Possible super pinstripes

So my buddy Tom at northwestreptiles.com bred a pinstripe to a pinstripe and produced some possible super pins. He is going to be keeping them all to prove them out.

I saw a male he produced today and thought it was so cool I asked him if I could post pic of it on here.

It to me is the perfect pinstripe. Full dorsal stripe, and I mean full, not one break. Very busy pattern, well here are some pic I took with my phone.

Let me know what you think.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/08/ahavyveq.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/08/8a9yna2y.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/08/5uhu6a7y.jpg


Please excuse any errors sent from my crap phone.

That's a great looking pin. But there is only one way to know if he is a super or not. Gonna have to wait until he's old enough to breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angeluscorpion

That's a great looking pin. But there is only one way to know if he is a super or not. Gonna have to wait until he's old enough to breed.

---

Yep that's why he Is keeping all of them to prove them out.


Please excuse any errors sent from my crap phone.

I have a pin that has a perfect stripe as well. Pin is dominant there is no super unless someone has proven this out which I have seen no evidence of. Its the spider story all over again. It would be nice but I doubt it. Looks like most other pins as far as I'm concerned.

BHB would be the guy to talk to. I know a couple years ago he thought he had a super pin, produced nothing but pins with it for the whole season at the time, but I don't know what ever happened as far as if it continued to do that or ended up throwing some normals down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

I have a pin that has a perfect stripe as well. Pin is dominant there is no super unless someone has proven this out which I have seen no evidence of. Its the spider story all over again. It would be nice but I doubt it. Looks like most other pins as far as I'm concerned.

---

actually to be dominant it HAS to have a homozygous (super) form that looks exactly like the heterozygous (het). Other wise it's still not proven what it actually is, like most of what we call dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m00kfu

BHB would be the guy to talk to. I know a couple years ago he thought he had a super pin, produced nothing but pins with it for the whole season at the time, but I don't know what ever happened as far as if it continued to do that or ended up throwing some normals down the road.

---

27 eggs, all pinstripe, never one normal. chances of a heterozygous animal doing that are over 1 in 100 million. I never asked him what he did with the male. I know he has some possible super pin females he showed me, obviously they are going to take quite a bit longer to prove out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m00kfu

BHB would be the guy to talk to. I know a couple years ago he thought he had a super pin, produced nothing but pins with it for the whole season at the time, but I don't know what ever happened as far as if it continued to do that or ended up throwing some normals down the road.

---

Took the words right out of my mouth

Half of the pinstripes and pinstripe crosses I produce have full dorsal stripes. Sorry to rain on your parade. Also, pinstripes have been around for over a decade now; if there was a super form, there would be literally tens of thousands of them around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

I have a pin that has a perfect stripe as well. Pin is dominant there is no super unless someone has proven this out which I have seen no evidence of. Its the spider story all over again. It would be nice but I doubt it. Looks like most other pins as far as I'm concerned.

---

I rarely see pinstripes with a perfect stripe like this. Again its just my opinion that this is the perfect pinstripe for me. And there is evidence of super pins as well as other dominate traits. Looks like a pin but throws all pins no normals. Again only time and breeding will tell which is what he plans to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

actually to be dominant it HAS to have a homozygous (super) form that looks exactly like the heterozygous (het). Other wise it's still not proven what it actually is, like most of what we call dominant.

---

This ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mykee

Half of the pinstripes and pinstripe crosses I produce have full dorsal stripes. Sorry to rain on your parade. Also, pinstripes have been around for over a decade now; if there was a super form, there would be literally tens of thousands of them around.

---

There may be but no one takes the time to prove them out.

All I know is I think its a great looking pin and im excited to see it prove out to be a super.

Quote:

---

"There may be but no one takes the time to prove them out. "

---

Really? You don't think that with the tens of thousands of pins produced, that NO ONE bred sibling back to sibling to try to prove out a super?

