Thread: What is, and what is not, a pastel?

I am one of Jeff Ronne's biggest fans. I think what this man has done for the boa industry is ABSOLUTELY UNMATCHED by anyone! He has contributed more to the mass understanding and propagation of these amazing animals than anyone else, that alone ranks him #1 in my mind in the not-yet-created Boa Hall of Fame.

Additionally, Jeff has discovered and shared multiple mutations with the rest of us. The most important, IMO, is the "pastel" boa.

It's been a decade since Jeff first described the pastel trait and ever since, it's been twisted intentionally and unintentionally by those who wish to capitalize on it as well as those who simply haven't had access to the proper information (respectively). So, I wanted to lay it out, once again, so everyone can finally get back on the same page again (for however short a period of time it will be).

The following excerpt was taken from a VERY long post (perhaps Jeff's longest ever?? ehhh... maybe not! lol). I've trimmed it down to only include the parts relevant to this discussion at this time. I'll put three periods between sentences that do not originally go together but that I've placed next to each other for the sake of this cohesive point. Additionally, any bolded words were placed there by me for emphasis.

...what is a "Pastel"? ... A Pastel is this: A Boa that has an odd overall wash lacking the normal amount of black and a reduction in black pigmentation in particular throughout the pattern. This is particularly apparent in babies, which have the same kind of washed out pattern as Hypos. The saddles as well as the side blotches have less black than "normal". In fact, often the side blotches have no black whatsoever. That's it, no more no less. ... Identifying Pastels can be and is subjective. It is very much a matter of opinion. There are definitely degrees of "Pastelism". How much Pastelism is required to label an animal "Pastel"? I don't know what measure others may use, but I know what I look for in babies. I look for nearly no black in the side pattern. A very small amount of black can be found but nearly none normally. Sorry this can't be more definitive but it just can't. Now what is the cause of this Pastel trait? Dennis Sergeant has shown a picture of a Pastel Boa to Louis Porras. Louis said he had seen imports like these years ago and that he believed they had two of four layers of black missing. This sounds as good as anything else to me. I am not sure how and why it works, but work it does. ... Color is something that is enhanced by the Pastel trait not something that defines it at all. I have had Boas with tons of color that were not what I would call "Pastel". Color alone does not a Pastel make. ... color is not a deciding factor as to whether or not a Boa is Pastel. Remember a Pastel has an odd wash and an obvious reduction of black.

The above (Frankensteined) quote was taken from: The History of Pastel Dream Colombian Boas

To illustrate the point that COLOR has absolutely nothing to do with a "pastel" boa, I'd like to post a few pictures of a lesser known, but equally beautiful (IMO) pastel line. The "Davey Pastel" line.











As you can see, this boa is CLEARLY a pastel based on the reduction of black in the saddles and side badges as Jeff has mandated via his original definition. Yet, it doesn't have the pink/red coloration that many expect a "pastel" boa to have.

I hope that the quote I placed above along with the pictures supplied illustrate the extreme diversity in pastel boas as well as what an actual pastel should look like. Please remember when determining whether a boa is a pastel or not:

color is not a deciding factor as to whether or not a Boa is Pastel.

Thanks for reading!
jb

Thank you very much for this post! I've heard so many different things on pastels that for me it was probably one of the more confusing traits for me to really figure out, and such contradictions that often had my head spinning until I gave up on understanding it at all. I never did any real research on it, just heard a bit here and a bit there.

The term coined by Jeff is abused, but unfortuantely Jeff seems to have this happen a lot. I see a lot of "Ivory Anery" that are hardly even Pastel-quality Anery , let alone one of Jeffs godlike Ivory Anery boas (the best there is). I think he should look in to trademarking his termanology!

It's an interesting topic, and one that extends far beyond Pastels and in to other polygenic traits like the "coral" albinos.

Thanks for the kudos @MissTwib and @bterrill

Originally Posted by bterrill

It's an interesting topic, and one that extends far beyond Pastels and in to other polygenic traits like the "coral" albinos.

