Stinger

[Imperial Geckos]

If it was like a het Pied you would be saying breeding het Pied to Het Pied gives you Pieds and Super Pieds.....

What I think he was trying to say is when you breed het. Pied x het. Pied you get Pieds, het. Pieds (with markers), het. Pieds (w/o markers), and normals...ofcourse all animals from that pairing would be 66% het. Pied..regardless of markers or not.. het. pied markers are not a guarantee your ball python is carrying the pied gene.

Now of this is the way the Zero is acting...and the Super Zero is just another line of Patternless...so then if one would breed het. Super Zero (visual Zero) x het. Super Zero (visual Zero).. one should theoretically produce..

Super Zeros
het. Super Zeros (visual Zeros)
het. Super Zeros (normal looking)
Normals

.....All Zeros and Normals having a 66% chance of carrying the Super Zero gene!? :main_huh:... then that would mean that some "Zeros" could be just normals with aberrant pattern, thus that "Normal Zero" not being genetic.

If this is the case some people will have lots of explaining to do!

This whole thing just makes me want to smash my head into a wall... :wall:

 

[Wild West Reptile]

This is what i believe Ohio Gecko is experiancing.

If i am so wrong than how do you geneticly explain Zero x Normal producing a Super???

The way I would explain it, is it was a Zero bred to another Zero (weak, low grade Zero, which was mistaken as a sib) and out popped a Super form. That's how it could happen. Zero's and Stingers can look "normal" to the naked eye, regardless of their genetics. I may have a Zero sib in my collection, as was pointed out by David, but it sure wasn't sold to me as that and it came from JMG! So it's possible that they are confusing Zero's, with normals and Granites! They all look similar to me and that's why I don't work them, I'm just not impressed with those morphs as they don't stand out.

Let me use another example. If I breed a Yellowbelly ball python to a "Normal" looking one and all of a sudden I get white snakes, what just happened there? What happened there, is that I bred a Yellowbelly to another Yellowbelly ( a low grade, normal looking snake). Sometimes you just can't see the classic markers on some of these "normal" looking morphs. I can use many examples in the ball python world like this and I think that balls are the closest thing to AFT's as far as genetics and how things work.

Anyways, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it! Any I'm not planning on getting involved in these morphs since they just aren't that killer looking to start with! Right David!? :main_laugh:

 

[specialtyreptile]

Zero by Zero Sib ( a dark Aberrant animal that carries the gene)

Correct! But to the average Joe that doesn't have the Years of experiance that you obviously have, that Zero Sib does not look like a Zero there for is not a Zero in their minds!!!

 

[specialtyreptile]

The way I would explain it, is it was a Zero bred to another Zero (weak, low grade Zero, which was mistaken as a sib) and out popped a Super form. That's how it could happen. Zero's and Stingers can look "normal" to the naked eye, regardless of their genetics. I may have a Zero sib in my collection, as was pointed out by David, but it sure wasn't sold to me as that and it came from JMG! So it's possible that they are confusing Zero's, with normals and Granites! They all look similar to me and that's why I don't work them, I'm just not impressed with those morphs as they don't stand out.

Let me use another example. If I breed a Yellowbelly ball python to a "Normal" looking one and all of a sudden I get white snakes, what just happened there? What happened there, is that I bred a Yellowbelly to another Yellowbelly ( a low grade, normal looking snake). Sometimes you just can't see the classic markers on some of these "normal" looking morphs. I can use many examples in the ball python world like this and I think that balls are the closest thing to AFT's as far as genetics and how things work.

Anyways, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it! Any I'm not planning on getting involved in these morphs since they just aren't that killer looking to start with! Right David!? :main_laugh:

Agreed!:main_thumbsup:

 

[Wild West Reptile]

Again this is mis quoting what i was saying. I never said Zero was the Homozygus form of a recessive gene. I was saying that Zero is the Heterazygote.

I'm not saying you said that. It's been said by others. I think you have valid points, it's just a confusing morph. I'm just explaining how I believe it's working. Again, I don't work with them, so I'm going off of talking to David and others that actually have been working with these animals for years now.

 

[specialtyreptile]

What I think he was trying to say is when you breed het. Pied x het. Pied you get Pieds, het. Pieds (with markers), het. Pieds (w/o markers), and normals...ofcourse all animals from that pairing would be 66% het. Pied..regardless of markers or not.. het. pied markers are not a guarantee your ball python is carrying the pied gene.

Now of this is the way the Zero is acting...and the Super Zero is just another line of Patternless...so then if one would breed het. Super Zero (visual Zero) x het. Super Zero (visual Zero).. one should theoretically produce..

Super Zeros
het. Super Zeros (visual Zeros)
het. Super Zeros (normal looking)
Normals

.....All Zeros and Normals having a 66% chance of carrying the Super Zero gene!? :main_huh:... then that would mean that some "Zeros" could be just normals with aberrant pattern, thus that "Normal Zero" not being genetic.

If this is the case some people will have lots of explaining to do!

This whole thing just makes me want to smash my head into a wall... :wall:

Thank you for seeing the Possibility. I cannot say for sure. I am only Hypothisizing off of the data given. This is why I do not have any Zero or Patternless Yet.

 

[Carinata]

Correct! But to the average Joe that doesn't have the Years of experiance that you obviously have, that Zero Sib does not look like a Zero there for is not a Zero in their minds!!!

A monkey could pick one out. They're super dark, almost patternless.

 

[Imperial Geckos]

Correct! But to the average Joe that doesn't have the Years of experiance that you obviously have, that Zero Sib does not look like a Zero there for is not a Zero in their minds!!!

