Is there a way to tell het pied on appearance?

Ok, i was told that the 'checker' or 'ladder' pattern on the belly of a ball pythin i traded for meant that it was het for pied. I'm not mad if it isn't because it does have beautiful markings regardless (and i got more than one snake out of the deal) but i wanted to check and make sure this was accurate and that the breeder wasn't yankin' my chain. I compared her to my two normals and he was right, she does have a great checkered grey pattern on her belly, and i never really noticed how one of my normals has a slight checkered pattern too.
I figured i would ask the best and make sure i stayed 'in the know' about it. Thanks!

Checkered isn't the pattern normally referred to as being a het pied marker.

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showp...6&postcount=11

you never realy know until you prove it out unless it came from a notable breeder, there are different markings that people say to help identify a het. But its hard to tell some have the marking some dont, the same goes for normals some normals may have a marking that you may think is a het indicator when it realy is not. Good Luck with him!

I dont think that there really is, i have seen het pieds and they all looked different.

Ok, here are some pictures of her. I think that'll help :P
She is a beautiful normal, if nothing else.
http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/o...c/HPIM1749.jpg

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/o...c/HPIM1743.jpg

That doesn't look like a het pied marker. If you look at the pics in that link that is what they look like. I have a bunch of normals from non pied breedings that have the marker so just because one does have the look doesn't mean it's a het pied. Now on the other hand I've probably hatched over 100 het pieds and every single one has the marker to some extent or another. So if I were buying hets or possible hets I would be looking for ones with it. Personally I think since there is such a reliable marker for het pieds the selling of possible hets is a little questionable and there should definitely be a price difference in poss hets with the marker and without it.

Eric

Markers are hardly reliable.

Recessive genes, by definition, don't affect an animal that is heterozygous for the gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Markers are hardly reliable.

Recessive genes, by definition, don't affect an animal that is heterozygous for the gene.

---

The marker for het pieds is very reliable. If you put 50 random het pieds in a container with 50 random normals, I bet you I could pick the hets with 95% accuracy.

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Markers are hardly reliable.

Recessive genes, by definition, don't affect an animal that is heterozygous for the gene.

---

If that were true there would be no yellow bellies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardA

If that were true there would be no yellow bellies.

---

Tell me about pastels

Then tell me about Spiders.

Then tell me about Mojaves.


Now tell me about yellowbellies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooingtricycle

Tell me about pastels

Then tell me about Spiders.

Then tell me about Mojaves.


Now tell me about yellowbellies.

---

What? This isnt a co-dom or dom question being asked. Its a het question. There is no such thing as het for pastel, spider, mojave, cinnamon, pinstripe so on......:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardA

What? This isnt a co-dom or dom question being asked. Its a het question. There is no such thing as het for pastel, spider, mojave, cinnamon, pinstripe so on......:confused:

---

Exactly. You mentioned yellowbellies, in response to another users post. They are Incomplete dominant ( Codominant) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardA

What? This isnt a co-dom or dom question being asked. Its a het question. There is no such thing as het for pastel, spider, mojave, cinnamon, pinstripe so on......:confused:

---

No, but I think the point was that pastels are simply "het super-pastels"...mojaves are "het BELs". (Not sure where spiders fit in there. :P ) And yellow-bellies are "het ivories". Yellow bellies are a co-dom morph just like pastels or mojos...just a bit more subtle in appearance, so it doesn't really follow to throw them into a discussion about possible markers for true recessive genetics.

Point taken......


but there are still markers....to say there isn't is false.

To say there isn't always is better.

I said they weren't reliable, not that they didn't exist! I'm just worried about some people believing that markers are always there or that something that looks like a marker automatically means that a snake is a het for some morph.

Relying on markers has the potential for a less than ethical person to sell normals with markers as 100% hets, I just want people to be careful.

I understand mainbutter.....no disrespect meant to ya.

Ball python genetics are pretty much in a league of their own......very up and down and confusing for even some of the upmost in the hobby at times.

I guess best thing for any of us to do is, look for the markers at normal price, buy hets from those you know/trust.

:)

I'd point out that ball pythons don't read genetic text books. It looks like piebald is in a gray area between the recessive and co-dominant categories we made up. Gray areas are messy so maybe that's why this one wasn't exposed to the public until well into the marketing of possible het pieds but I think it's better now that everyone at least has a chance to get educated before buying a possible het.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Sandoval

The marker for het pieds is very reliable. If you put 50 random het pieds in a container with 50 random normals, I bet you I could pick the hets with 95% accuracy.