Agree COMPLETELY! As much as I like to think that this hobby is made up of ONLY well intentioned people who are honest and honorable, it's not. There are a lot of people out there who allow $ to compromise their ethics.

jb

Great post jb. true pastels are amazing!!
And, yes, I think jeff has done more to the boa world than anyone to this point. He published articles in times when there weren´t so much info available out there.

Thank you for sharing.

I think money is a big problem dealing with it, but far from the only thing. I had originally wrote several paragraphs in my initial post but I axed most as it involved too much beyond the simple Pastel abuse, but rather in to abuse in general of termanolgy and even other polygenic traits. I did that for nothing, because I'm about to go ahead and re-write most of my thoughts.

I think first and foremost the labeling abuse is not done with evil intentions in mind. I want to again revist Pete Khals Coral albino, because it's so well known and one of the only long-term polygenic traits people still desire and breed for.

I will show a quick picture, and this is from Morgans Boas here on RTB from a diff thread. I actually do not know if this is a "coral" in the sense it's direct from Pete or not. The boa I originally intended to use was labeled Coral, and not from Pete or even his stock, but fauna would not let me take the picture and it's against the rules to post ads here so yeah.

For my example, lets assume that Morgans Boas boa here came from a run of the mill banana x banana albino breeding. All yellow no real color.

[/QUOTE]

Is this a Coral Albino? Well that depends on how you look at it.
1) Technically no. It's not a coral albino, because Pete Khal did not produce it. This is where most leave it, and I disagree.
2) Yes, because it looks like one

I stand on #2, firmly. Yet, on the other hand, I know it's not a coral albino, in the sense it's not from PK. The problem is that everyone in the world associates huge crazy blushing with the coral albinos. Just like they associate reduced black and wash and overall cleanliness with Pastels. Whether Jeff made them or not is irrevelant (to the majority). You won't convince anyone that a Summit is not a Pastel or that an Inferno is not a Pastel line. They are. The problem is only that Jeffs term "Pastel" was adopted by others to describe the very thing he started to market.

Jeff did not really invent the Pastel boa, he coined the term. Pastel boas have always been around... just people either had no idea that they could get more money for them ,or back then boas were boas and the asthetics of one wasn't really any selling point.

Back to the only other polygenic trait I can think of that is as common as a Pastel, the coral. I think anyone who loves corals (again I'm abusing the term because there is no other term to use) knows all about the Groovy Girl and that line of "corals". They however did not come from Pete Khal stock as far as I know, and were actually contained suri blood (25%) yet Groovy Girl is still the best coral albino I have ever seen in my life, and no one in their right mind can even begin to say it's not a coral albino simply because it didn't come from Pete. This is the issue (for me)!

The only solution that seems to work is to invent your own line,eg: the groovy line (boamorph). This is far from just getting a litter and saying "check out my new zerpzerp boas! They are like every other one but better because of X!" So.. we steal terms or trait names that match our stuff and everyone knows. Of course... that's the double edged sword. If I'm new and I seen groovy girl or groovy corals or petes corals or any non-technical-coral-but-still-corals (JeffS PD Albinos!) then I go buy this "Coral Albino" and guess what. It's freaking banana ! and ONLY banana!

And this is what happens. With Corals, With Ivorys, With Pastels. With probable and possible. Do you know how many possible super hypos I see for sale , with parents listed, where both parents are not even hypos???? But, but, dude , it has like no black in its tail. Most hypos don't. and I've seen proven super hypos that had more than enough freckling that it was borderline fugly.

I did not mean to make it all about the albino though, it's just as a coral fanatic (and I actually dislike albinos!) I see the misleading and utter abuse of that term so often, yet I'll still click EVERY SINGLE "coral albino" sale looking for one that is the real deal. They are rare , but out there, and by real deal I mean trait expression. I care not one bit if Pete Khal made it or not (should I?) only that it expresses the trait as extreme as I can afford it to be.

