Coral Glow Genetics

It's my understanding that breeding a coral glow to any other morph will produce all coral glows, (along with its mates traits) But I'm assuming that this is only true if it's a super coral glow, that is homozygous for coral glow, so that all offspring will be het for coral glow and appear darker in the coral glow aspect. Am I correct, or is there something else at work, genetically?

Also, I see the coral glow trait portrayed as dominant. However, shouldn't it be considered codominant since the hets are not as bright as the homozygous forms? Thanks in advance:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaLoveRay

It's my understanding that breeding a coral glow to any other morph will produce all coral glows, (along with its mates traits) But I'm assuming that this is only true if it's a super coral glow, that is homozygous for coral glow, so that all offspring will be het for coral glow and appear darker in the coral glow aspect. Am I correct, or is there something else at work, genetically?

Also, I see the coral glow trait portrayed as dominant. However, shouldn't it be considered codominant since the hets are not as bright as the homozygous forms? Thanks in advance:)

---

No you will get normals and I have had 3 clutches all male coral glows and mixed normals with males and females I've never had all female normals or all male normals so I don't believe it and yes if you had a super coral glow you would get all coral glows when bred to a normal or say a cinnamon you would get all coral cinnies

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaLoveRay

It's my understanding that breeding a coral glow to any other morph will produce all coral glows, (along with its mates traits) But I'm assuming that this is only true if it's a super coral glow, that is homozygous for coral glow, so that all offspring will be het for coral glow and appear darker in the coral glow aspect. Am I correct, or is there something else at work, genetically?

Also, I see the coral glow trait portrayed as dominant. However, shouldn't it be considered codominant since the hets are not as bright as the homozygous forms? Thanks in advance:)

---

If you breed a coral glow to a normal you would get normals and coral glows. 50/50 chance

Coral Glow is co-dom

CG x normal = 50% CG 50% Normal

CG x CG = 50% CG 25% Super CG 25% Normal

Super CG x Normal = 100% CG


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Thanks for that guys. As a follow up question, does a male maker or a female maker have to be a super coral glow? Or can a het coral glow be one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaLoveRay

Thanks for that guys. As a follow up question, does a male maker or a female maker have to be a super coral glow?

---

Male/female-maker has to do with the parent the animal inherited the CG trait from. If the CG came from a CG male it will be a male-maker and if the CG came from a CG female it will be a female-maker.

Further, because the SuperCG is homozygous, it will make both male and female CGs because all of its offspring will be CG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaLoveRay

Or can a het coral glow be one?

---

When dealing with incomplete-dominant traits we as a hobby refer to the heterozygous animals as the morph and the homozygous as the "super" form. So the heterozygote is not "het CG", it is CG and then the homozygote is SuperCG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

Coral Glow is co-dom

CG x normal = 50% CG 50% Normal

CG x CG = 50% CG 25% Super CG 25% Normal

Super CG x Normal = 100% CG


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

---

The trouble with this definition is that it does not distinguish between dominant and codominant genes. You'd get the same breeding results if coral glow is a dominant mutant gene.

The coral glow (Cg) gene and the corresponding normal (+) gene can make three possible gene pairs, Cg/Cg (super coral glow, AKA homozygous coral glow), Cg/+ (coral glow, AKA heterozygous coral glow), and +/+ (normal, AKA homozygous normal).

If the Cg gene is dominant to the normal gene, then the three types of snakes can only be separated into two groups. The +/+ snakes are in one group, and the Cg/Cg snakes and the Cg/+ snakes are in the other group. The Cg/Cg snakes and the Cg/+ snakes cannot be separated because they look alike. Only a breeding test can identify these snakes' genotypes.

If the Cg gene is codominant to the normal gene, then the Cg/Cg snakes and the Cg/+ snakes and the normal snakes have different appearances and can be separated into three groups.

From the pictures on worldofballpythons.com, I think there is enough difference between the look of a coral glow ball python and the look of a super coral glow ball python to call coral glow a codominant mutant gene.

Am I missing something here or is the post above missing the point totally?

EDIT: http://www.worldofballpythons.com/ar...s-co-dominant/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaLoveRay

....

Also, I see the coral glow trait portrayed as dominant. However, shouldn't it be considered codominant since the hets are not as bright as the homozygous forms? Thanks in advance:)

---

Perhaps I did miss the point. I'm willing to debate the question.

I took the OP's question (see quote) to be asking what makes a mutant gene dominant rather than codominant to the corresponding normal gene. I looked at that WOBP article, but it does not explain the difference between dominance and codominance. This link does: http://ballpython.ca/genetics-101/

Maybe we should be trying to promote the correct terminology also. Why on earth people maintain the use of co-dominant, when we know it is incomplete dominant (a very different thing) is absurd. But sadly I see it used in books like the one from NERD, World of Ball Pythons, etc. It takes no more effort to actually state it factually.

Warren