I've heard this from one than one source that Super Lesser males when bred to normal females will throw an occasional normal? Anybody else got wind of this tid bit of industry gossip?

I have not but it could easily be retained sperm from the previous season.

Virgins don't retain sperm :D

Virgins don't retain sperm :D

That was my thinking also

Virgins don't retain sperm :D

Well that throws that possibility out.
I can't think of any other reason that would happen. :dunno:

is that a southern thing....

Oh, someone did a edit.......:lmao:

Well that throws that possibility out.
I can't think of any other reason that would happen. :dunno:

Perhaps the lesser x lesser = Lucy isn't a true super or homozygous lesser gene...:dunno:

Oh, someone did a edit.......:lmao:

Figured he would but I had to take a shot at it...lol

Perhaps the lesser x lesser = Lucy isn't a true super or homozygous lesser gene...:dunno:

That sounds hard to believe. :eek:

Perhaps the lesser x lesser = Lucy isn't a true super or homozygous lesser gene...:dunno:

Interesting...:dunno:

Perhaps the lesser x lesser = Lucy isn't a true super or homozygous lesser gene...:dunno:

Not a white snake kind of guy but you took the words right out of my mouth.

Bill

Perhaps the lesser x lesser = Lucy isn't a true super or homozygous lesser gene...:dunno:

so in turn what do you think it might be then or is there really no 100% super form out there....:dunno:

so in turn what do you think it might be then or is there really no 100% super form out there....:dunno:

Or maybe that there are actually wild type genes that have the ability to override... very interesting...

I was talking to buddy of mine about this a few months ago. I'm going to stick to the belief that the super lesser is a leucistic and those leucistics pass the lesser gene on to all of their offspring until I hear/read from someone directly that they had different results in their own clutches. If anyone can share their results here I'd really like to see them.

On a related note - I am breeding a lesser x mojave leucistic male to a fair number of different females this year. If he sires any offspring that don't have the lesser or mojave gene in them I will post the info here.

I suppose something weird could be going on, the lesser platinum gene is obviously an interesting one, with platties, hidden genes and what not. So of course there's a chance there's something going on we don't entirely understand.

I was talking to buddy of mine about this a few months ago. I'm going to stick to the belief that the super lesser is a leucistic and those leucistics pass the lesser gene on to all of their offspring until I hear/read from someone directly that they had different results in their own clutches. If anyone can share their results here I'd really like to see them.

On a related note - I am breeding a lesser x mojave leucistic male to a fair number of different females this year. If he sires any offspring that don't have the lesser or mojave gene in them I will post the info here.

I'm in the same boat. Unless someone has actually bred only a super lesser to a virgin female and documented everything, I'm going to remain skeptical.

If it has happened but very very rarely it could be a chromosomal aberration, like a non-disjunction or something like that.

I have a question has anyone bred a BEL to BEL yet. Ask Mike Curtin, I am not completely convinced if and when this breeding is done several times that you will always get all BEL's. I have been convinced there is more to these anomalies then we have yet to completely put together.

It's mode of inheritance is hinky IMHO.

They appear to be lucy's but infact are something else.

Huh, very interesting topic guys! I wonder though, if people are getting "normals" from a BEL to normal pairing if they are related at all to the "het platties" that Ralph Davis produces? It would be interesting to put one of them to a BEL or a lesser and see what was produced. I wonder if the ones that are throwing "normals" are from Ralphs Platty line or if it's something that pops up from any BEL to normal pairing......

I have a question has anyone bred a BEL to BEL yet. Ask Mike Curtin, I am not completely convinced if and when this breeding is done several times that you will always get all BEL's. I have been convinced there is more to these anomalies then we have yet to completely put together.

It's mode of inheritance is hinky IMHO.

They appear to be lucy's but infact are something else.

It has been done, someone had a post on KS or Fauna with a whole clutch of BELs from a mojo BEL to mojo BEL. Doesn't really answer the question with lessers though as there could be something different going on with that gene.

Or maybe that there are actually wild type genes that have the ability to override... very interesting...

I would have to go with something along these lines. The lesser gene could be a weaker gene and nature does what nature does. The fact that we even have these color/pattern mutations is based off of random gene mutation.