Pastel, well, its much easier to get away with... because even though you and even Jeff pointed out coloration is not in the equation, yet you can take a clean colorful boa and sell it as a Pastel. It takes little effort these days either, because almost every boa is fairly clean and colorful from the generations of selective breeding and line-breeding for that.

It's also no different then having a fairly decent looking wildtype that happens to have a very good head spear and sayingi ts "probable jungle" when you know darn well it's not.

There is a whole lot wrong with all of this, but it's never going to end, and it's hardly fixable. And as unfortuante as it may be, it is much easier to steal (that's what we are doing) terms coined by othersthat are popular than to create a line or anew name.

Now I have seen people do it though. I've seen bubblegum, coralized, and a million other names applied to blushed out and uber-pink albinos. It seems silly. Just call it a coral, but don't call it one if it's not expressing the trait properly, and definitly don't call your 6 month old or less baby a coral because you can't even tell at this age.

And the very post I stole that picture from, Morgans Boas makes one darn good point (which I think he used the picture to prove). Those two in the pic are brothers he produced, and both were the same looking as babies. It takes months or 1 year or so before that blush really comes in.. so you can't call anything a coral at birth, or even in3 months.

I don't even want to talk about het corals. Heh.

But yeah... don't know, it's annoying to see, but ... for terms like coral and pastel, it's generally fine in my opinion since the animals match, but there's many who don't, just like probable / possible jungles. Or "hmm no black on this tail, prolly super hypo even though I bred a hypo to an albino". Yeah, ok.

I feel bad for uneducated buyers, yet, at the same time I do not because one should not be throwing money at things they do not yet understand. I'm split, on both my sympathy for those buyers, and on the abuse/usage/theft on coined terms that suit what you are selling.

It's an interesting topic , and one that will always be debated at greath lengths. Buyers will still suffer,and people will still lean on either side of the fence without changing their stance. I will always be on the side that you can make or have a Pastel boa that is not from Jeff, though I will never think you can have an Ivory anery that is not from jeff. There is no technical difference, as Ivory is clearly something extra visually than regular anery boas, just like Pastels are visible different. So it's odd in this respect. I'll also never quit calling blushed out binos corals, even though I have tried many times and know it's technically incorrect.

If I could zap everyone in the boa industry to come up with a new term to describe ANYPRODUCED boa that looks like <pastel/coral> then we could all quit stealing the terms but it'll never happen.

And while I dream of working on my own coral bloodline, it's hardly a simple process, and it takes generations and years. Most arne't going to bother, and even though I want to do this, and probably will, not every albino is going to have the trait, nor will all be extreme. Just, every generation I can hopefully improve that and maybe in 10 years you'd be able to get very high %s of your binos crazy coral if you use my line, but it's all a pipe dream, and most of all, a lot of freaking work. This is why I look up to people like Jeff, not because he has everythingin the world x1000 or makes great cages, but because he has the dedication and passion to create things most of us would not even put the time to do. And you HAVE to respect that. Not to mention for every single anery hater I run in to I can show them an ivory anery and tell them to explain how that is dark, ugly, and brown. Thanks Jeff !

You only have to look at the Ivory Anery to realize that such work is well worth it. It's just night and day to see one of those next to even a good looking anery, let alone an average one.

I absolutely see what you're saying @bterrill with regards to the Coral albinos, but I do see it differently - more along the lines of "technically correct" (I guess I'm a stickler for specifics).

I see the Coral albino issue just as I do the jungle issue. If it didn't originate somehow from the original line (Swedish/Brandle line) AND express the traits, then it's not the jungle mutation. I think the problem occurs with the naming of the line. Pete chose a physical descriptor as the name of the line of albinos (Coral - for the coral color/appearance). Whereas with "jungle", that's NOT a physical descriptor as the boa doesn't look like an Amazonian Rainforest! lol

However, with pastels - Jeff has given permission for others to use it openly as long as it fits the definition - so I don't see any issue whatsoever with Summit pastel (I have one from that line in hypo jungle form), Davey pastel, etc.