Take a look at the video I made (post #3)...I clearly show the difference between a Zero sib and a normal. I hope that can help anyone that breeds Zeros pick out out the sibs.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

Also, I don't believe super zeros/super stingers are in any way related the recessive patternless gene as discussed in some other threads. Yes both are visually patternless but look what happens when they are combined with other morphs. There is a huge difference between a super zero whiteout and a patternless whiteout. I'm just thinking out loud, don't mind me haha.

 

[specialtyreptile]

Take a look at the video I made (post #3)...I clearly show the difference between a Zero sib and a normal. I hope that can help anyone that breeds Zeros pick out out the sibs.

Your video is quite helpful but it is still a strech to say that a first year "monkey" would have picked up on that suddle of a difference. Especially since normals can vary so much.

This is the reason we get hundreds of posts with people asking what morph their "normal" is. Unless it looks exactly like a proven genetic trait then it is normal until proven otherwise.

 

[OhioGecko]

JMG will be updating their website this weekend with the correct info. I will post a link when it is done.

David, I suggested to you to ask either Jeff whether the genetics on zeros/stingers are recessive or co-dom at the last Hamburg show in person, why didn't you!

 

[specialtyreptile]

JMG will be updating their website this weekend with the correct info. I will post a link when it is done.

David, I suggested to you to ask either Jeff whether the genetics on zeros/stingers are recessive or co-dom at the last Hamburg show in person, why didn't you!

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

JMG will be updating their website this weekend with the correct info. I will post a link when it is done.

David, I suggested to you to ask either Jeff whether the genetics on zeros/stingers are recessive or co-dom at the last Hamburg show in person, why didn't you!

Why would he need to talk to anyone when he has proof? If it WAS a recessive breeding his Whiteout Zero X Zero would have produced ALL zeros at a minimum, it didn't. What doesn't make sense about that?

 

[Carinata]

JMG will be updating their website this weekend with the correct info. I will post a link when it is done.

David, I suggested to you to ask either Jeff whether the genetics on zeros/stingers are recessive or co-dom at the last Hamburg show in person, why didn't you!

Maybe because I was vending?

 

[OhioGecko]

Why would he need to talk to anyone when he has proof? If it WAS a recessive breeding his Whiteout Zero X Zero would have produced ALL zeros at a minimum, it didn't. What doesn't make sense about that?

We'll...... I guess you guys have it all figured out then.

 

[Carinata]

Well Thad, explain how it makes sense for me to see those results?

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

We'll...... I guess you guys have it all figured out then.

Look at it from our point of view, I have been talking with David about this in depth. I have heard and seen the proof showing it's a co-dom gene. All I have heard from you is Jeff said this and that without any justification. If you could explain it and have it make sense maybe we would all jump ship to your side, but I don't see how given the current circumstances. It just doesn't make sense. I guess we will all be anxiously awaiting Jeffs reply. You've been saying he was going to change it for quite sometime now...

I hope it is true, a super recessive would be some big news for reptile keepers across the board!

 

[specialtyreptile]

Why would he need to talk to anyone when he has proof? If it WAS a recessive breeding his Whiteout Zero X Zero would have produced ALL zeros at a minimum, it didn't. What doesn't make sense about that?

1, 2 or 3 generations does not make proof in genetics. Believe it or not, genetics are a lot more confusing than the black and white version of Dominant/co-dominant and Recessive. This is seen all over in Ball Pythons and Cornsnakes. Just when you think you have the answer, compatiblility with another gene confuses the hell out of you.

I am poking at David alittle because his comments have appeared a bit rude and dismissive of others opinions. The thing is, that which is obvious to some, is not so obvious to others. Being closed off to others theories on any subject may eventually bite you in the rear.

My intention was merely to offer possibilities and have open discussion on the matter. The fact is, unless you have a Doctorate in Genetics, we may never trully know...

Also, if I am not mistaken, JMG has been working with these genes alot longer. Thus I would be more inclined to trust their data...

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

1, 2 or 3 generations does not make proof in genetics. Believe it or not, genetics are a lot more confusing than the black and white version of Dominant/co-dominant and Recessive. This is seen all over in Ball Pythons and Cornsnakes. Just when you think you have the answer, compatiblility with another gene confuses the hell out of you.

I am poking at David alittle because his comments have appeared a bit rude and dismissive of others opinions. The thing is, that which is obvious to some, is not so obvious to others. Being closed off to others theories on any subject may eventually bite you in the rear.

My intention was merely to offer possibilities and have open discussion on the matter. The fact is, unless you have a Doctorate in Genetics, we may never trully know...

Also, if I am not mistaken, JMG has been working with these genes alot longer. Thus I would be more inclined to trust their data...

Point taken, I agree and am far from closed minded about the genetics but everything I've heard so far stating otherwise just doesn't make sense. At this point I'm all ears (or eyes), I find it very interesting and exciting. I just need something more concrete and like I said before I'm looking forward to seeing what Jeff releases this weekend, hopefully he does. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong if proven otherwise but at this point I'm sticking to what I've seen.

 

[OhioGecko]

I'm listing this post to debunk that only dark AFT's as stinger/zero siblings. Even naysayers that say they are dark will be able to pick out the hets from light colored AFT's.

Let's see who can get them all correct, if you do, you have passed the "Monkey Test" . Just reply in this thread and list 1-21 with what you think they are.

HINT: The only genetics in following 21 AFT's are normal, zero, stinger and white out.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21