I’d personally rather see a primary category of the first proven mutation with sub categories of various bloodlines proven to be the same mutation, even if they are subjectively very similar or the same.
Add Trick / Blitz / Hurricane to the list when they’re soon to be proven the same single gene mutation (sorry Hans 
).
You are very plainly ignoring my statement that:
.
.
.
By your argument I cannot call BlkPastel and Cinny different because I cannot account for the polygenetic makeup of Lesser (or Pastel or Spotnose or whatever) to be the driving force in the variation in phenotype. And yet we very plainly consider BlkPastel and Cinny as two totally different things. Because, regardless of whatever other morphs they are combined with, each has independent, distinct characteristics that set them apart.
Further, if four different Acid animals are used to make four different Acid Pastel Spotnose and four different Statics are used to make four different Pastel Spotnose Static and the four APS are visually the same with one another and the four PSS are visually the same with one another but the two groups are visually distinct from one another then it also shows there are independent, distinct characteristics specific to each morph that are wholly independent to both Pastel and Spotnose.
If the addition of varied lines of both Pastel and Spotnose do not prevent the formation of distinct in-groups and out-groups, then your argument might have merit. But the fact that there are both in-groups and out-groups, regardless of the additional morphs, shows that the morphs, while related, are distinct.
I will even triple down on this one by citing Asphalt, Gravel, and Yellowbelly. On a superficial level, they are identical in both single gene and combination-level. But Freeway, Ivory, and Highway are very much distinct from one another and it has bugger all to do with polygenetics
BP and Cinnamon behave very different in various combinations don’t they? It wouldnt make sense to attribute those large differences to polygenic makeup.
I dont see how this would rule out polygenic makeup of Static and Acid being the determinative factor. That’s why I mentioned “Were they bred to the same bloodlines of Pastel”, for example. Even if they came out different you couldn’t rule out polygenic affect because it could be coming from the Static or Acid polygenic bloodlines.
Yep, read that. That’s what defines a unique single gene mutation. Still doesn’t prove or disprove whether subtle differences in combo phenotypes can be attributed to the mutation itself or the polygenic makeup of the bloodline, when compared to separate bloodlines of the same gene.
It would be like breeding a bloodline of pieds and consistently getting low white and comparing it to another bloodline of pieds consistently getting high white and assuming it’s the mutation at fault. I’d be willing to bet if you take a normal from one of those lines and breed it back into pieds you’d get the same affect tied to that particular bloodline, because it might be polygenic makeup and actually nothing to do with the mutation.
I could be wrong, don’t want to come off rude,
you’re the genetics professional, but it seems like you’re passing off an assumption as a definitive conclusion. Might be one of those agree to disagree scenarios.
No, BlkPastel and Cinny do not behave very different in combinations. In point of fact it is just the opposite, they behave quite similarly. So much so that a surprisingly high percentage of the hobby has difficulty identifying them in combos.
.
.
.
Your understanding of polygenetics appears to be skewed. For something to be polygenetic means that it involves multiple genes. So let us convert this to a visual animal with multiple genes: Asphalt Banana Fire Enchi OD. If you breed a multi-gene animal, you generate a bell-curve distribution of the genes because each individual gene will be inherited in a random manner across all the offspring:
0 genes: 3.1%
1 gene: 15.6%
2 genes: 31.3%
3 genes: 31.3%
4 genes: 15.6%
5 genes: 3.1%
If I take any random offspring from this animal, the odds that it will carry all five genes is pretty low. And with each successive breeding, the odds of picking any random offspring carrying all five genes plummets. If we go out eight generations, the odds of any random animal derived from that original founder carrying all five genes is roughly 1:9.095e-13 or one in 90 TRILLION.
Bring it back to your polygenetic influence argument. Breeding a morph that was being influenced by some polygenetic influence would show the same degradative effect over time because the “extra” genes are not consistently being passed alongside the specific morph to all of the offspring. And since Acid and Static have both been around for over a decade, my statement above that enough breeders have been working with them multiple generations removed from the founders holds true. As such, any polygenetic influence would be weaned out by this point. And even with those many generations of dilution, the morphs still behave differently from one another, the same way that BlkPastel and Cinny behave differently from one another, indicating that it is something inherent to the morph itself and not a collection of other genes being carried, undiluted, across numerous generations.
It does make sense that polygenic influence would degrade over time but is 10 years really enough to completely eliminate it? This seems similar to saying “you shouldn’t have physical similarities to your great gandfather because you’re a few generations removed”.
Admittedly I’m not real familiar with the differences between black pastel and cinnamon, aside from their reactions when combined with pied, which I understand to be quite different and distinct indicating clearly they’re different genes. I’m not sure this is analogous with Acid/Static/Confusion.
Polygenic inheritance is complex and difficult to predict.
You might be correct that the differences between Acid/Static/Confusion are independently and directly tied to the mutation but I’m skeptical it has been conclusively proven.
I recently invested fairly heavily into the confusion project. Would you mind sharing more specifically how the three lines (Static/Acid/Confusion) behave differently in combos? (maybe this should be split into a different topic)
I do appreciate your responses Travis. Much respect for your knowledge and expertise.
Given how I have seen people breeding these morphs over the years we are looking at 6-8 generations. So while I might have my great great great great grandfather’s eyes, it is probably a pretty safe bet that I likely do not have his stature and nose and jawline and blood type.
.
.
.
I am not sure I would call them quite different relative to one another - both are high white with a near total loss of pattern in the coloured areas. Pied Cinny are more prone to throwing white-headed animals but Pied Blks can do it as well. The real difference in the group comes with some of the “less extreme” alleles like Huffman or HRA or the like.
.
.
.
It can be, but at the same time it is still relatively straight forward. The genes that contribute to the trait are heritable in the same manner as any of the more common morph genes, it is just that the subtle/“silent” nature of them is not blatantly obvious like a morph would be and that makes it harder to maintain their stability across time without a serious, intentional effort
.
.
.
Acid and Confusion are very similar to one another, very much the way BlkPastel and Cinny are. And, in the same manner, there is a degree of overlap between the two when you look at the bell-curves of their expression.
Acids tend to be somewhat more granular and flecked and “dirty” than Confusion. Base Confusions tend to have more of a tendency to a dorsal stripe while base Acid tends to be somewhat more banded but, somewhat contradictory, Acid tends to generate more solid dorsal stripes in combination with BlkPastel Complex and BluEL Complex whereas Confusion tends toward a bit more broken dorsal. The Spotnose combos with them differ, but I cannot quite put what that is in to words… It is sort of that the difference in the percentage of the pattern showing extreme disruption versus normal disruption is different in a half versus two-thirds way (I am sure that does not make any sense at all…)
Static is more different from Acid/Confusion than Acid and Confusion are form each other. A very good example of this would be how Acid/Confusion Pastel Spotnose are comparable to SuperPastel Spotnose Static