However, I would have an issue with someone producing a pastel boa from new lines and calling it a Summit pastel - because it's not from that line. IMO, that's a slap in the face to Brandon who spent a great deal of time, effort, and money to produce and market those exceptional animals (just as Pete and Lars Brandle did with the Jungle gene). Just as a really colorful albino with otherwise untraceable lineage isn't a "Coral".

...just my thoughts

jb

Oh I did not mean to call your animal a Summit if it was random. I only mean if you produce an obvious pastel from 2 normals you should be able to call it a Pastel whether it come from Jeff, or Summit, or Davey, or even the Kubsh or whatever line (anything). Just the term "pastel" in general.

I think the jungle thing is not anything I want to argue about -- but I get your point on that, and in a genetic sense I wouldn't even disagree with you, but in a polygenic sense I would have to jump back to the other side of the fence...!

My example was if I breed my bino (which is a pete khal, I got second hand from Tim K @ Special K) , which is about as low expression of a coral as you can get [I don't call her one, she has pink head and some blush but not enough to call her one] to X and I hold back 2 sunglow females and a bino male. 1 year later 1 of them is crazy blushed. Can I not call this a Coral? I know I would, because I don't know what else to call it. I would NOT call the other 2 corals, simply because they do not express the trait. For the one that did , I personally have no beef if someone does that. To call em corals just because it is an easier sell..well I would like to slap you. But it's easy to just skip the bs on corals because if you know much about them you know no baby can be called a coral the pigment hasn't developed yet. So don't even look at "corals" less than 9-24mo cos it aint happening most likely! Some do show at 6 months or so but most of the real crazy stuff takes a long long time to come in. It's no different than the red on a hypo. Hypos are very different at 6 months and 2 yrs old in coloration.

For me, in polygenic sense, if you express the trait I have no problems with you using the name at all (coral, pastel, I am NOT saying to call it a pastel dream or red group etc - that is wrong! , but "pastel" yes[for me]). And the only reason I don't have issues with it is because I do not know what else you would be able to call it where everyone would know exactly what you are talking about. This is my entire issue with it and why I also abuse the terms myself.

It is much better if you have time and dedication to create your own bloodline, whether for pastels, albino(coraling), or anerys, or even hypos (WHY can I never find a rich red hypo with BIG THICK SADDLES instead of non-existant half broken thin squiggly lines?) but this is not an option for most.... so instead they just take the trait name. I think like you mentioned it only made it easier since he used a physical descriptor to name it. The reason I have beef with people using Ivory Anery when it's not from Jeff is because they could label them Pastel Anery instead, which is OK with me.

I think more or less we agree on everything, but we are on the opposite sides of the fence. I don't want to be, and I wouldn't be, if there was some way to give us the general term , which is well known, that can be applied to anyones boa, but it's simply not there.

I got zero issues with whichever side people reside on , but I think a lot of people (not the sellers, those people are scum IMO) use them simply because there's nothing else to use which people can identify with.

I rarely ever disagree with you JB, and even if I do, I always enjoy reading your stuff.

Great post JB! THank you.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Brady

I am one of Jeff Ronne's biggest fans. I think what this man has done for the boa industry is ABSOLUTELY UNMATCHED by anyone! He has contributed more to the mass understanding and propagation of these amazing animals than anyone else, that alone ranks him #1 in my mind in the not-yet-created Boa Hall of Fame.

Additionally, Jeff has discovered and shared multiple mutations with the rest of us. The most important, IMO, is the "pastel" boa.

It's been a decade since Jeff first described the pastel trait and ever since, it's been twisted intentionally and unintentionally by those who wish to capitalize on it as well as those who simply haven't had access to the proper information (respectively). So, I wanted to lay it out, once again, so everyone can finally get back on the same page again (for however short a period of time it will be).