Eric

---

so, whats the marker?

To simply put it.

There are 100% Het Pieds without Het Pied markings

There are 100% Normals with Het Pied markings

There are 100 % Het Pieds with Het Pied Markings

Judging a Het Pied by markings is like judging the sex of a snake based on the size of the spurs. Yea...It may accurate sometimes....but realistically it is not always going to work.

Hmm, i guess my question sparked some debate. This is great stuff to learn, though! So pied is not really recessive and not really co dominant? (drawing some squares as i type)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragnbaron

Hmm, i guess my question sparked some debate. This is great stuff to learn, though! So pied is not really recessive and not really co dominant? (drawing some squares as i type)

---

The Pied gene is a RECESSIVE gene. Some animals, just seem to display similar traits with the "Belly pattern" But it is NOT a surefire thing to go by, as NORMALS have it too. It is part of the ball pythons pattern scheme. Animals het for other things, can also have the same markings.

Who here has produced a lot of het and possible het Pieds? I have. And there is a definite difference. It's not just about stripes on the sides of the belly. There is a little more to it. Not all hets have the marker, but when a possible het does, you can pretty much bet on it. EVERY het Pied I have ever produced has the marker and about 50% of the possible hets as well......even my pastel hets.
Why else would the largest producer of Pieds in the world keep his possible hets and sell his 100% hets? Could there be something to it?

Like I've said in the past.... I wish there were no het pied markers...

My 2008 pied-related project outcomes:

Pied X Poss het Pied with striped belly = 2 pieds
Pied X Poss het Pied with striped belly = 1 pied
Pied X Het Pied with striped belly = 5 pieds
YB Het Pied with striped belly X Het Pied with striped belly = 1 yb pied
YB Het Pied with striped belly X Het Pied with striped belly = 1 pied

I also produced approximately twenty 100% het pieds produced this year. Only 2 did not have STRONG markers... but they still have "the look"


Justin


http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ht=pied&page=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ch312

so, whats the marker?

---

Here is a pic of the het pied belly marker. It's the clean belly with black striped borders usually more prominent near the tail.

Anyone who has hatched out more then a few het pieds will tell you there is a very reliable marker. People who are either buying or selling possible hets will tell you that not all of them have it or some do and some don't. I use to say/think the same thing. Now that I've hatched over 100 hets with each and every single one having the marker my opinion is different. The only possible het pieds I've proved out have the marker, the ones without it never proved. Do I think there are het pieds out there that don't have the marker? Sure, but I'd say it's probably 1% or less of all the hets produced. This doesn't mean if you have a wild caught female with the marker that she is a het, believe me I've tried. But if you're buying hets or possible hets you can use the marker as a very reliable tool. If I knew this info when I was buying possible hets 5-6 years back, I would never buy one without the marker unless paying the price of a normal or very close to it. Even then I don't think I'd touch them.

Eric

https://ball-pythons.net/gallery/fil...pied_0802b.jpg

Allow me to get somewhat hypothetical.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the "marker" trait has inadvertently been selected for but in and of itself is not actually a product of the actual pied allele??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Allow me to get somewhat hypothetical.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the "marker" trait has inadvertently been selected for but in and of itself is not actually a product of the actual pied allele??

---

I think that the marker trait is a product of the pied, but I feel that it is a trait that is not always shared visualy. I am not claiming that many normals dont share these traits, sellers sometimes claiming that they are hets. But in my opinion what it comes down to is, only buying a het from a trustable breeder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDB

I have and still do, as said a million times before some have it and some dont. But I feel like alot of people swear by these markers.:confused:

---

LOL i think its because they dont factor in that is part of the Wild Type Make up. " we see hundreds of het pieds with this marker"

yeah... Ive got/had normals with the same darn marker too, and a het pied without them!!!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooingtricycle

and a het pied without them!!!!:D

---

:weirdface:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDB

:weirdface:gj:

---

http://pics.livejournal.com/mooingtricycle/pic/0005sdaa

Thats my Het Pied Male :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDB

I think that the marker trait is a product of the pied, but I feel that it is a trait that is not always shared visualy. I am not claiming that many normals dont share these traits, sellers sometimes claiming that they are hets. But in my opinion what it comes down to is, only buying a het from a trustable breeder.

