Originally Posted by WebSlave

20 eggs is the total of your sample, and you are "99.999999999%" sure? Well, I bred corn snakes for a long time, and bred a LOT of het to het. 20 eggs would be the equivalent of a single clutch of eggs from a corn, and quite honestly it wouldn't surprise me in the least (and in fact, it HAS happened MANY times) to not get a target visual with ONLY those odds. One in four odds with only 20 chances really means nothing. The reality of statistics in situations like this is that you will get anywhere from NONE to ALL visuals, depending on your luck. Now if you had 100 babies, or if your odds were 50 percent (by breeding het to visual) with 40 babies, then I think your case would be on much more solid footing. Honestly, even then it would not be absolute PROOF, but the ODDS of your being correct would be much more in your favor.

Genetics is based on statistics and influenced HEAVILY by pure luck. At this point, you certainly cannot rule out the possibility that this is all just about a classic case of bad luck. Yeah, unpleasant and a kick in the teeth, but that is the plain reality of playing with genetics and literally counting your chickens before they hatch.

Also, I don't know what the situation is like in ball pythons concerning hypomelanism, but I do know that it is a real nightmare in the corn snake world, concerning incompatible, but identical looking, "hypo" genes. Lord only knows that I have had my share of banging my head on the table over such things.

Anyway, yes, I understand the REASON for this thread here on the BOI is because of Brian failing to address this with you in a timely fashion, which I believe many people will agree with you. My response HERE is focused on the fact that I believe that you just do not have a solid case for what you are claiming concerning the genetics of the animal in question here. THAT, in my opinion, is something that would be premature to use as evidence in the labelling of anyone as being responsible for any wrong-doing at this point.