The following excerpt was taken from a VERY long post (perhaps Jeff's longest ever?? ehhh... maybe not! lol). I've trimmed it down to only include the parts relevant to this discussion at this time. I'll put three periods between sentences that do not originally go together but that I've placed next to each other for the sake of this cohesive point. Additionally, any bolded words were placed there by me for emphasis.



The above (Frankensteined) quote was taken from: The History of Pastel Dream Colombian Boas

To illustrate the point that COLOR has absolutely nothing to do with a "pastel" boa, I'd like to post a few pictures of a lesser known, but equally beautiful (IMO) pastel line. The "Davey Pastel" line.











As you can see, this boa is CLEARLY a pastel based on the reduction of black in the saddles and side badges as Jeff has mandated via his original definition. Yet, it doesn't have the pink/red coloration that many expect a "pastel" boa to have.

I hope that the quote I placed above along with the pictures supplied illustrate the extreme diversity in pastel boas as well as what an actual pastel should look like. Please remember when determining whether a boa is a pastel or not:



Thanks for reading!
jb

Here is a Super Duper Light Pastel produced by Chris C Smith and obtained by Jeff Ronne
This wonderful example of a Pastel male was combined with a beautiful Colombian import
Fem that as a youngster had a beautiful Purple hue type color

She was called the "Purple Pastel" I can't find her pictures

The two Beautiful Pastels were bred together to produce the Purple P Litter a Litter of Ultra Light Pastels


Chris Canada-Smith Super Duper Pastel




Purple "P" Litter 5/26/08







purple-ps-10-6-7-08





purple-ps-1-6-7-08







ultra-pastel-m-1-1-10



"Ultra Pastel" baby





purple-ps-9-6-7-08




As far as Pastel Boas go these really fgit the original description and tagging them as Ultra Pastel is absolutely fitting !

bt, I think you're talking about two different things. One is using "pastel" as a descriptor, which is perfectly valid no matter where the parents came from, as long as it fits the definition of "pastel". The other is referring to animals by the line they come from. Anyone can call their boa a pastel, but it's only a Pastel Dream if it can be traced back to The Boa Blackhole. A line is more like a trademark then: in other words, all Infernos are pastels; not all pastels are Infernos.

Coral is a little bit different simply because every Kahl albino in captivity can be traced back to PK. If it looks like a Coral and quacks like a Coral, it's probably a Coral. It could be 5 generations removed from Pete's animals, but if it displays the trait, it could probably be traced back to the original Coral.

I do see confusion sometimes with the Ivory line. I think some people out there don't realize that it's a line that has to have originated in Cannon Falls, and label any pastel anery "Ivory". You could have the nicest lightest cleanest pastel aneries on the planet, but it's still not an Ivory if it didn't come from Jeff. Heck, you can name it whatever you want, but Ivory is taken.

Edit: I was waiting for Larry Larry Larry Larry to chime in with some sweet pictures. Hi Larry!

I seem to disagree with a lot of you.

I think you should name the mutation / morph. THEN the line if you like.
How confusing and stupid (IMO) would it be if each morph line had its own name?

That is the problem now (again, IMO) with pastel.
You look on Kingsnake or Fauna and there are ads for Ferrari, or Ultra, or whatever...
That don't mention what the snake is at all.
The average person has no clue what that means, and that they're just lines of pastel.

So, the mutation always needs a name IMO, regardless of who discovers it.
If I came up with my own strain of Motley's could I just call them Grumpy's?
That just seems silly and way too complicated.

Originally Posted by natieb

bt, I think you're talking about two different things. One is using "pastel" as a descriptor, which is perfectly valid no matter where the parents came from, as long as it fits the definition of "pastel". The other is referring to animals by the line they come from. Anyone can call their boa a pastel, but it's only a Pastel Dream if it can be traced back to The Boa Blackhole. A line is more like a trademark then: in other words, all Infernos are pastels; not all pastels are Infernos.

