Rosy Boa New Mutations Request

[thebreedinglab]

Thank you for your response. With respect, I think some of your questions highlight just how complex Rosy Boas can be. It can definitely get confusing, since we’re dealing with mutations, localities, and hybrids, and the way these interact isn’t always straightforward. That’s exactly why proper labeling is so important, especially when locality-based mutations are involved.

The Picasso is already an example of this type of work, combining multiple localities and mutations into something distinct. The Skittles Project is simply another step in that direction, but with one very important purpose: to clearly differentiate its lines and ensure that the four base mutations remain separate. The concern is that without this clarity, someone could take an albino or an anery from this line, cross it back, and try to represent it as a pure locality animal. That would be misleading, and in the context of Rosy Boas, potentially damaging. Localities are considered sacred, and crossing them back in without distinction would have long-term negative effects. This may not carry the same weight in species like ball pythons, but for Rosy Boas it is essential.

This isn’t simply a personal project I am trying to push. These animals cannot just be labeled as something they are not, and that distinction matters for the integrity of both localities and mutations. The differences are visible, but I understand it can take time to fully appreciate them. My hope is that conversations like this encourage learning and clarity, rather than create unnecessary doubt.

To be transparent, I honestly wish this was something I could discuss directly with a moderator rather than in an open thread. The risk with open discussion is that people without the background or context can sometimes shut down a very straightforward project by comparing apples to oranges. The only reason I feel the need to respond here is to make sure this does not snowball in the wrong direction, because that could not be farther from the truth of what this project represents.

I truly am trying to be respectful and keep this discussion constructive.

[thebreedinglab]

Here are a few additional photos for context. They include not only the base morphs but also their combinations shown side by side. The results speak for themselves, and these animals cannot simply be replicated. To create anything similar would take at least a decade of intentional breeding, and aside from the Picasso, there is nothing else in Rosy Boas that compares to this.

I understand the argument that this could be replicated in theory, but reaching the fifth generation with these results is highly unlikely. This is why labeling it differently is so important, as it prevents anyone from accidentally crossing localities and misrepresenting the animals. Any Rosy Boa keeper familiar with these projects will recognize that nothing like this is currently available on the market.

[t_h_wyman]

Hi

Actual geneticist here

There is nothing here that warrants new trait tags. These are not new morphs.This is, as was been clearly pointed out, a marketing project and nothing more

The variations you are seeing are down to two simple things 1) Crossing localities (which, by their nature have enrichment for certain population-specific genetic adaptations) and 2) Genetic variability following outcrossing (the well known and documented F2 diversity effect)
.
.
.

@thebreedinglab

it is essential for Rosy Boa keepers and breeders to know if there has been localities mixed into the mutation by crossing

There is already a very well established way to do this: proper labeling

Other areas of the hobby with localities or species complexes have been doing it for decades - alterna, carpet pythons, retics, chondros… And none of them have needed (nor requested) new morph trait tiles because they are absolutely unneeded

[thebreedinglab]

I am not a geneticist, but I have dedicated my life to the reptile trade. I have a deep understanding of the market and I know how quickly things can get confusing if we are not precise. That is why I believe this clarity is important.

I want to stress again that this is not about marketing. My goal is simply to label these animals accurately rather than applying multiple labels that do not reflect what they truly are. Using “albino coastal” or “black Ortiz” as trait tags would not be correct, because the animals are no longer those. I felt that one trait tag would bring more clarity, and ultimately help prevent people from crossing localities by mistake.

There are also some areas in the Rosy Boa category that could use clarification. For example, the Picasso is a well-known cross involving multiple localities and mutations, yet it is currently listed as a single recessive trait. That is not accurate. And no one calls that a marketing ploy or uses any “hybrid tag”. Another example is with ball pythons: microscale and scaleless are listed as separate mutations, when in fact they are the exact same thing. The original microscale animals came directly from BHB, and some of those animals were even taken and renamed. If those are considered separate, it raises the question of where we draw the line on consistency across species.

I completely understand that the genetics involved here originated from existing traits, but at some point the results become distinct enough that they need to be recognized differently. For example, the albino coastal has a jagged pattern, while the albino from the Skittles line has a completely clean, unbroken stripe. The anery coastal is a unicolor gray animal and the anery in this line has a solid stripe and is blue. The Melanistic out of Ortiz is a solid wide black stripe and out of the skittles it is much thinner and not nearly as clean as a pure Ortiz. Not to mention the polygenic trait that has appeared with the zipper look. I have no problem with multiple tags if needed, but it is still misleading, since someone might assume that breeding those tags together would produce a Skittles animal, which is not the case.

My goal here is to bring clarity to the Rosy Boa category. There are also many missing localities and locale specific mutations that have not yet been added, which would be valuable for the community.

Here is another example already within the Rosy Boa categories. Albino Arizona “chocolate” is listed as a mutation, but that is not even a recognized locality. It is actually an albino Harquahala that was labeled differently. This shows exactly why consistency is so important. Rosy Boas are both locality-specific and can carry locality-specific mutations. Without careful labeling, these differences become blurred, and that misrepresents the animals being sold.

I believe there should be a clear protocol for situations like this. Simply labeling with existing tags or traits would be inaccurate, regardless of whether the genetics originated from already recognized sources. When the phenotype has changed to the point that it consistently looks different, it should be labeled in a way that reflects that reality. Someone should not be able to breed an albino Skittles to an albino coastal and label it as just an albino coastal. Or anery or melanistic. Rosy Boas, unlike most other categories, have specific localities, and their morphs are tied to those localities.

