Oh sorry one more. Rufecens is a locality which isn’t even on the list. Tiger is more of a line bred or combo of the rufecens and the canary dodoma and peach flame is line bred. I think those are all easily agreed on with everybody.
Hi I get what you say about the nuclears, but when you see the dodoma flames they very very similar to the Dodoma flames Warran T has out lined in the sand boa book. This line i got from custom seizures from snakes being taken from Tanzania. I dont know were the Nuclears came from?
Unfortunatly no one really knows. I’m not sure Stockwell even knows. It was so long ago that there were no real distinguished localities. From what we know now im almost positive dodoma and flame had a heavy influence. Some of warrens cal flame offspring are also super red. The difference from what you described is the lack of eye bars. It’s hard to tell. Personally I’m weary 9f anything labeled nuclear cause it’s so far removed from the original lines and they disappeared for a few years.
Thank you for fixing it.
Thank you for the reference on the flames and Dodomas. Based on your experience, do you believe these are just variants of Dodoma and we are just trying to label one as flame and the other as Dodoma based on pattern only? I’m curious of yours and others opinions on this. I bought Dodomas from Tim King (obtained from Mr Opferman, I believe) in the late 90s. At the time, in the U.S., many hobbyists were still calling these flame race. As well, in the late 90s, I purchased a Dodoma (sight unseen) from Tracy Barker. It was an adult male, but had the post-ocular stripes and head pattern. I was disappointed because I thought it was not Dodoma. She explained that not all sand boas from Dodoma lacked post-ocular stripes. Their group had a mixture of both types. It looked very much like what is now called a Cal-flame. I bred it to a Dodoma female and some of the offspring looked “Dodoma” and some others looked like the sire. Over the years I’ve wondered if Dodoma, flame, Cal-flame, and Gene X may just be variations of the same thing. Regardless, I don’t label them as the same in my collection. I label Cal-flame as such to denote Treacher Warren’s line, Dodoma for King and Barker lines, and Gene X for Holloway’s line, that way I know where they came from.
I saw the peach flame in the book, but only a picture. I didn’t notice any information. Do you happen to know the locality for these?
I see where Canary could be considered a line if someone is breeding light colored Dodomas and only getting light colored offspring. I just thought of it as a natural variant because I have litters of Dodomas that have individuals that look just as “Canary” as any but then I also have bright orange individuals and in between the spectrum, all in the same litter. So perhaps these shades of color are polygenic, but you can line breed for one variant? Should the different lines be listed singly? Good question.
Thank you for the information on your BPUK lines. I wasn’t aware of this. I look forward to seeing those eventually. I wish we could bridge the gap between the pond a little more easily, so-to-speak, so we could trade with ya’ll in the UK.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
From when i spoke to Waran all them years ago about these, i dont think dodoma flame and dodoma are the same, the flame works as a cleaning gene but linked to the dodoma with the eye bars.
They look very different to and colour is much brighter then the nice dodmas i had from you (but only in the line breeding to make the extreme red dodoma flames).
I can see the thought to the GX but as i know if you breed GX to GX dont always get all GX? (iv never hit GX paints yet (mist the odds) so you will know more about this them me.
So if it was the same would you not get normal looking dodoma (like ones with eye bars) and the more reduced pattern (ones with the splodges) in litters?? Food for thought.
I wish i knew more about were mine came from all i know is from Tanzanian. I do have cal-flames from waran but still small but i do see things very similar to the 2 lines.
As for the peach flame i had 1.1 sub adults i bought in the UK prob 15/20 years ago they was imported from the USA (i dont know from who) they do look different again more of a peach colour, but the girl was poo feeder, only bred her once and she only had boys, she now dead. so just left with boys, i am going to breed in to my dodoma flames as pattern is similar, but its what females i want to use lol
I see were you come from about the different line breeding for the colours, but could also be very small locaitys with in the dodomas ? thats why they will trow out a mix of colours.
I think the different colours should be listed as they are very different. but yes line breeding will help on the colour thing.
No probs on the info iv had people slag this line off in past as (some people only know dodomas have no eye bars!) There are nun of my line in the USA yet. Im going to put my best extreme red dodoma flame to that male i had from you ( the hold back you sent me , dont say what it is) be good to see what happens to the crossing of the 2 lines.
Yes export / import not always easy, but never say never i have a few things people want in the USA. so if you interested in export let me know on PM we can talk.
All the best from over the pond Matty
Hi all, I’m new to Sand Boa’s and trying to learn as much about them as I can the last couple months. The most confusing thing so far has been the number of sellers on Morph Market (and elsewhere) that are listing SB’s as “Het Snow”. I suppose this could be a convenient shorthand to avoid having to write out “Het Albino & Het Anery”, but I have seen several ads for snakes that listed as “Anery, Het Snow”… which just does not make sense genetically or any other way. I had to ask around, read this entire thread and Warren Treacher’s book just to be sure that “Snow” is in fact a combo of Amel and Anery, just as in the Corn Snakes I’ve been keeping for 30 years, not a separate gene! So many thanks for the clarification provided here. Is there any way to influence the SB community to stop using the term Snow incorrectly so that others who are drawn to these awesome little snakes are not as confused as I was?