I know that when breeding flowers that are not the wild type color that after being line bred for so long that wild type colored flowers will begin to randomly appear. There are examples in insects too.

Nature will always try to bring things back to normal if given enough opportunities. There is a name for when this happens but I cant remember.

I hope this makes sense.. its late.

So on the other hand I was told a BEL hatched out of a pairing Lesser x normal . The person said it was Brad Boas animals but I couldn´t find it searching the net. Does anyone have heard of this ??

So on the other hand I was told a BEL hatched out of a pairing Lesser x normal . The person said it was Brad Boas animals but I couldn´t find it searching the net. Does anyone have heard of this ??

:yessir: http://www.reptileradio.net/reptileradio/showthread.php?t=9373

Thanks , seems I´m to thick to use search engines for I tried to find it here in first place:lmao:, so it´s not absolutely certain yet if this female is normal or not. Would be interesting if this pairing could be redone and with another couple of normals too. Go on folks , bring light to the BEL complex :yessir:

I would think that normale female that gave birth to a lucy is either :

1. a sort of het russo or a het platty
2. there was an error in the devolpment, and the lesser gene was used to duplicate itself to form a pair. Creating a lucy.

There is also the rumor that a super stripe gave birth to a normal, since we think that a super stripe is the homozygous form of a yb + spector. If there is a normal and nothing special and weird because of incubation happened, it means :
1. The YB and the Spector don't reside on the same allele
2. It's just a rumor, nothing true in that story.
3. The breeder put another male in there or there was sperm retention.

I read too much of sperm retention, without proof, but well. I tend to go more on the fact that for the normal from SS, that there is another male involved and the breeder haven't keep track of and can't remember. Cause so far, all the other breeding involving a SS, produced either YB or Spector, nothing else. Or may be the normal is in fact a YB or a Spector but it's too hard to see it visually.

^ Yeah, specters are difficult to tell. I, for one, probably wouldn't be able to pick one out from a group of normals. At least not with any certainty.

Sperm can be retained for over a season at least. A bush-leaguer here (was it Kat?) produced a morph that was from retained sperm from the year before.

I've heard this as well. I should hopefully know this season in person on what actually comes out of lesser x lesser lucy breedings. If I get anything other than lessers I'll be posting it.

Corey

Has anyone seen this with other homozygous co-dominants, like say a super pastel X normal? As such breedings become more common we may find that parthenogenesis happens more than would ever have been noticed pre-morph. Same for retained sperm. Maybe as genetic testing becomes less expensive some of these surprises can be tested to see if they contain only genetic material from the normal mom. Again, I think a simple paternity test would be a great asset for our industry, especially if you are selling recessive hets.

And then there are all the paradox animals. If they are chimeras there is even another twist. Maybe the homozygous lesser male has some reproductive cells from a lesser or normal sibling (i.e. he's a high white paradox).

And then there are all the paradox animals. If they are chimeras there is even another twist. Maybe the homozygous lesser male has some reproductive cells from a lesser or normal sibling (i.e. he's a high white paradox).

To me, that would be the most logical explanation.

Hard to say which is more X-Files, chimeras or parthenogenesis. As mixed morph breedings get more common we are seeing the paradox (whatever they really are) that would have been missed just breeding normals. Parthenogenesis might be fairly common in ball pythons too and between homozygous co-dominant breedings and hopefully eventually some access to genetic testing we might find proof of that also.

Perhaps the normal that came from the super pairing is the paradox.

Hard to say which is more X-Files, chimeras or parthenogenesis.

Well neither are all that odd to me but then I work in a field where the prior are commonly engineered and the latter are often used as model systems. I do get why others find them so freaky though

and hopefully eventually some access to genetic testing we might find proof of that also.

Well with the PacBio system coming online this fall I am hoping someone somewhere thinks to put one to use doing massive genome projects of all kinds of things, we can hope that balls will be one of them. If I could find a way I would be running every morph I could get my hands on over one.

Here's the results from a nine egg clutch produced by a normal bred by a lesser/mojave leucistic:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z127/jluman/lucy_x_normal.jpg

1.0 lesser
6.3 mojaves (one egg had twin mojaves :))
No normals or leucistics.