Another example is with Genetic Stripe reticulated pythons. They all originated from a Selayer locality animal, yet no one is required to list Selayer in every single trait. The same principle should apply here.

At the end of the day, this entire platform is called MorphMarket. For those suggesting this is a marketing ploy, I understand why you say that. For decades, people have been misled by certain ball python breeders selling “new morphs” at astronomical prices. But Rosy Boas are not in that category. There simply is not a large enough market for this to be about hype. The most expensive Rosy Boa I have ever sold was $3,000, which is nothing compared to the tens of thousands that ball python morphs sometimes demand. They simply do not produce enough offspring to be able to become a pyramid scheme.

This is not about creating hype. It is about consistency and accuracy. As a Rosy Boa keeper, I know others in the community would want these animals labeled separately for the benefit of new keepers. I personally think the Skittles tag, along with a hybrid tag, would be the most appropriate. But if there is another approach moderators feel is best, I am open to that. My only goal is clarity. And I believed since having an expertise in this field I could help with that, but if immediately someone gets attacked for having having something new and gets told they are just trying to make a marketing ploy it is a bit sad to see how hostile this community has turned and why many experts shy away from forums like these. All I wanted to do is have accurate labeling for this project, I’m never going to be a millionaire off rosy boas lol. At the end of the day this is a hobby and all I’m trying to do is that. The tags available cannot accurately label what this is anymore. Someone will end up breeding a skittles to a normal coastal and try to claim its one or the other, it has been done in the past and will surely be done again.

[noodlehaus]

@thebreedinglab

My goal is simply to label these animals accurately rather than applying multiple labels that do not reflect what they truly are. Using “albino coastal” or “black Ortiz” as trait tags would not be correct, because the animals are no longer those.

Except for the fact that “Albino (Costal)” only indicates the origin of that form of Albino, not what the animal itself is. The combination of tags gives you the clarity. Adding more tags currently just muddles things. These mutations originated from, and are compatible with already listed traits. That said, and putting this in bold so it’s not missed, I spoke with Thomas and there are changes coming to the rosy boa category. Your suggested additions will likely be addressed when those come online.

@thebreedinglab

Another example is with ball pythons: microscale and scaleless are listed as separate mutations, when in fact they are the exact same thing.

To correct you here, they absolutely are not listed as separate mutations. I suspect you are confusing the fact that there are two separate genes that produce scaleless animals in their homozygous form. Microscale is the heterozygous, scaleless is the homo. Scaleless head is a different, and at least to my knowledge, unrelated gene that also has a scaleless homozygous form. So both homozygous forms are scaleless, but the genes are distinct and breeding a microscale to a scaleless head will not produce a scaleless animal. That is why they are labeled the way they are.

[caron]

That Albino Skittles is so so pretty as well! But they’re all nice Edward!

[thebreedinglab]

I was fortunate to talk with Brian before his passing. I was invested in the scaleless ball python project a decade ago.He told me flat out a former employee replaced scaleless head animals with normals and then turned around and sold them as microscales. I’m not trying to stir the pot by any means. Just the fact is with the trait tags currently available I would be misrepresenting the animals I have and I don’t want someone that doesn’t have the knowledge or time to fully understand be able to easily identify that these are no longer the same as what the originated from. Two different species, two different localities within the species. 3 separate recessive mutations from two locale specific animals and 1 polygenic trait. I’m just trying to help keep track of the animals as best as possible. Rosy boa keepers appreciate accurate record keeping because like I mentioned the waters can get murky quick. Want to avoid what’s happened with Honduran milk snake mutations.

[armiyana]

@thebreedinglab

was fortunate to talk with Brian before his passing. I was invested in the scaleless ball python project a decade ago.He told me flat out a former employee replaced scaleless head animals with normals and then turned around and sold them as microscales. I’m not trying to stir the pot by any means.

This is absolutely incorrect. You are thinking of the Sunset gene. Which is a recessive. If you need me to look up the BHB vlog for you I will.

Bob Clark is the breeder who verified scaleless and microscale were incompatible.

[kabre]

@thebreedinglab

Two different species, two different localities within the species. 3 separate recessive mutations from two locale specific animals and 1 polygenic trait.

Wouldn’t these be the things you’d want to tag these guys as, then?

As far as I’m aware there isn’t really tagging in place for line-bred combos on MorphMarket, nor would most people find project line tagging useful. I think that’s why everyone’s thinking this is a marketing scheme; it really only would ever get used by you, while also implicitly putting “Skittles” the line-bred trait on the same level as single-gene mutations. Other line-bred projects (and there are plenty of other cool line-bred projects out there!) don’t enjoy that same privilege, so I’m not certain why Skittles would be an exception.

(Now, if what you’re trying to do is come up with a combo name for your particular multi-gene combo, we don’t tag like that in the BP section for things like Queen Bee, etc, either.)

You’ve created gorgeous and unique snakes, but tagging is a community project: it’s something meant to be useful to multiple people. Tagging for individual genes – albino, anery, etc – tells other people what these snakes can be bred with to produce further albinos or anerys or etc. To be frank, no other breeder is going to need to know if something is Skittles, since it’s not a replicable trait outside of further line breeding. They might care if it’s a hybrid, but from what I understand you are trying to argue that “Skittles” matters as much as “hybrid”, which genetically doesn’t bear out.

Just to be clear, this isn’t intended an attack; I’m just not sure you’re clear on what the tagging system is actually attempting to accomplish, in terms of meaningfully communicating genetic traits.