How would you say.....

Banded-ness is genetic or not?
I have a normal,
Ms. Sookie Ball
She's my first and absolute favorite of my collection.
She's a normal but very banded and a very awesome busy pattern. Covered in alien heads with high flames and tight bands.
I want to take a bunch of pictures of her tomorrow to show y'all what I mean

And the reason I ask about the genetic banded is because this is her second clutch and all the babies have really tight bands and high flames and over all tight pattern.
She also produced a pastel from the double sired clutch of hers this season that just like her first clutch last season,
Is very reduced pattern and banded.
His bands are blushed out and really awesome flames for a pastel.
I'll snap a couple pix of him tomorrow too.

Sorry no pix as of right now but I just was looking at the babies tonight and thought,
What if? Ya know?
Even the butter that came out of the clutch this season looks different.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Its very possible that the pattern would be genetic but they could all be considered normals. That's really the purpose behind most dinker projects I think.

And from the doublesired clutch was one of the sires a pastel? It'd be a pretty weird thing to get an incomplete dominate trait without one parent being one lol.

If she's consistently producing babies that carry the traits, then there may be something there. Pick the nicest male from one of her clutches, preferably with all the traits you've described, and breed it back to her. The results of that pairing should answer your question without leaving it up to guesswork and opinions.

Did the pastel and the butter both come from the same clutch? This season? What male(s) did you pair her up with?

Ignore my last question. I see in your signature you have a male pastel and a male butter. I'm going to go ahead and assume those were the sires.

Pictures of mom and her babies from both seasons if possible. But yes, it seems as though some traits can be passed on regularly. I'm not sure exactly when it goes from being "dinker" to genetic. Maybe if mom or dad has the trait, offspring have it, and maybe grand-offspring do as well ? That looks silly doesn't it? What i mean is if Sookie has the look, her pastel son has it, and then later when you breed him to a different snake his offspring have it to. Maybe then it's considered genetic?

Gale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angllady2

I'm not sure exactly when it goes from being "dinker" to genetic. Maybe if mom or dad has the trait, offspring have it, and maybe grand-offspring do as well ? That looks silly doesn't it? What i mean is if Sookie has the look, her pastel son has it, and then later when you breed him to a different snake his offspring have it to. Maybe then it's considered genetic?

Gale

---

I'm kind of going through a similar debate as Sookie right now, and I've pondered this question a bit as well.

IMO if, as Gale suggests, the mama passes the trait down to her babies, and they pass the trait on down to their babies, it's pretty clearly genetic. However, it may not be as "genetic" as we in the BP world like it to be.

By that I mean, some traits are polygenic -- they involve more than one gene, and can be fixed in bloodlines via selective breeding. Most characteristics of domestic animal breeds are polygenic.

There seem to be a few polygenic traits that are clearly recognized in the BP world. For example, some people have really killer, awesome looking pastels. However, those rokken pastels weren't produced because of one single "modifier" gene that makes them look good, and without which the pastel will look lousy. There are a lot of things that go into what makes a "good" pastel, and if you breed two "good" ones together, you're likely to get a variety -- some better than the parents, some as good, some not as good. Breeding the best to the best should continue your bloodline in a positive direction. Those are genetic traits, but they aren't single-gene, simple Mendelian mutations like we're used to.

I think it only goes from "dinker" to "morph" if it's a single gene mutation. It seems we've pretty clearly defined that only simple Mendelian traits count as "morphs." I think, though, if it's a really nice polygenic trait that IS genetic, that still ought to count for something (and ought to take the snake out of the "dinker" category).

Banded seems to be a real head-scratcher, because some genetic banded animals do appear to have one single simple Mendelian mutation that makes them look banded, while others appear to be more polygenic.

In my estimation, if, as in Sookie's case, ALL of the babies out of that parent are banded, it's likely polygenic. Breeding the banded babies to a non-banded individual would (I'm guessing) produce some babies with good banding and some with less banding, while breeding them to one another should produce even more extreme banding. (Again, I'm guessing.)

If, as happened in my breeding, extreme banded x banded = 4 totally normal and one extreme banded babies, my guess would be that it's a single gene.

OK so after much reading, thank you all!

What's interesting is I have pictures of her offspring last year.
They all have the banded-ness and great flames and a odd faded head spot. Not really faded like a pastel just faded for a normal.
And I want to take photos of this clutch however I think the fact that they just hatched and haven't shed would be not as good as after
So should I wait till they've shed to get the qualifying photos?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2