Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 656

0 members and 656 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,912
Threads: 249,115
Posts: 2,572,187
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, coda
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Is this right?

  1. #1
    BPnet Veteran spix14's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-11-2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    560
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Is this right?

    Some times I feel like I will never get all this genetic stuff straight in my head. Just to make sure I'm on the right track...

    Mojaves are co-dominant.
    BELs are the super form.
    Mojave x Normal= 50% Mojos, 50% Normals (het for nothing since there is no het mojo)
    Mojave x Mojave= 50% Mojo, 25% BEL, 25% Normal.
    BEL x Normal= 100% Mojo.
    BEL x BEL= not sure on this one. All BEL? All Mojos?

    Snake breeding is complicated business.

  2. #2
    BPnet Veteran
    Join Date
    11-13-2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 247 Times in 186 Posts
    Images: 28

    Re: Is this right?

    Pretty much right on. The only thing I would say differently is that ALL Mojaves ARE hets. Heterozygous doesn't mean normal looking gene carrier, it just works out that way with recessive morphs. Heterozygous really means having an unmatched pair of genes at whatever location you are talking about. With co-dominant morphs the hets are visible morphs. A mojave has one mojave mutant version of the lesser/mojave/phantom/Vin Russo/mocha whitesnake complex gene and one normal version of that same gene so it is truly a het. Because it doesn't look normal and the homozygous mojave looks different the mutation is classified as co-dominant.

    Also, as long as the BEL you are talking about was produced bye mojave X mojave (could be a combo with another mutant version of this same gene like lesser) then you are right on about BEL X normal producing 100% mojave.

    And a BEL bred to another BEL would produce 100% BEL because there would be no normal copies of this gene between the two parents so none of the offspring could get even one normal version to even be just mojave much less normal.

  3. #3
    BPnet Veteran spix14's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-11-2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    560
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Is this right?

    Awesome, thank you. So basically a Mojo is a visual het of BEL. I knew that in the back of my head but I keep thinking normal looking when I think het, I need to break myself of that, lol.

    What I really meant by "no het mojo" was that there are no hets for the mojo morph itself. Which is correct, right?

    Incidentally, are all normals produced by a co-dom to co-dom pairing just 100% normal?

  4. #4
    BPnet Veteran stangs13's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-01-2005
    Location
    Friendswood,Tx
    Posts
    5,617
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 36 Times in 31 Posts
    Images: 3

    Re: Is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by spix14 View Post
    What I really meany by "no het mojo" was that there are no hets for the mojo morph itself. Which is correct, right?

    Incidentally, are all normals produced by a co-dom to co-dom pairing just 100% normal?
    Correct

    and

    Correct!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1