I see just a nice looking pin. The full dorsal stripes arent super uncommon imo. If i were to get a pin id want one that looks like that. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mykee

Really? You don't think that with the tens of thousands of pins produced, that NO ONE bred sibling back to sibling to try to prove out a super?

---

breeding to determine a super form of a dominate gene would take years... especially if its female. Id say you need at least a solid three years of producing nothing but pinstripes to say it is a super. If your breeding a female figure it takes 2-3 years to get to breeding weight and another 3 years of breeding to prove it out (assuming your female goes three years in a row) your looking at 5-6 years to prove it out.

breeding sibling to sibling with a dominate gene snake would prove nothing. Dominant genes dont have a visual super form. The super form looks just like the "het" form ie. a pinstripe. The only difference is it does not throw normals, it throws all pinstripes.

I think you are confused by the term "super" this is not like co-doms dominant genes are hard and time consuming to prove out.

I have to say that my pin female also has a nice full stripe, and I've seen plenty others that have it as well.

Whichever it is, I wish your friend the best of luck in proving these out.

I think its an awesome looking pin but nothing I havent seen before. However I think it would be awesome if it proved to be a super. I love pins and if there was a super I sure wouldnt mind having one in my rack. Best of luck to your buddy with this project.:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

actually to be dominant it HAS to have a homozygous (super) form that looks exactly like the heterozygous (het). Other wise it's still not proven what it actually is, like most of what we call dominant.



27 eggs, all pinstripe, never one normal. chances of a heterozygous animal doing that are over 1 in 100 million. I never asked him what he did with the male. I know he has some possible super pin females he showed me, obviously they are going to take quite a bit longer to prove out.

---

I suppose I just figured it went without saying. For the purpose of ball pythons I just use dominant since the super form either doesnt exist, is lethal and dies in the egg, or it looks exactly the same as the het form. For the purpose of talking about ball morphs I dont find it necessary to use the technically correct genetic terminology. Im familiar with genetics but this isnt science class. On the other hand though, I smell what your cookin. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

I suppose I just figured it went without saying. For the purpose of ball pythons I just use dominant since the super form either doesnt exist, is lethal and dies in the egg, or it looks exactly the same as the het form. For the purpose of talking about ball morphs I dont find it necessary to use the technically correct genetic terminology. Im familiar with genetics but this isnt science class. On the other hand though, I smell what your cookin. Thanks

---

thats my point, pinstripe, congo, and daddy gene are claimed to be truly dominant.
daddy gene is undeniably dominant, unless you want to call ralph davis a liar.
the first congo imported was homozygous, unless you want to call vin russo a liar.
the pinstripe was proven by statistics, unless you want to call bhb a liar.
not like other unproven "dominant" morphs such as spider and a host of others, which have an unknown homozygous form. I dont get where people claim a super form doesn't exist, it really makes no sense. proven and existing are different things. its not about using correct terms, its separating what is dominant from what is unknown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mykee

Really? You don't think that with the tens of thousands of pins produced, that NO ONE bred sibling back to sibling to try to prove out a super?

---

You don't bred a pos super back to a sibling to prove a dominant trait out, you bred it to things without the gene to see if it continues to throw all of that gene. Or you can get lucky and have it lay on the same locus as another gene and bred two those combos together, leaving a 25% chance of proving out the super. such as the case with the daddy gene.

spends all that time and effort in proving out a snake to end up with an animal that looks exactly the same as the het form, not much money in it, looks sell, so no there's not going to be tens of thousands, unless the market changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

thats my point, pinstripe, congo, and daddy gene are claimed to be truly dominant.
daddy gene is undeniably dominant, unless you want to call ralph davis a liar.
the first congo imported was homozygous, unless you want to call vin russo a liar.
the pinstripe was proven by statistics, unless you want to call bhb a liar.
not like other unproven "dominant" morphs such as spider and a host of others, which have an unknown homozygous form. I dont get where people claim a super form doesn't exist, it really makes no sense. proven and existing are different things. its not about using correct terms, its separating what is dominant from what is unknown


You don't bred a pos super back to a sibling to prove a dominant trait out, you bred it to things without the gene to see if it continues to throw all of that gene. Or you can get lucky and have it lay on the same locus as another gene and bred two those combos together, leaving a 25% chance of proving out the super. such as the case with the daddy gene.

spends all that time and effort in proving out a snake to end up with an animal that looks exactly the same as the het form, not much money in it, looks sell, so no there's not going to be tens of thousands, unless the market changes.

