being said, regardless of the mode of Inheritance, the color of them can prove to be valuable when mixed in with recessive color morphs like albinos, toffees, hypos, and so on

From what Dan told me, he collected the two original hets a year apart within a few yards of each other. When he paired the two wc snakes 1.1 sables were produced. He said he then raised the male up to breeding size the following year and bred her back to the original het mother producing quite a few sables. Then the next year bred the sable male to the females produced in the original wc het pairing (the 66% poss hets I guess) and proved one of the females out to be a definite het. That is how I understand it, which I guess would solidify they are recessive, but I didnt know there was mystery around them? Ive always thought they are going to make some killer combos...toffee sables and lavender sables come to mind

Will

n/p

And that is the entire problem Will, from the sound of it, Dan only bred blood related "Sables" to each other. It doesn't sound like he did do much if anything about outcrossing the genes to actually determine whether they are actually Mendelian Traits at all, so all we can determine at this point is that they could be line traits, perhaps strong line traits. Hopefully down the line with enough outcrossing can we determine whether these are actually Recessive or not, however, that important bit of work has either yet to be done or proven.

Sometimes it can take 4-10 years of breeding and outcrossing to prove out some traits, part of that time of course is lost on just raising the generational offspring up. Dan might have been breeding these for a few years, but I've not heard much in the means of outcrossing. So I'm still a bit skeptical about the genes actually being proven, but I've put my trust in Dan that he understands what it is that he is working with and that the Sables are in fact what he claims. If not, then there's going to be some disappointed people out there.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Troy keeps deleting my post he knows i am right about the stress factor of the argument, He does not believe in a Free Country!!!!! he is a Dictator, Put back my posts otherwize you are no true american!

Sounds like youre going crazy over there lol

That does make sense. I actually never considered the fact that Dan might not have outcrossed the original sable at all, and we are only seeing them pop up in the interbred lines. I dont know, time will tell. I also have my faith in dan, and the morph itself. I think it will prove to be something great.
Will

Actually, I don't agree with Troy (respectfully, of course

I believe you can prove the nature of the trait as conclusively without outcrossing.

I agree also to an extent, but in order to establish if it is truely recessive you have to outcross it. You can get a good idea of what it is, but without outcrossing you could still be hitting polygenes and making it look recessive when in fact it is just a bunch of genes working at the same time.

Will

You would run into the same problem even with a line bred trait if it has the capacity to remain hidden or non-visible.
Therefore outcrossing wouldn't resolve that problem.

Let me ask a question?

Are you suggesting that if Dan bred two of his 'hets' (that resulted from inbreeding) they could produce visuals if it was in fact a dominant, codominant or polygenic trait - in a statistically significant fashion more frequently than if he outbred a visual sable and then bred two of their non-visual offspring?

I am sticking my neck out, but with this area, statistics, is the key word. Your looking at predicted percentages. statistically speaking, etc.

The problem is, those percentages are over numbers. in the case of hogs, high numbers. The percentages normally start at 100, that is 25%, 44%, 50%,etc of 100. Just to achieve normal statistics. Not lucky or unlucky.

Lucky would be seeing predicted numbers or better in one clutch.

Unlucky would be the opposite, not seeing the predicted percentage or any, in one clutch or over many clutches. yet both are statistically correct.

So comparing different percentages may not be of value. not in small numbers. Which was your question.

In my experience, there's more to it. Having bred individual snakes for their lifetime, there seemed to be something unusual.

When I produced albino kings, I did work with hets. Some het females consistently beat the odds, in each clutch and in all clutches over her lifetime and other het females did not meet the predicted amount in any clutch over a lifetime. And of course a couple females that consistently produced the predicted percentage. How or why this occurred, I cannot say, but it did occur. Lump all the females together and it was as predicted. But individually, it was not.

Anyway, Troys right, prove it out and theres no worries. Don't and you have something to worry about. Cheers

"So comparing different percentages may not be of value. not in small numbers. Which was your question."

No that wasn't my question.
Your post illustrates that you didn't understand my question.

Ok so whats your question?

read it

If it is recessive, codominant or incomplete dominant the numerical patterns would strongly emerge whether breeding non-visuals together within a closed gene pool, or when breeding non-visuals that resulted from an outcross.
Conversely, if it was a polymorphic trait the number of visuals produced would be very small - either with inbreeding or outcrossing till you managed to line up all the traits.