The error in this thinking is if you have 2 animals that are homozygous with the same dominant gene all offspring would have that gene and also be homozygous for it.
I really appreciate having a category for Sand Boas with traits listed. However, I think it’s an issue that there is not a category for GX, only for GX Paint, which should be considered a combo. These are two separate genes. How am I supposed to list animals I produce which are GX but not Paint?
Thank you Elena!
Is that the only issue you have noticed?
It would nice to have Rufescens as a trait, as well as HRP and Hypo.
Is rufescens a locality or a trait?
Is this recessive/inc-dom…
Same question here
Rufescens = locality
HRP = trait, inheritance not totally clear but definitely genetic, possibly recessive with a line-bred component
Hypo = proven single-gene trait, definite simple recessive
So I do believe that Anerythristic and Axanthic should be separated as they are not interchangeable when speaking about other snakes.
Anerythristic is the lack of red pigmentation, while Axanthic is the lack of yellow pigmentation. Again, I do not believe they are interchangeable and should not be classified that way as it can and will confuse a lot of people who are getting into breeding KSB.
In reference to strictly KSB aren’t they the same gene that has both effects? I thought they were and these are about genes not effects of the genes.
So, I’m not an expert as I’ve only had the privilege to have one old (male?) boy, a gift from a girlfriend in
high school. This dude has had my back for 16 going on 17 years! But it was from a terrible store location in a terrible town that took until its 7 owner to figure it out. Anyways… they didn’t know but I assumed he is a normal Kenyan, nothing special about his pattern to my eye. Besides with age it gets more pixelated and confused with a paradox gene that I was taught isn’t a possible or very least, not a sustainable project. But if he can help in any way! I’m sure it would be good for him. Not getting rid of! But if dna or, i don’t actually know besides his old dna? And Im only now getting interested in breeding, so I know very little so far about genetics besides the low college level biology most learn young. there’s s few I know I won’t do, sand or rosy boas are in the list
I could be wrong on locale and /or sex… never planned to breed him and my only non-rescue animal until this last year when I started having fun with colubrids and joined this place. We will be ready to help if at all needed!
A noted issue with our taxonomy from off-site:
"Just wanted to point out an error in your taxonomic listings for sand boas. The genus Gongylophis has been invalid since 2014 and all of the sand boas you have listed with that genus name are now in Eryx. See the link below for the specifics on this change.
Boas of the World (Superfamily Booidae): A Checklist With Systematic, Taxonomic, and Conservation Assessments "
I have a few comments on some of the traits/genes for sand boas. I believe there may be some redundancy in having Paradox Albino and Paradox listed. Shouldn’t Paradox be delisted? There is no “Paradox” morph, only Paradox Albino and Paradox Snow. Gene X Paint is not one trait. Shouldn’t it be broken down into Gene X and Paint? This flaw causes inaccuracies in your Gene Calculator. Your Gene Calculator indicates that a Gene X Paint crossed with a Paint yields 100% het Paints and 100% het Gene X Paints. This is incorrect. It should yield 100% Paints and 100% het Gene X, if it is assumed that Paint is recessive, as well as Gene X.
Paradox is listed as a non-genetic trait for the random abnormality, completely separate from Paradox Albino, but a lot of people seem to get that confused. I believe HRP should be considered an ‘other trait’ not recessive. From my understanding, HRP is a linebred trait of reduced pattern anerys. Though now that I look back at the traits page, I see there’s both “Halloway Reduced Pattern” and “HRP” which are the same exact thing, just one is the acronym. There are so many mistagged animals, I would LOVE to be able to go through them myself and fix them lol
Thank you for your explanation about the non-genetic Paradox. This makes sense. However, shouldn’t only non-genetic Paradox show up when you click on that trait, instead of Paradox Albinos? Paradox Albinos are not hets for non-genetic Paradox, so couldn’t customers on MM be confused when they click on Paradox and see Paradox Albinos? I, myself, am trying to gain a better understanding of how and why these genes and traits are arranged for the sand boas on MM.
Yes, HRP is not recessive. However, I don’t believe it’s linebred (depending of definition) either, since they were not produced by breeding generations of slightly reduced pattern anerys. The first HRPs resulted from a specific breeding by Jeff Holloway. He didn’t line breed for them, similar to the way nuclears were developed by Stockwell, for example. That being noted, I’m not sure HRP fits cleanly into our mendelian genetics models. So, I am not sure which designation should be used for them.