• Posted 12/19/2024.
    =====================

    I am still waiting on my developer to finish up on the Classifieds Control Panel so I can use it to encourage members into becoming paying members. Google Adsense has become a real burden on the viewing of this site, but honestly it is the ONLY source of income now that keeps it afloat. I tried offering disabling the ads being viewed by paying members, but apparently that is not enough incentive. Quite frankly, Google Adsense has dropped down to where it barely brings in enough daily to match even a single paid member per day. But it still gets the bills paid. But at what cost?

    So even without the classifieds control panel being complete, I believe I am going to have to disable those Google ads completely and likely disable some options here that have been free since going to the new platform. Like classified ad bumping, member name changes, and anything else I can use to encourage this site to be supported by the members instead of the Google Adsense ads.

    But there is risk involved. I will not pay out of pocket for very long during this last ditch experimental effort. If I find that the membership does not want to support this site with memberships, then I cannot support your being able to post your classified ads here for free. No, I am not intending to start charging for your posting ads here. I will just shut the site down and that will be it. I will be done with FaunaClassifieds. I certainly don't need this, and can live the rest of my life just fine without it. If I see that no one else really wants it to survive neither, then so be it. It goes away and you all can just go elsewhere to advertise your animals and merchandise.

    Not sure when this will take place, and I don't intend to give any further warning concerning the disabling of the Google Adsense. Just as there probably won't be any warning if I decide to close down this site. You will just come here and there will be some sort of message that the site is gone, and you have a nice day.

    I have been trying to make a go of this site for a very long time. And quite frankly, I am just tired of trying. I had hoped that enough people would be willing to help me help you all have a free outlet to offer your stuff for sale. But every year I see less and less people coming to this site, much less supporting it financially. That is fine. I tried. I retired the SerpenCo business about 14 years ago, so retiring out of this business completely is not that big if a step for me, nor will it be especially painful to do. When I was in Thailand, I did not check in here for three weeks. I didn't miss it even a little bit. So if you all want it to remain, it will be in your hands. I really don't care either way.

    =====================
    Some people have indicated that finding the method to contribute is rather difficult. And I have to admit, that it is not all that obvious. So to help, here is a thread to help as a quide. How to become a contributing member of FaunaClassifieds.

    And for the record, I will be shutting down the Google Adsense ads on January 1, 2025.
  • Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

????sunsets????

Hypo to hypo = 25% super, 50 hypo, 25% normal. Hypo is het for super just like when you breed het for albinos.

het to het= 25% albino, 50 % het, and 25% Normal.

Maby you have a super??
 
Sorry, but I do not agree with that. Take a look at the genetics wizard, it will tell you that it's 100% hypo's with 50% being possible supers. Numerous other sites give you the same outcome. My own breedings give me that outcome. I have never bred a hypo to a hypo and produced a normal. Not once and my breeders are not supers.

Griz
 
extreme_bci said:
Hypo to hypo = 25% super, 50 hypo, 25% normal. Hypo is het for super just like when you breed het for albinos.

het to het= 25% albino, 50 % het, and 25% Normal.

Maby you have a super??


What is a het to het when dealing with a hypo? There is no such thing as a het hypo when dealing with boa's. The hypo trait is a homogenous trait. Either it is a hypo or it is not. There is no het as in dealing with a recessive gene.

Griz
 
I was useing an example.

Hypos are het for super hypo. So they are a visual het. think of it just like a het albino.

Het albino to normal= about 50% het 50% normal.
You get about the same as any hypo or other co-dominant morphs.

Hypo (het for super) to normal you will get about a 50% hypo 50% normal just about the same as het albino to normal breeding.

if you look at a "co-dominant" boa as if it were a visible het, and the dominant (super) version as the actual morph.

I hope this helps.
 
Griz said:
Sorry, but I do not agree with that. Take a look at the genetics wizard, it will tell you that it's 100% hypo's with 50% being possible supers. Numerous other sites give you the same outcome. My own breedings give me that outcome. I have never bred a hypo to a hypo and produced a normal. Not once and my breeders are not supers.

Griz


If your breeding trials have proven that no normals are produced when two hypos are bred together that would seem to disprove the concensus that has been put forth here. I think it would be highly unlikely that the percentages would actually skew 25% in any given litter as to not produce any normals and 25% more hypos if the hypo to hypo does in fact act like a recessive trait.

Is there anyone else out there that believes hypo to hypo yields all hypos?

Griz, have you ever bred those hypos to normals? If so, what was the outcome?
 
extreme_bci said:
I was useing an example.

Hypos are het for super hypo. So they are a visual het. think of it just like a het albino.

Het albino to normal= about 50% het 50% normal.
You get about the same as any hypo or other co-dominant morphs.

Hypo (het for super) to normal you will get about a 50% hypo 50% normal just about the same as het albino to normal breeding.

if you look at a "co-dominant" boa as if it were a visible het, and the dominant (super) version as the actual morph.

I hope this helps.

Josh, where are you getting the het for super? I have never, in all my years, heard anyone refer to an animal as het for super.

Again, the original question I had was a hypo x hypo breeding. I have never seen a site show that you obtain normals as a result of this breeding. The fact is....that you don't. You will get 100% hypo's with 50% possible supers. The possible supers are not hypo het supers. There is no super form of the hypo gene that is distinguishable from a normal hypo (unlike a motley vs super motley). You have to breed the potential super in order to determine if it is the super form or not. The term Het is only used when dealing with a recessive gene, of which, Hypomelanism is not. It's a dominant gene therefore there is no het, whether dealing with a hypo or the super form thereof.

Please refer me to whatever pages you are reviewing that states to the contrary as your comments are completely outside of the norm. I truly do want to know. Thanks!