---

lol, lets pump the brakes a little bit here. Whos calling anyone a liar? Not me, and in this situation I'm only talking about Pins. I know its hard to get the correct tone and convey messages in text and Im not trying to ruffle your feathers. Just saying for the time being and for how popular and widely bred pins are and the fact that 1? has ever been thought to exist, despite how it actually expresses itself genetically, I'm calling it dominant just for giggles. Dont get me wrong, I hope this guy does prove out his project and it would be nice to have a super pin but until I see more of them proved out over several generations I'm gonna stay a skeptic:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

lol, lets pump the brakes a little bit here. Whos calling anyone a liar? Not me, and in this situation I'm only talking about Pins. I know its hard to get the correct tone and convey messages in text and Im not trying to ruffle your feathers. Just saying for the time being and for how popular and widely bred pins are and the fact that 1? has ever been thought to exist, despite how it actually expresses itself genetically, I'm calling it dominant just for giggles. Dont get me wrong, I hope this guy does prove out his project and it would be nice to have a super pin but until I see more of them proved out over several generations I'm gonna stay a skeptic:)

---

well sir, everything I have stated has been addressing your statements, who's getting feathers ruffled? If you need me to stop sugar coating it, i'm trying to say you're spreading misinformation, stop it. I know you don't mean it, I was just being direct and to the point for the most part.

Pins are dominant there is no super...there just nice lookin pins imo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtannous30

Pins are dominant there is no super...there just nice lookin pins imo...

---

There is a super pin and in time I will prove it. A super pin looks like a pin but produces all pins no normals. By saying there is no super pin is just ignorant.


Please excuse any errors sent from my crap phone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat160

There is a super pin and in time I will prove it. A super pin looks like a pin but produces all pins no normals. By saying there is no super pin is just ignorant.

---

I do not believe there is a super form of a pinstripe either, and if there is there is really nothing to be gained from it, especially financially.
I'm not knocking Thomas trying but like many people do not believe the pinstripe or spider is anything but a dominant trait.

ignorant huh :rofl::rofl::rofl:

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat160

There is a super pin and in time I will prove it. A super pin looks like a pin but produces all pins no normals. By saying there is no super pin is just ignorant.

---

I do not believe there is a super form of a pinstripe either, and if there is there is really nothing to be gained from it, especially financially.
I'm not knocking Thomas trying but like many people do not believe the pinstripe or spider is anything but a dominant trait.

ignorant huh :rofl::rofl::rofl:

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat160

There is a super pin and in time I will prove it. A super pin looks like a pin but produces all pins no normals. By saying there is no super pin is just ignorant.

---

I do not believe there is a super form of a pinstripe either, and if there is there is really nothing to be gained from it, especially financially.
I'm not knocking Thomas trying but like many people do not believe the pinstripe or spider is anything but a dominant trait.

ignorant huh :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtannous30

Pins are dominant there is no super...there just nice lookin pins imo...

---

Conventionally no, theres no super but its all in how we phrase it.
However:

Codoms
A super lesser is expressed as a bel.. By having both lesser genes expressed. One from mom and one from dad.
Thus co dom. Its het form (lesser) shows a different phenotype.

Doms
A het pin is expressed visually as a pin. Where only 1 gene is needed to show the phenotype.
A homozygous (SUPER) pin would look the same as a het pin(typical pin) but would carry 2 genes for pin.

Rescessives
A het shows no phenotype at all

A homozygous (super) shows the phenotype as it takes both genes to show it.