---

To me, if the marker was a product of the allele then there should be a 1:1 correlation which we do not have. However, if it is a case of linkage from inadvertent selective breeding that explains why you still get the 100% hets who look normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooingtricycle

http://pics.livejournal.com/mooingtricycle/pic/0005sdaa

Thats my Het Pied Male :)

---

very nice lad you have there:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooingtricycle

LOL i think its because they dont factor in that is part of the Wild Type Make up. " we see hundreds of het pieds with this marker"

yeah... Ive got/had normals with the same darn marker too, and a het pied without them!!!!:D

---

Like I said, there is more to it than just belly stripes. I have had normals with the striping as well, but it's not even close. ALL of my het pieds, and possible hets with markers, have the same visual charasteristics added to the striping.

Again I'll ask, why did the largest producer of Pieds in the world hold back all of this possible hets and sell the 100% hets? From what I know, the marker was first discovered by him.

Will some hets not have the marker? Yes. The point is, when buying possible hets, look for the ones with markers and avoid the ones without. Will some normals have markers similar? Yes, but not exactly. It is not just about the stripes.

Brandon very clearly put:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

To me, if the marker was a product of the allele then there should be a 1:1 correlation which we do not have. However, if it is a case of linkage from inadvertent selective breeding that explains why you still get the 100% hets who look normal.

---

We seem to have several examples of sporadic traits that give every indication of being part of the mutations we are breeding for. I don't know what controls when they get expressed and when they don't.

1. The wobble in spiders. If it wasn't a side effect of the actual spider mutation surely the linkage would be broken with all the spider outbreeding by now and someone would be selling a line of guaranteed 100% non looping spiders.

2. Kinking in caramels. Although recessive there has also been a lot of work on outbreeding but still many caramels kink but not 100% of them.

3. Kinking and duck bill in homozygous cinnamon/black pastel. Same thing, seen consistently but not always.

4. Some but not all het granite Burmese pythons with the puzzle pattern that is intermediate between normal and granite.

5. Some but not all het green Burmese pythons with the cinnamon pattern/color that is intermediate between normal and green.

These non absolutes aren't neat and tidy but they seem to be real even though they are seen sporadically. To me the wide white belly with dark lines at the edge and intricate and bright back pattern seen in many but not all het pieds looks a lot like the start of the pied white creeping up from the belly and the dark lines and bright color seen in the non white areas of a homozygous pied. Maybe being homozygous pied and to a lesser degree het pied resists the migration of color from the neural crest down leaving the white belly and in a homozygous pied also white some places on the back. Just like homozygous pieds vary in how restricted the color is (i.e. how high the white is) perhaps the hets can vary too due to other genetics, chance, or perhaps even incubation environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

We seem to have several examples of sporadic traits that give every indication of being part of the mutations we are breeding for. I don't know what controls when they get expressed and when they don't.

---

I'll start by saying I know jack about Burms so I am not going to even try to address them but:

Quote:

---

1. The wobble in spiders. If it wasn't a side effect of the actual spider mutation surely the linkage would be broken with all the spider outbreeding by now and someone would be selling a line of guaranteed 100% non looping spiders.

---

I do not have a lot of first hand experience with spiders but all I have read and heard form the tops in the game indicates that all spiders wobble to some extent or another. Additionally, like the Jag morph in carpets, all spiders are reported to be a little "off" in other ways.

Quote:

---

2. Kinking in caramels. Although recessive there has also been a lot of work on outbreeding but still many caramels kink but not 100% of them.

---

Granted not all caramels kink, but you never see a higher rate of kinking in the hets do you? The kinking condition is a result of a pathway disruption that is only there when both recessive alleles are present, in the presence of a WT allele there is no indication that the animal is a het unless you know that based on breeding.

Quote:

---

3. Kinking and duck bill in homozygous cinnamon/black pastel. Same thing, seen consistently but not always.

---

Again, you are talking homozygous vs. heterozygous condition. The specific condition is the result of a homozygous induced disruption. In the heterozygous condition there is no indication of any other factor associate.

