This template contains both “gene addition” and “gene review” forms, please delete the one which is not applicable to your request
Gene Request Form
Please fill the below form out to the best of your ability. Answers do not need to be lengthy. If appropriate you may forward this request to someone who is more able to supply the answers.
Facts
Species: Ball Python Name of Gene: Burgundy Albino First produced by whom: Imported by VPI, Proven out by Ryan Young of Molecular Reptiles
**Year:**2012
**Genetics Type (Incdom/Codom/Recessive/Polygenic/etc):**Recessive
**In complex with other genes?:**Ultramel Other names/aliases for it?:
**Description:**This gene was originally imported by VPI & also called Red Ghost. The female was later proven out by Ryan Young & has also been proven to be compatible with the Ultramel gene.
Appearance: What it does/looks like? Deep oranges & purples as babies which will lighten with age. Proven: To what degree it is proven out to not just be polygenic? This is a recessive morph. Unique: Why do you believe this is a new morph and not an existing one? This is an existing one which is not shown in Morph Market separate from others such as Ultramel. Related Genes: Ultramel Problems: Any problems? No Other History: Any additional history? Disagreement or Controversy: References here on the community:
At least one link to community discussion (ie forums) to demonstrate community acceptance
Link to WOBP if exists Burgundy Albino - Morph List - World of Ball Pythons Please attach 1-3 photos you have rights to which you are granting to be used on MorphMarket.
Yeah i am with @saleengrinch on this , If they are compatible with each other and both recessive how are they seperate genes. Sounds more like they are the same gene just slightly different lines. Like sentinel and paint
So if anything, it would make more sense to just filter them under ultramel and put something like (Burgundy line) on the post than actually making a whole new category for it.
There is nothing that sets Burgundy apart from Ultramel (same thing for Crider) so I agree that there really is no need to set up a whole new category for it… The kicker here is - Why do we have separate categories for Candy/Toffee when we know they are also identical??
I think we should be consistent. We’re either combining all proven single gene mutations or we’re not. Given there are numerous examples of separate bloodlines of the same mutation I assumed that’s the protocol. I realize it gets crazy with a huge list of individual mutations/bloodlines but I think that’s inevitable with the vast variety of ball python morphology.
Up to a point, maybe. But do we then also have to list all twenty-seven “different” but 100% compatible lines of Hypo?
And how do we then deal with the search function aspect? I already hate having to search under both Candy and Toffee if I am looking for new things to add to my project. If I worked with Hypo and had to search all of them independently instead of just looking under Hypo, I would kill myself
.
.
.
No one has proven them compatible but I agree they are. However, if you take the time to look at them, all three behave differently in the same way BlkPastel, Cinny, and HRA or Bamboo, Lesser, and Mojave do. So it makes sense to keep them separate as they are different
I agree it gets tricky, especially with long developed mutation bloodlines like hypo.
I come from a boa breeding background and I think there is much more emphasis/value on the polygenic makeup of bloodlines with that species.
Maybe it would make sense to have subcategories with the first proven iteration of the mutation listed as the primary category? Not sure.
The difference in how acid/static/confusion behave in combos is probably attributed to the polygenic makeup of separate bloodlines of the same mutation which is ultimately the same thing differentiating ultramel from burgandy. Defining which are more “different” than others is subjective. Those burgandy albinos look different than any ultramel I’ve seen. I can’t say they would react much different in combos but I suspect they would, especially to a discerning eye working with those mutations (like yourself working with acid).
Creating primary categories based on the first proven bloodline of the mutation, with separate categories for other distinguishable bloodlines would be the ideal way to do it IMO. Right now there doesn’t appear to be any strictly defined categorization, which makes it confusing to an already huge list of mutations compared to other species.
Being a boa person, I really feel that. So it’s not a bad thing, it’s just not the most important thing in balls. Obviously if they’re incompatible it’s important
I disagree. Enough people have been working with them independent of the founders for the polygenetics to be weaned out and they still behave differently from one another.
.
.
.
This I cannot ante in on as I do not work with either. But I will say that the Burgundy/Ultramel visual Ryan created did not look appreciably different from a pure for Ultra. And given the limited number of people actually working with Burg, I am inclined to agree that polygenetics are probably playing a role here
I think the difference in focus between balls and boas is partially attributed to the difference in variation between base wild types. With boas years of selective breeding brought forth phenotypes that made vast differences not only in the wild type version but also when combined into mutations. A great example of this are “Pastel” boas, pastels being not a mutation (with boas) but a bloodline of selectively bred animals to reduce melanin. The ultimate goal was not to reduce melanin but to better see what was “underneath” to selectively breed for more and more color. When Jeff Ronne the “boaphile”, eventually plugged these lines into the albino mutation the results were spectacular. His flagship bloodline was called “Pastel Dream”, by the way. The other reason, I think, why ball python breeders aren’t so focused on bloodlines/polygenic makeup is the incredible variety of mutations. Hitting the odds to create combos not only creates visual variety but also drives the market.
They still started with whatever polygenic genetic makeup was present in the single gene mutation founder.
To prove it’s not polygenic related, did they also plug each line of confusion/static/acid into the same lines of bp/cinny/etc? After which, how many generations of breeding towards the competing phenotype was done to prove it either way? Obviously no one is going to do that because it really doesn’t matter and I’d argue it’s conjecture either way.
Yeah… And once other people started outbreeding it then those polygenetic traits would be diluted out. It does not require breeding to the same line of some other morph, it is the outbreeding itself. Take any three immaculate highlighter yellow/velvet black jungle carpets and outbreed to random utter rubbish mud jungles and you get low-quality blurry brown jungles. Or, take any three immaculate highlighter yellow/velvet black jungle carpets and outbreed to a random utter rubbish coastal, a random utter rubbish IJ, and a random utter rubbish Darwin and you end up with low-quality blurry brown jungle mutts. The results are the same either way - when you are not selecting for the polygenetic traits (bright yellow and deep black), you lose them (low-quality blurry brown).
With Acid/Confusion/Static (BlkPastel/Cinny/HRA… Bamboo/Lesser/Mojave… HGW/Spider/Woma…) there are some traits that are characteristic and distinct to each individual morph, regardless of what you breed it to. A BlkPastel Lessser looks different than a Cinny Lesser looks different than a HRA Lesser. Likewise, an Acid Pastel Spotnose looks different than a Confusion Pastel Spotnose looks different than a Static Pastel Spotnose. It has nothing to do with the Pastel and the Spotnose and everything to do with the Acid/Confusion/Static
I have honestly wanted these combined for a while, since they are exactly the same thing and have been knowingly and unknowingly mixed countless times. People sometimes even tag their animals as both names. Also, there is no difference between these two lines.
You don’t know whether the polygenic makeup of the Pastel and Spotnose bloodlines, in addition to the polygenic makeup of the Confusion and Static bloodlines are the determining factor creating small variations in the phenotype. I think your conclusion is an assumption.