So, hets would be:
Pin
Lesser
Het albino

So, supers or homozygous would be
Homo pin
BEL
Albino

ok for the people saying there is no super form, what do you believe happens when you breed a pin to a pin and the two pin alleles pair up together? imo it is kind of ignorant to say it doesn't exist, it follows our current understanding of genetics and we have evidence of it. You're claiming it works in some other mysterious way, with no explanation besides "I don't believe it."

This is not the spider gene, that is a whole different scenario all together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

I do not believe there is a super form of a pinstripe either, and if there is there is really nothing to be gained from it, especially financially.
I'm not knocking Thomas trying but like many people do not believe the pinstripe or spider is anything but a dominant trait.

ignorant huh :rofl::rofl::rofl:

---

anyone else enjoy that? :)

There genetically must be some sort of Super for every morph- visual, or not. Whether it's worth a hoot, or not is up for debate. I personally think it could be worth something. What if I really wanted Kingpins? I could pair a Lesser (or it's super- BEL) to a SuperPin and increase my odds of getting Kingpins, or shall I say less chance of normals. It could certainly come in handy for a Nuclear Pin if one desired to breed for those. Give me a super spider for nuclear spiders at a few grand a pop and I'll take it.

To say that Pins do not have a super form when other morphs have a super form is kinda silly. Just because it is not visual does not mean it does not exist. It would take years to prove out and even then someone will just say you hit the odds real good and you could not prove them wrong without genetic testing because it would not be visual.

Proving out a non-visual super pin seems kinda cumbersome to me- especially when we're talking about a $200 morph. I'll just play the odds with more pins..... kinda what I'm doing with Spider morphs for my Nuclear spider project.

There are plenty of pins out there with perfect stripes, it just takes selective/reduced pattern breeding. You can google pins and find a bunch with perfect stripes. My pin from Pro Exotics only has one little break, and I paid a normal pin price for her.
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t...15-7-1-1-1.jpg

And people aren't trying to be mean, we're just trying to say the whole reason we know pinstripes are dominant is because they have been breed over and over to prove they were dominant not codominant. Theoretically you could make a pin that makes only pins, but the chances are slim. We're just saying people have tried before.

If it really was that easy to make a homo pin or a super pin why aren't they on the market? Why can't we buy super/homo pins, spiders, etc. If you were going to buy something dominant, why not buy the super form of it if we could? Why not make it? Super forms are awesome snakes to have in your collection because it guarantees the babies being at least one morph. I just don't see it, in last 10-12 years that dominant morphs have come up we haven't been able to prove a reliable super form.

Quote:

---

"There is a super pin and in time I will prove it. A super pin looks like a pin but produces all pins no normals. By saying there is no super pin is just ignorant. "

---

It's your time to waste I suppose...

While we're at it, I produced 4 superblasts from a superblast to super pastel pairing. Two of those four superblasts are lighter than the other two. I not only believe them to be a Tri-pastel (three pastel genes) as opposed to just plain old super pastels, but I'm going to breed them back together to PROVE it.
Watch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

There are plenty of pins out there with perfect stripes, it just takes selective/reduced pattern breeding. You can google pins and find a bunch with perfect stripes. My pin from Pro Exotics only has one little break, and I paid a normal pin price for her.

...

If it really was that easy to make a homo pin or a super pin why aren't they on the market? Why can't we buy super/homo pins, spiders, etc. If you were going to buy something dominant, why not buy the super form of it if we could? Why not make it? Super forms are awesome snakes to have in your collection because it guarantees the babies being at least one morph. I just don't see it, in last 10-12 years that dominant morphs have come up we haven't been able to prove a reliable super form.

---

The pattern of the animal does not indicate genetically if it has one or two copies of the pinstripe gene, I could be wrong, but I believe the OP simply pointed out the pattern because he liked it.

Its not really "easy" to breed for super or homo pins, because statistically you would get 1 in 4 animals as a homo pin (assuming 25% chance for normals, 50% chance for pins and 25% chance for homo pins); however, unlike the super form of co dominant animals you cannot tell what you've produced visually because all three pins look the same. To breed these animals and get them on the market the only way would be to take all three pinstripe animals and raise them to breeding size and then breed them (realistically multiple times) and look for an animal which produces only pinstripe offspring.

