Warren has sold hets for Blonde Albino. If it is line bred then how do you explain breeding a Blonde Albino to a normal non albino het Blonde and producing Blonde Albino babies? He has done quite a bit of work on them since acquiring them mainly working on outcrossing the line into his cal flames. I have non Paint Gene X babies from breeding an Anery Paint het Gene X to an Anery het Paint het Gene X and produced Anery Gene X het Paint and Anery Gene X Paints. Given that I have been able to reproduce P3s I would say they are a proven gene I havenât done the work crossing them into other morphs yet. I tried to concentrate on reproducing it before crossing it into other morphs. As for the Vanishing line I like many have always considered it a recessive morph as they they have been reproducing it for 10 years now. Its just that not as many people work with it and two of the main people who did kinda got out of sand boas for a time.
I agree with you on the blonde albinos which is why I talked to warren in length recently and he still says there a line bred trait. Which is why I stand with still not proven. But I also trust warren. So I dont know. If you say p3 is proven then by all means, make it a category. As far a gene ex. I get what your saying but know itâs being said that itâs not a paint related gene and it can be expressed so if anything it needs itâs own category not linked to paints. All im saying is why make categories specific to something that might change. It will only confuse people who donât know about the genetics
Dave and Tracy Barker could likely provide valuable insight on the history of Flames and Dodomas. I agree, putting morphs on the list where genetic inheritance patterns arenât better understood could lead to an unnecessary mess. Aberrant is typically used to refer to a pattern that deviates from the norm and doesnât fit into any of the commonly excepted pattern categories. However, it also usually infers thereâs no known genetic basis for why it has the pattern. I wouldnât think it should be on the list unless someone has proven genetic information on it.
Thank you for your response.
No, there are not multiple paradox albino lines. So, paradox albino and albino could be the simplest terms there.
Correct, canary is not a trait.
Flame is NOT a locality or recessive. Itâs a generic term that gets put on anything thatâs clean orange.
Blond albino is RECESSIVE. Steve Perry is the originator and Iâve spoken with him extensively over the years.
If Tommy says P3 anery is recessive then it is. He has tons of breeding experience and knows his stuff. Why continue to argue with him?
Gene X has been proven recessive.
Picasso shouldnât be on there because jeff Holloway produced the first visual paint/splash and has the right to name them.
Hi Rufus
Some the things you query are in the sand boa book from Warren.
The flame and Dodoma are different Warren lays it out in his book. They dont have the reduced pattern from some other Dodoma lines.
Peach flame is in the book to, i have some that was imported many years from USA. Its a diffrent line of locality.
Canary Dodoma is again different line to the other Dodoma lines.
should the different lines be listed singly?
BPUK line (ie my line Matt Horton) of Dodoma flames and extreme red Dodoma flames.
These are from snakes imported from Tanzania ,were the Dodoma Flames and Dodoma come from. The Extreme Red Dodoma Flames have been selectively bred to increase the colour, from the Dodoma Flames that originally come in.
They look different from Dodoma and the colour will intensify with age. Dodoma Flames and Extreme Red Dodoma Flames still have the eye bar with a very different look to them. They do not have the reduced pattern same as some the other Dodomas.
I spoke to Warren about this extensively few years ago
All the Best Matt Horton
Iâm not discrediting Tommy at all I was sampling refering to a post he maid in this thread. I also stated if he is saying its proven and recessive Iâm good with that. I also stated that I believe thereâs more to the blonde albino than line breeding but im just going by what the person whoâs worked the most on it in the last few years said. Gene x is proven recessive, I never argued that. I said itâs still not understood, itâs still being worked on to determine if itâs a stand alone gene or something related to paints. Picaso I canât speak on. I havent talked to Jeff on that one. Itâs just a gene combo anyways. As for flame it most certainly is a locality. I have pure flame in my collection now. Dodoma crossed with flame is what made cal flames. Flames are not just clean orange. There actually more of a redish color and look like a normal sandboa. That coloration is known to specifically come from a location making a locality.
Your explanation of the flame crosses you are working on sound alot like nuclears. Only thing is there was no distinction of the localities back when Stockwell was working on them. With your explanation of these line bred traits im good. Most in the states have never heard of these.
Thank you, Iâve now change it 
Just to clear something upâŚthough your point is still valid.
These wonât be separate categories but rather trait âtagsâ, sort of along the same way the Boa Constrictor page is laid out âŚ
@hillsherps @bloodpythonuk @snakelady7773 @rufus_darden @justin3242
How is the below list?
recessive
axanthic /anery
paradox albino
Albino
Blonde Albino
hypomelanistic
splash
paint
Gene X paint
Splatter
Flame
inc-Dominant
stripe - no super
Granite
Patternless
linebred
Stockwell nuclear
Thermo Nuclear
Cal Flame
Extreme red Dodoma flame BPUK Line
P3 Anery
holloway reduced pattern - hrp
combo names
Snow - albino/anerythristic
Snow Paradox - albino paradox/anerythristic
Ghost - anerythristic/hypomelanistic
Anerythristic Splash - anerythristic/splash
Nuclear Meltdown - Nuclear/Dodoma
Picasso - Paint/ Splash
Jenny Paradox Bell (JPB) - bell/paradox albino
unknown
Calico
Tiger - Rufescens X Kenyan. The non-stripes are referred to as Tigers to identify that they have the Rufescens blood in them.
Vanishing
Locality:
Flame
Dodoma
Canary Dodoma
Peach flame
I can live with that. Although you have flame in the recessive list still but I think you just forgot to delete it. The Picasso is also a visual paint and splash not a het. Aside from that I think it works unless I missed something someone else may see? And thank you for actually reaching out for the advice from others. We all may not agree 100% but we all want the same thing in the end. Difference of opinions will always be there but the sandboa community is one of the best communities in the hobby Iâve been apart of.
I think I have corrected everything now�
No, thank all of you guys for getting so involved in this!
I really appreciate all the help more than you could believe 
.
If everyone just agreed then we wouldnât end up with the correct information, debate is healthy for the hobby and you guys have shown it doesnât need to get heated to make voices heard.
Oh sorry one more. Rufecens is a locality which isnât 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?
Matty
Unfortunatly no one really knows. Iâm 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. Itâs hard to tell. Personally Iâm weary 9f anything labeled nuclear cause itâs so far removed from the original lines and they disappeared for a few years.
Thank you for fixing it.
Hi Matt,
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? Iâm 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 âDodomaâ and some others looked like the sire. Over the years Iâve wondered if Dodoma, flame, Cal-flame, and Gene X may just be variations of the same thing. Regardless, I donât label them as the same in my collection. I label Cal-flame as such to denote Treacher Warrenâs line, Dodoma for King and Barker lines, and Gene X for Hollowayâs line, that way I know where they came from.
I saw the peach flame in the book, but only a picture. I didnât 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 âCanaryâ 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 wasnât 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 yaâll in the UK.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
Rufus
Morning Rufus
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, Iâm new to Sand Boaâs 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 SBâs as âHet Snowâ. I suppose this could be a convenient shorthand to avoid having to write out âHet Albino & Het Aneryâ, but I have seen several ads for snakes that listed as âAnery, Het Snowâ⌠which just does not make sense genetically or any other way. I had to ask around, read this entire thread and Warren Treacherâs book just to be sure that âSnowâ is in fact a combo of Amel and Anery, just as in the Corn Snakes Iâve 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 itâs 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?