That is stunning!
Wow, she’s gorgeous! Her reduced patterning reminds me of a blade clown
Are you going to work her into any projects?
If so what are you thinking to pair her with?
Most of the time when trying to prove out a morph you don’t want to pair it with too many other morphs. Makes it easier to identify if you just use a normal or simple things like pastel. It could also be recessive, or it could not prove to be anything that can be passed on. It will likely take roughly 6 years to figure all of that out. Maybe longer depending on if she gives eggs when you want her to.
I’m aware of that.
I was more interested in seeing where they wanted to take the project.
First stop is a toss up between visual pied, visual clown, visual albino, or visual desert ghost. Leaning toward DG for this one. I’m going to be using simple recessives to prove all my dinkers so that when I have a crapload of normals they are at least het for something.
Smart very smart… I am going remember that
If they don’t prove to be dominant or codom I’ll sell them off as hets and keep one to breed back to see if it’s recessive. If it still fails to prove then the whole project will get sold off as an interesting normal breeder with the exception of the few that are really cool looking on their own, like the one in this post. She’s a keeper no matter what happens.
Think you got the whole thing backward there if you are gonna sell something as Het you might want to prove it first.
I could be wrong but I believe they were meaning the hatchlings that came from the dinker x visual recessive pairing could be sold as heterozygous for whatever visual recessive they were sired by even if they are “normal” Then they have a hold back to breed back to see if dinker mom is recessive.
I hope based on the wording it’s unclear
Het for the visual recessive I’m putting in, not the dinker.
I hope that it proves out for you