One season may be enough for a male animal if you pair him to multiple females; however, should you have selected the wrong animal you may have wasted the breeding potential of many females for the season. If you hit a homo pin on a female you will need to breed her for multiple seasons to "prove" her genetics are not just luck. The only time an animal like this could be sold on the market is as an adult, or as the offspring of two proven homo pin adults, but let's be honest, most people wouldn't buy a baby Super Pinstripe. Short of raising these for your own collection, there's really no practicality for producing them for the market, even if producing some supers is "easy".

How does that look like a super pinstripe? Looks like my pinstripe. Wow now i think my pinstripe is a super!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

daddy gene is undeniably dominant, unless you want to call ralph davis a liar.
the first congo imported was homozygous, unless you want to call vin russo a liar.
the pinstripe was proven by statistics, unless you want to call bhb a liar.
not like other unproven "dominant" morphs such as spider and a host of others, which have an unknown homozygous form. I dont get where people claim a super form doesn't exist, it really makes no sense. proven and existing are different things. its not about using correct terms, its separating what is dominant from what is unknown

---

Ummmmm how is the Platty Daddy Dominant? And if there is a Dominant form of the Pinstripe, how is it that no one else has proven it?

As far as Pins with full stripes, they are not uncommon. Our female has an unbroken full dorsal stripe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

I do not believe there is a super form of a pinstripe either, and if there is there is really nothing to be gained from it, especially financially.
I'm not knocking Thomas trying but like many people do not believe the pinstripe or spider is anything but a dominant trait.

ignorant huh :rofl::rofl::rofl:

---

How is there really nothing to be gained from a super form of a Pinstripe, especially financially? If you had a super Pin and bred it to a BEL Lesser you would make KingPins in every egg. No chances of anything less. Seams like a pretty good financial gain to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

How is there really nothing to be gained from a super form of a Pinstripe, especially financially? If you had a super Pin and bred it to a BEL Lesser you would make KingPins in every egg. No chances of anything less. Seams like a pretty good financial gain to me.

---

I'm not looking to make all the same snakes in one clutch :O
imo that would be a silly pairing, but I get your point, short term value might be there for some.
Ever try to sell a whole clutch of the same thing, something already semi difficult to sell?

I've said my opinion, let the proof speak for itself.
I wish Thomas luck, always have, he's a good guy :gj:
So is Shawn, even if we don't always see eye to eye ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Ummmmm how is the Platty Daddy Dominant? And if there is a Dominant form of the Pinstripe, how is it that no one else has proven it?

---

Quote:

---

http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/bi...thons_8_07.asp clutch 76, I heard a rumor he made some more this year.

---

Quote:

---

I agree with you there is not much to gain from creating one. a lot of time, effort, and snakes of the opposite sex go into proving one animal out. All that for an animal that looks exactly the same as the heterozygous. As a buisness person, you would not spend the effort because by the time you prove it out, you could be 4+ genes deep into another project, making money along the way. As a hobbyist, we keep these animals mainly because they look cool. so again, we could have this sweet looking quad gene animal, before we end up proving out an animal that looks exactly the same as a heterozygous. It has a coolness factor to it and like all homozygous animals is just as much of a powerhouse of for breeding, but besides that, why spend the time? We agree there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

ok for the people saying there is no super form, what do you believe happens when you breed a pin to a pin and the two pin alleles pair up together? imo it is kind of ignorant to say it doesn't exist, it follows our current understanding of genetics and we have evidence of it. You're claiming it works in some other mysterious way, with no explanation besides "I don't believe it."