Coral is a little bit different simply because every Kahl albino in captivity can be traced back to PK. If it looks like a Coral and quacks like a Coral, it's probably a Coral. It could be 5 generations removed from Pete's animals, but if it displays the trait, it could probably be traced back to the original Coral.

I do see confusion sometimes with the Ivory line. I think some people out there don't realize that it's a line that has to have originated in Cannon Falls, and label any pastel anery "Ivory". You could have the nicest lightest cleanest pastel aneries on the planet, but it's still not an Ivory if it didn't come from Jeff. Heck, you can name it whatever you want, but Ivory is taken.

This makes more sense to me than some of the other posts.

I think what confuses people the most, especially when comming from the ball python world, is that there is no "pastel gene." I would not consider it a morph at all. It is a term for selectively breed cleaner (reduced black, esp spots/speckling.)

This is a very interesting thread. Thank you JB for posting this. It actually opens up alot more boas to being Pastel. Since many people get on their high horse, including myself and consider pastel the coloration ALONG with being clean.
Basically if being washed out and clean is the only real criteria AND Jeff said himself its subjective, then that leave me optimistic. (Mostly because I would like nothing more than to start my own line of pastels)

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

Cay:Of course it's not genetic, its polygenic just like the coral albinos which is what this entire thing was about. People who do not understand this are the people that are taken advantage of and what JB and I were more or less talking about -- sellers ripping people off.


However, it extends beyond something as simple as labelling stuff pastels (pastel is not special, it's just so common to see that its the easiest to get away with). It extends in to the "probables" and "possibles" and "low expressions" and many other things. I would of rather the thread been about this more so than specifically pastels, which is why I took my original post and just kind of ... didn't bother, and why I won't anymore on this thread.

Nate: I am talking about two different things (actually 3 or 4) -- but because JB and I went off in to a sub-discussion about sellers abusing termanology in general. Ironincally, based on your reply, it was people like you who I wished to have discuss this. Because you contradict yourself completely , and I want to know why it's acceptable to do so on one thing and not another but it seems most everyone missed that completely.

And even though I think I've re-clarified this numerous times, I'll do it again, no I didn't say to call your pastel a summit or anything that is absurd.

Single gene mutations, polygenic mutations, and bloodlines. The line between each often gets blurred unfortunately. Whether or not an animal possess the necessary markers to be subjectively identified applies to both single gene mutations (ex, jungles) and polygenic (ex, pastel) ones. Bloodlines are applied to a family of animals with traits that are deemed special by the observer. Subjectivity is abound - makes for good forum debate, eh?! Good post JB.

Originally Posted by bterrill

Because you contradict yourself completely , and I want to know why it's acceptable to do so on one thing and not another but it seems most everyone missed that completely.

How so? All I'm saying is that "pastel" is a definition of a specific appearance, just like "laddertail" or "floating saddles", and that no one has a monopoly on its use.

Im probably gonna get burned for this one. But I never understood why people got so up in arms about the term Pastel. Personally, and I could be way off, I think Jeff came up with that term for everyone to use to define a look of a boa. His pastels are not just called "pastel" His pastels are "ivory", "Dream", etc. (I know there are more but you get what I am saying)
I am if I find a boa and line breed it and it fits the descriptions of a "Pastel" then I will have Pastels, but the line should be noted with a name.

Now "Coral" all depends on what Pete was using it for. If he used it to describe the coloration, then everyone should be able to use that term when there are those colors present. And as was noted, it most likely came from his line anyway.
If he used the Term to describe his own line of albinos that he line bred to have that color, then nobody should be able to use that except him. These fights should really be brought to the originators. Someone should just ask them. If not, then if I pop out a baby that has the same coloration of a Coral Albino, I will know that I should start my own "line" of albinos, Blushing albinos or some random thing.

It all depends on what they used the term for.

Ivory on the other hand is a specific line of Anerys, it was not a descriptive term used to describe a clean Anery, it was a line of clean Anerys that Jeff worked hard on.

Am I off?