"So comparing different percentages may not be of value. not in small numbers"

Frank's point is very true.
But it is precisely because you need large numbers for statistics to be meaningful, that you probably won't prove out the trait more effectively with outcrossing as opposed to inbreeding - UNLESS there is a significant numerical difference between the two approaches.

2 wc normals were bred together, the female laid 20 eggs, 13 hatched, 2 were sable(1.1). The next season I bred the boy sable back to his mom & about half of the eggs that made it were sable. The following year I bred the 2 sables together & 100% of the hatchlings were visual sables, & that year I also bred the boy sable to a couple of the 1st 2 sable's normal looking clutch mates from the wc breeding & one of those females produced sables, one did not. This year I hatched a couple sables from a het to het breeding. As far as I have known this is the best & easiest way to prove if a color morph is recessive. To me it made more since to inbreed to figure it out. If I'm not as smart as I think I am & the sables somehow turn out to not be recessive, not only will I feel like an idiot, but I'll owe a few of you a big apology & some cash/snakes, & it will be made right. Can anyone tell me an example of a trait that acts like its recessive when animals are inbred, but it really isn't?

Dan Eby

Dan,
Jags are an example and so are my tigers.

I acquired 2 normal females and 1 normal male from a jag to het albino clutch. They are completely normal looking. I bred the male to the 2 females and got about half a clutch of jags in each clutch 2 of them being albino. Jag to jag makes all jags. However, when you breed Jag to an unrelated normal, you also get jags so that gene being recessive is automatically ruled out.

I bred 2 normal from a tiger clutch together and go about half tigers. I have also outcrossed my tigers and get about half a clutch of tigers from tiger to unrelated normal. And when I breed tiger to tiger, I get 100% tigers. I have done this consistently for 3 seasons and I know for sure that the tiger gene is not a recessive.

That is 2 examples just from my own personal projects. I am sure we can dig one or two more up if we look hard enough.

No doubt your sables are amazing, I love the look of them, and if they are reliably reproduced, no matter how the gene is passed, they will be of great value as a morph enhancing morph. I just do not feel enough has been done with them to say either way how the genetics are working for sure.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the compliments on the sables!

Those 2 examples are not the same because when you breed your tigers & jags to unrelated normal you get tigers & jags. When I've bred sables to the unrelated normals & the red albino I've gotten 100% normal looking hogs (very nice normals I have to add).

Dan

Hey Dan,

In the casr of Jags, They have been bred to normals and did not produce Jag offspring. That can easily be the case with any polygenic or dominant trait. How many notmals have you bred the sables to and how many offspring were produced? Remember, with a polygenic trait, many times, you get very low expression when outcrossed the first generation. I may be mistaen but I thought I saw you post "low key" or "lesser" sables not too long ago.

Anyway, off to Daytona. Should be an awesome show.

What you did was great and congrats. because they were genetically similar, several genes may be responsible for that morph. Out breeding will clear up that question.

So far, what you have done is great and you have no reason to doubt what you have done. Its simply one more test.

Even if the next step fails, your still not an idiot.

I am in the middle of proving out a morph too, only not with westerns. Best of luck

Thanks, & good luck proving your morph!

Dan,

When I interpret data, I have to look at the credibility of the person, or as far as I'm concerned the data means zero.
I'm with you on this one.
I would put my money on them being recessive.

Good luck,
Jonny

Thank you Jonny!

"I also bred the boy sable to a couple of the 1st 2 sable's normal looking clutch mates from the wc breeding & one of those females produced sables, one did not".

Dan,

With regards to the female that didn't produce sables:
How large was the clutch?

Thanks,
Jonny

If I remember right there were 7 hatched from that clutch.

Dan

Meant to say 7 laid & 7 hatched.

>>2 wc normals were bred together, the female laid 20 eggs, 13 hatched, 2 were sable(1.1). The next season I bred the boy sable back to his mom & about half of the eggs that made it were sable. The following year I bred the 2 sables together & 100% of the hatchlings were visual sables, & that year I also bred the boy sable to a couple of the 1st 2 sable's normal looking clutch mates from the wc breeding & one of those females produced sables, one did not. This year I hatched a couple sables from a het to het breeding. As far as I have known this is the best & easiest way to prove if a color morph is recessive. To me it made more since to inbreed to figure it out. If I'm not as smart as I think I am & the sables somehow turn out to not be recessive, not only will I feel like an idiot, but I'll owe a few of you a big apology & some cash/snakes, & it will be made right. Can anyone tell me an example of a trait that acts like its recessive when animals are inbred, but it really isn't?
>>
>>Dan Eby

I don't feel like reading all the bs previous post.