This is not the spider gene, that is a whole different scenario all together.



anyone else enjoy that? :)

---

So what happens when you pair spider to spider and the spider genes match up? shouldnt that happen according to our current understanding of genetics, lol? No, it doesnt. Hows that different? I dont understand your logic:confusd:

from what i understand all spider x spider pairings have turned out lethal, so i believe that is what he is saying when he was tlaking about the spider gene but i could be wrong. as for the pin x pin i believe it has a "super" form it just takes to much time/effort to prove it out that it isnt worth it in the eyes of most breeders. like a preiveous post stated the time it would take to prove it out for sure you could be well on your way into 4 gene morphs resseive projects ect.. so although having a "super" pin would be great in a collection as most of us would love to have one i doubt many of us would take the time to prove one out. i know i would'nt i would just roll the dice on "normal" pins like every one else. i dont understand why you guys are taking it so personally if he wants to take the time to prove out a pin then let him who knows he could come back 3 years from now and throw it all back in your face :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/bi...thons_8_07.asp clutch 76, I heard a rumor he made some more this year.

---

So what is this supposed to prove? This does not prove a snake dominant. A Platty does not replicate itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sflanick

from what i understand all spider x spider pairings have turned out lethal, so i believe that is what he is saying when he was tlaking about the spider gene but i could be wrong. as for the pin x pin i believe it has a "super" form it just takes to much time/effort to prove it out that it isnt worth it in the eyes of most breeders. like a preiveous post stated the time it would take to prove it out for sure you could be well on your way into 4 gene morphs resseive projects ect.. so although having a "super" pin would be great in a collection as most of us would love to have one i doubt many of us would take the time to prove one out. i know i would'nt i would just roll the dice on "normal" pins like every one else. i dont understand why you guys are taking it so personally if he wants to take the time to prove out a pin then let him who knows he could come back 3 years from now and throw it all back in your face :)

---

Unfortunatley our understanding of ball python genetics is rudimentary, but most people swear by it and think it is concrete. There can be multiple alleles on a locus. Try to convince anyone that. A locus can be Epistatic. There are so many variables that can happen.

There are no facts(proof) on spider X spider being lethal, none what so ever.....

Let me get this straight, a dominate pinstripe X pinstripe pairing can produce supers but a dominate spider X spider pairing produces a lethal super?

this gets more interesting all the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

So what happens when you pair spider to spider and the spider genes match up? shouldnt that happen according to our current understanding of genetics, lol? No, it doesnt. Hows that different? I dont understand your logic:confusd:

---

who says it doesn't happen? there is zero data to make any conclusion off of. So the answer is we don't know whats going on with the spider. Also I don't have any idea what the spider gene has to do with the pinstripe gene? Should we talk about how pastels work also? is that relevant? I dont understand your logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sflanick

from what i understand all spider x spider pairings have turned out lethal, so i believe that is what he is saying when he was tlaking about the spider gene but i could be wrong. as for the pin x pin i believe it has a "super" form it just takes to much time/effort to prove it out that it isnt worth it in the eyes of most breeders. like a preiveous post stated the time it would take to prove it out for sure you could be well on your way into 4 gene morphs resseive projects ect.. so although having a "super" pin would be great in a collection as most of us would love to have one i doubt many of us would take the time to prove one out. i know i would'nt i would just roll the dice on "normal" pins like every one else. i dont understand why you guys are taking it so personally if he wants to take the time to prove out a pin then let him who knows he could come back 3 years from now and throw it all back in your face :)

---

there nothing to suggest lethal besides rumors. Everything about the spider gene is inconclusive because we have next to no information. Only good piece of data I have seen is this.... http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...=1#post1847606 which im still hoping they post their final results, but with what they gave us.... it is still inconclusive, but interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

So what is this supposed to prove? This does not prove a snake dominant. A Platty does not replicate itself.

---

Quote:

---

Male:	Platinum
Female:	Platinum
Percent	Fraction	Traits
25%	1/4	Super Daddy Gene
50%	1/2	Platinum
25%	1/4	Blue Eye'd Leucistic
View Results Page

Well that animal is not a BEL, nor is it a Platty..... what's left? All it takes is one animal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

Let me get this straight, a dominate pinstripe X pinstripe pairing can produce supers but a dominate spider X spider pairing produces a lethal super?