Griz
 
Boa4u said:
If your breeding trials have proven that no normals are produced when two hypos are bred together that would seem to disprove the concensus that has been put forth here. I think it would be highly unlikely that the percentages would actually skew 25% in any given litter as to not produce any normals and 25% more hypos if the hypo to hypo does in fact act like a recessive trait.

Is there anyone else out there that believes hypo to hypo yields all hypos?

Griz, have you ever bred those hypos to normals? If so, what was the outcome?

Do this: do a google search on the following "hypo x hypo" and tell me what you get. You will find Clay English site that shows this morph combination. Run a genetic wizard query and it will again confirm my statement. Take a look at mgreptiles morph page and it will again confirm 100% hypo's. Every site I have ever seen confirms this. I would love to see a site that states to the contrary as I have never seen this before.

Griz
 
Here is just one of many sites that confirm this:

picture.JPG
 
Griz said:
What is a het to het when dealing with a hypo? There is no such thing as a het hypo when dealing with boa's. The hypo trait is a homogenous trait. Either it is a hypo or it is not. There is no het as in dealing with a recessive gene.

Griz

Did I say anything about haveing het for hypo? No, I said look at it as if the hypo is a visible het, and the dominant (super) version as the actual morph.

How my hypo breedings have you done?

Dose anybody else understand what I'm saying?
 
Josh, can you PLEASE show me one website that states a hypo x hypo breeding results in normals? Just one.

Griz
 
Griz said:
Do this: do a google search on the following "hypo x hypo" and tell me what you get. You will find Clay English site that shows this morph combination. Run a genetic wizard query and it will again confirm my statement. Take a look at mgreptiles morph page and it will again confirm 100% hypo's. Every site I have ever seen confirms this. I would love to see a site that states to the contrary as I have never seen this before.

Griz

I'm with you Griz. I learned it the same way that you are saying and come to find that there are a lot of people here that believe differently. I did find on Salmonboa.com a genetics table that seems to agree with what people are saying here so I guess that people are finding support for both viewpoints depending on which site they are on. Will the real hypo to hypo outcome please stand up!
 
That is an interesting link. I have never seen it before. It appears to contradict not only my experience in actual breeding but the experience of numerous other breeders/websites. I would be real curious to hear more......hmm......

Griz
 
As I am sitting here reviewing Rich's site, I have to wonder why the discrepancy? I saw where a lot of his data came from the mid 1990's. I wonder if the hypo gene has gone from incomplete to complete over a period of years? I wonder if he is still obtaining that 25% ratio in breedings done as of late? This certainly makes for some interesting reading!

Griz
 
At this point in time there has been over 400 views of this thread. Anyone who has been following this thread and has not posted an opinion please do so. I think we would all like to see more opinions on this issue.

I guess a good question to ask at this point is; Has anybody bred 2 hypos together that were known not to be supers and produced normals from that pairing?
 
Griz, as the one that originally posted those percentages here, I will say that there are several genetics wizards that verified it...as well as a few people with much stronger genetics backgrounds than myself. The terms homozygous and het are not all that uncommon in conversations about hypos (or any other dom/codom trait), in my rather limited experience. Since your findings differ from the theories that I have been learning/relearning, I am going to step back and let those with a stronger background take over the explanation. If you want examples of other genetics wizards that show the same results, let me know...but you can find them just as easily with the google search you suggested earlier
 
Griz, I did the google search you recommended. Much of the stuff that came up was not applicable, but the first two that I found that referred to boas contradict what you are saying:
HYPO (X) HYPO (=) HYPO BOAS (POTENTIAL DOM), COMMONS (from Micky Hinkle's site)

Colombian Boa
Boa constrictor imperator
These are the normal offspring from a Hypo x Hypo breeding. These are some really nice looking babies (From Jeff Risher's)
 
hhmoore said:
Griz, as the one that originally posted those percentages here, I will say that there are several genetics wizards that verified it...as well as a few people with much stronger genetics backgrounds than myself. The terms homozygous and het are not all that uncommon in conversations about hypos (or any other dom/codom trait), in my rather limited experience. Since your findings differ from the theories that I have been learning/relearning, I am going to step back and let those with a stronger background take over the explanation. If you want examples of other genetics wizards that show the same results, let me know...but you can find them just as easily with the google search you suggested earlier

All I can say is that there is something going on. My own breedings (including numerous done by a good friend of mine) support my findings. However, for someone like Rich Isle to state 25% wt certainly cannot be thrown to the side! What has taken place to this gene to cause a variance of this nature? When looking at other dominate traits (ie motley) you obtain the same 100% motley outcome. Again, I have to wonder if the incomplete vs complete has some how mutated?

Things like this simply intrigue me!

Griz
 
Griz said:
What is a het to het when dealing with a hypo? There is no such thing as a het hypo when dealing with boa's. The hypo trait is a homogenous trait. Either it is a hypo or it is not. There is no het as in dealing with a recessive gene.

Griz
LOL - I was corrected on THAT issue quite awhile ago, Bob..interestingly enough, it was in a thread that YOU started. (you really need to pay better attention, rofl) Think back to when you were trying to decide what route to take with $1500.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=279884&postcount=11
 
and Josh...see what I mean about the information you get in conversations with friends. Bob and I have both expressed views that we were certain of in this very thread. More interestingly, we could both "prove" what we were saying, so anyone interacting with one of us could easily have been swayed....and passing that information along in another place and time could have gotten them corrected.
Bob is intrigued.
I am intrigued, but also very frustrated - I put aside much of what genetics I had picked up along the way, and attempted to learn the real story...now the confusion is looming. It's almost enough to make me scream (not a therapeutic scream, mind you... I just like to scream :rofl: )
 
Back
Top