I do work with the project and personally think it's one of the best recessive projects out there.
-----

Hognose, Sand Boa & Ball Python Morphs

Greg Bennett | www.hognose.com

How many morphs have you proven or attempted to prove out?

When you and Will debated whether the definition of 'venomous' requires that the animal has an effective delivery system to administer its venom to its prey, I thought it was absurd that you brought the issue of years of experience and schooling into the discussion. It takes about 5 minutes to understand the two sides of the debate and an hour or two of research to determine how the 'experts' use the different terminologies.
It looked to me like a lot of posturing just to undermine the other person.
I won't take your question at face value, but I will take it for granted that you were implying that if somebody has proved out fewer morphs he is less qualified to discuss genetics and statistics. I will try to tone down my response and just limit myself to saying that such a notion is silly. The knowledge of genetics and statistics is an objective science that has nothing to do with personal experience. I will go a little further and suggest that if somebody really does think there is a connection, then it's probably an indication he doesn't understand the 2 subjects.
These happen to be subjects I grew up surrounded by. My father is a Physics professor and two of my brothers are actuaries. I, myself am very strong in math, but when in doubt constantly ask them for feedback.
This is my last post on this forum, because the opportunity for reasonable discussion is usually replaced by aggressive rudeness. I'd rather put my energies elsewhere.

Its not about who wins or has a better explanation etc. ITs not about Gregg Troy or Will.

The discussion is about HOGS. Any one person here can think whatever they want. And stick to that however they want.

With Hogs and mice. It does not appear the salvia, venom or toxic substance in their mouths, does anything. I have been watching for some symptoms, any symptoms since the discussion began and so far, the fuzzies to small mice are swallowed alive and there appears to be no effect what so ever, other then the fangs/large rear teeth, appear to help push the food item down their throats(to aid in swallowing). The prey items feet were kicking and pushing all the way down.

Which is unlike when a lyresnake or spotted night grabs a lizard. With those, their venom seems to paralyze their prey. Of course with rattlesnakes, the prey item quickly dies.

Whats important is this, not the academics of what anyone calls anything. What does it DO. the applied part of academic verbage.

Saying I won't come here anymore is as childish as others saying I am not talking to you because your mean. hahahahahahahahahaha To all of you, discussion takes two sides, no one ever said one side HAS to change their view. Discussion is to bring up valid view points or points of interest. On a forum, that's what is important, not what any one person believes or argues. I am pretty sure several here just like to argue and its not about what they actually believe. I hope you stay. Take a deep breathe, give the offending person the finger, and post a picture of a beautiful hog. As that always wins.

If a hog envenomates a rodent and it dies, then the hog is venomous, if the majority of human bites swell up and are symptomatic, then its venomous. But if nothing happens, in either case, Gregg loses the agreement. And hogs are harmless to man and mice. Lets try a lizard and see what happens. Cheers

It pains me to say this but, Troys right. With such traits that are so called co-dominate, its may not be one gene, but more a set of genes that allow that to occur. Inbreeding or line breeding passes the set of genes. Out breeding can cover the set. Just an example.

In this case, you have to isolate the gene or set of genes before it can be determined simple recessive.

What was reported puzzles me. Why would he breed possible hets to hets or Sables, at that point, Sables to Sables or Sables to hets. OR outbreed. The story could be incomplete as well.

About color and pattern, hmmmmmmmm I read an articule about cloning, it was a report on a cloned cat. The mother was a grey tabby, the clone was a orange tabby, when questioned the report said, color in cats is random within a genetic range. This may be "true" with some reptiles. Particularly reptiles from habitats that are from constantly variable habitats. That is, wet some years and dry others. Year to year, not longterm.

What is selected for when the habitat is open is different then what is selected for when the habitat is closed(covered in plants) So the snakes, produce a range with the approach that something will stick. Instead of evolving to a certain color and pattern.

On our site, there is a huge range of color and pattern, and the habitat is in constant change from dry years, open, and wet years, closed. I hope this helps.