---

just a point to bring up, if it is lethal, it will not be classified as dominant anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Unfortunatley our understanding of ball python genetics is rudimentary, but most people swear by it and think it is concrete. There can be multiple alleles on a locus. Try to convince anyone that. A locus can be Epistatic. There are so many variables that can happen.

---

to be a smart ass every locus has multiple alleles, normally 2 :). My question would be, what discussion were you having where the above had any relevance? (I'm honestly interested) There's plenty that go into the final phenotype of our animals, don't forget epigenetics which opens a big can of worms imo. In theory you could have a pinstripe that looks normal because the expression was turned all the way down. but there hasn't been a reported case of anything resembling it, so why talk about it.

I feel like a lot of people here don't quite understand that having a super form doesn't mean that there will be any different appearance in the snake, it may look exactly the same, it just only passes on that specific gene. I believe there is a super form for pinstripe and I wish your friend the best of luck in proving these snakes out.

Edit: Just found this too, people should give it a read. http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...ominant-Traits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

who says it doesn't happen? there is zero data to make any conclusion off of. So the answer is we don't know whats going on with the spider. Also I don't have any idea what the spider gene has to do with the pinstripe gene? Should we talk about how pastels work also? is that relevant? I dont understand your logic.



there nothing to suggest lethal besides rumors. Everything about the spider gene is inconclusive because we have next to no information. Only good piece of data I have seen is this.... http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...=1#post1847606 which im still hoping they post their final results, but with what they gave us.... it is still inconclusive, but interesting.





just a point to bring up, if it is lethal, it will not be classified as dominant anymore

---

Let me get this straight. So when it works in your favor and helps your opinions its ok to bring up other mutations but when others do it to make their case its irrelevant and off topic? so hows this work then, your just the genetic genius, your always right, everybody else is wrong? theres just no dominant genes? Fact is you dont know and as far as I can tell neither does anyone else and unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise its all speculation. This is realworld genetics application and how they have been working, not theorhetical genetics babble. your all over the place, get a grip

There is a discussion on another forum which there is a picture of a super spider. Not sure if I can post a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

Let me get this straight. So when it works in your favor and helps your opinions its ok to bring up other mutations but when others do it to make their case its irrelevant and off topic? so hows this work then, your just the genetic genius, your always right, everybody else is wrong? theres just no dominant genes? Fact is you dont know and as far as I can tell neither does anyone else and unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise its all speculation. This is realworld genetics application and how they have been working, not theorhetical genetics babble. your all over the place, get a grip

---

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justinmann17

There is a discussion on another forum which there is a picture of a super spider. Not sure if I can post a link.

---

post it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -



post it

---

The problem is, is that you are combining two different versions of what Dominance is. In the Ball python breeders world a dominant morph snake looks exactly the same in its het form as it does in its homo form. The only difference is that it would only reproduce itself, NO NORMALS.(in its homo form) Where as a co-dominant form has one visual look for its "het" form and a different look for its Homo form. It also produces NO NORMALS. (in its homo form)

So far there are really NO Proven dominant forms but we do accept that Spiders, Pinstripes and some others as dominant as they show no super homo form.

by this standard a congo in its homo super form would look exactly the same but would never produce a normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

The problem is, is that you are combining two different versions of what Dominance is. In the Ball python breeders world a dominant morph snake looks exactly the same in its het form as it does in its homo form. The only difference is that it would only reproduce itself, NO NORMALS. Where as a co-dominant form has one visual look for its "het" form and a different look for its Homo form. It also produces NO NORMALS.

So far there are really NO Proven dominant forms but we do accept that Spiders, Pinstripes and some others as dominant as they show no super homo form.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

daddy gene is undeniably dominant, unless you want to call ralph davis a liar.
the first congo imported was homozygous, unless you want to call vin russo a liar.
the pinstripe was proven by statistics, unless you want to call bhb a liar.
not like other unproven "dominant" morphs such as spider and a host of others, which have an unknown homozygous form

---

All cases of snakes looking the same in het and homo form. I'm not combining any version of dominance, im actually trying to separate the known dominant from the unproven "dominant".

http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...Spider-Results
I think there is one more picture floating around I will try to drum up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

All cases of snakes looking the same in het and homo form. I'm not combining any version of dominance, im actually trying to separate the known dominant from the unproven "dominant".

---

So then show me ONE proven dominant. Because not one ball python has ever been proven to be a "dominant" trait. That is that it looks exactly the same in its "het" form as it does in its homo "super" form and produces no normals.
You can't use the "its homo form is lethal" either. That is purely guessing and is not proof.
Just face it. Spiders are considered dominant in the trade just as are pinstripes. It's just a label that has been put on them because they are not codominant and they show no other form but their own. The terms that we use in this hobby are not accurate. They are just words that loosely tries to describe what’s going on. It's simple laymen genetics that everyone can follow and understand without being a genetic professor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justinmann17

http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...Spider-Results
I think there is one more picture floating around I will try to drum up.

---

All I can say really is wow. Evidence pointing in two different directions now, always interesting. thanks for the link.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

So then show me ONE proven dominant. Because not one ball python has ever been proven to be a "dominant" trait. That is that it looks exactly the same in its "het" form as it does in its homo "super" form and produces no normals.
You can't use the "its homo form is lethal" either. That is purely guessing and is not proof.
Just face it. Spiders are considered dominant in the trade just as are pinstripes. It's just a label that has been put on them because they are not codominant and they show no other form but their own. The terms that we use in this hobby are not accurate. They are just words that loosely tries to describe what’s going on. It's simple laymen genetics that everyone can follow and understand without being a genetic professor.

---

I've explain bhb 1-023i492309854i times now, so I dont know what the problem is. you want a picture? https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...A-nd0QG-voCoAg looks something like that. if you cant trust the guy giving the information, thats your choice. it was proven though, you just don't believe it.
talk to vin russo about his import congo, I would give you the link to the story, but he revamped his website. but you probably wouldn't believe him either.
and unless the current model of genetics needs rewritting, the fact that a platty x platty produced a het daddy looking animal is proof.

if a homo form is lethal, its not dominant, end of story. Spiders are dominant because theres no proven homozygous, or what i would call unproven dominant. if the homozygous spider is lethal, it will no longer be called dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -



post it

---

When exactly have you kept answering any of my questions about anything? If the evidence points in any direction regarding super pins its that they dont exist. Lol, pretty sure I said nothing of anyone trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing. and yes thats exactly what I do I make things up in my head that I want to be true and then base my arguements upon those facts:cool: When all is said and done it is just obvious you have nothing better to do and you are a know it all, that is very clear from they way you present your arguements and the way that you attack others on this forum with your "superior" intellect (just saw another post of you trying to make someone look stupid for their question) . get a life. I'm done bothering with you, you are obviously lacking in many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

When exactly have you kept answering any of my questions about anything? If the evidence points in any direction regarding super pins its that they dont exist. Lol, pretty sure I said nothing of anyone trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing. and yes thats exactly what I do I make things up in my head that I want to be true and then base my arguements upon those facts:cool: When all is said and done it is just obvious you have nothing better to do and you are a know it all, that is very clear from they way you present your arguements and the way that you attack others on this forum with your "superior" intellect (just saw another post of you trying to make someone look stupid for their question) . get a life. I'm done bothering with you, you are obviously lacking in many ways.

---

right here http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...s-Spider-Morph the thread where you had most of this information presented to you.

trying to prove out a homozygous pin and failing would be your evidence, which I dont see. lack of evidence is not evidence, especially when there is no evidence of even trying.

So with nothing left, you insult me. I love the internet :D

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

by this standard a congo in its homo super form would look exactly the same but would never produce a normal.

---

vin russo already stated his congo female only produces congos, so yes this is correct.