Quote:

---

These non absolutes aren't neat and tidy but they seem to be real even though they are seen sporadically. To me the wide white belly with dark lines at the edge and intricate and bright back pattern seen in many but not all het pieds looks a lot like the start of the pied white creeping up from the belly and the dark lines and bright color seen in the non white areas of a homozygous pied. Maybe being homozygous pied and to a lesser degree het pied resists the migration of color from the neural crest down leaving the white belly and in a homozygous pied also white some places on the back. Just like homozygous pieds vary in how restricted the color is (i.e. how high the white is) perhaps the hets can vary too due to other genetics, chance, or perhaps even incubation environment.

---

I do not deny that the above mentioned conditions are real but I do not think they are exactly in the same range of condition as the het pied marker. If pied is a recessive trait then the hets should be phenotype WT. If they are not phenotype WT then pied has to be a co-dom trait (albeit a state where the het form is a very very subtle one but we have that like with a few other morphs so it is not unheard of.)

Honestly I have no real stance either way, I am just playing devil's advocate. And it still seems that no one is willing to even consider that the marker could very well be the result of unintentional selective breeding.

Look at it in this manner:

When someone is breeding a pastel to a WT they usually pick a WT with high yellow/gold so as to enhance the pastel effect (why breed a pastel to a dark animal if it is just going to give you sub par pastels?) As a result, WT offspring from pastel breedings tend to be higher yellow animals.

Now apply this same logic to pied breedings in terms of accidental marker selection. A "preferred" way of breeding for recessive traits is to breed the homozygous recessive to a het so that all offspring are either the recessive or 100% hets. Now, some how (does not matter if it was accident or intent) the marker was assigned as a trait of het pieds. Someone gets an animal with the marker and breeds it to their pied. Only hets were produced in the clutch, and for arguments sake say half have the marker. Now, marker and pied are separate but because of the correlation assigned to the marker more people are inclined to breed the marker animals in their projects. A couple rounds of breeding marker carrying het pieds and you have enriched for the marker trait in offspring of pied breedings in the same manner that you have enriched for high yellow animals in pastel breedings.


Granted, I could be wrong. More than happy to admit that. All I am trying to do is offer and argument that many people seem to be ignoring as a possibility.

I've wondered something similar relative to "marker" het pieds versus "non-marker"

Just for sake of arguement (and to cull my hypothesis) what if there were 2 lines of pieds which were compatible? Similar to how mojave and lesser interact (only that in the pied example the combined homozygous offspring is indistinguishable from same gene homozygous).

Say there is a "co-dom" marker pied gene that is compatible with a truely recessive pied gene?

One's with markers could potentially produce homozygous pieds if bred to other markers or they could be bred to true het pieds (non-marker) and produce pieds.

And....just as the previous poster mentioned selective breeding has selected fewer het pieds without the markers?

Just throwing that out there wondering if that's a possiblility?

Easy enough to prove right? Breed marker to marker and then breed the resulting pied to normals to see if you get all markers? Maybe this has been proven otherwise but I thought it was a fun idea. :)

Great discussion guys!

I've actually considered this approach, but what about all the clutches from breeding hets with markers, to completely unrelated normals? In my experience, 50% of the offspring have had the marker from doing this, and as you point out, 100% of actual 100% hets have carried the marker including those bred to pastels. I strongly believe the traits are much more than coincidence.

Brandon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Honestly I have no real stance either way, I am just playing devil's advocate. And it still seems that no one is willing to even consider that the marker could very well be the result of unintentional selective breeding.

Look at it in this manner:

When someone is breeding a pastel to a WT they usually pick a WT with high yellow/gold so as to enhance the pastel effect (why breed a pastel to a dark animal if it is just going to give you sub par pastels?) As a result, WT offspring from pastel breedings tend to be higher yellow animals.

Now apply this same logic to pied breedings in terms of accidental marker selection. A "preferred" way of breeding for recessive traits is to breed the homozygous recessive to a het so that all offspring are either the recessive or 100% hets. Now, some how (does not matter if it was accident or intent) the marker was assigned as a trait of het pieds. Someone gets an animal with the marker and breeds it to their pied. Only hets were produced in the clutch, and for arguments sake say half have the marker. Now, marker and pied are separate but because of the correlation assigned to the marker more people are inclined to breed the marker animals in their projects. A couple rounds of breeding marker carrying het pieds and you have enriched for the marker trait in offspring of pied breedings in the same manner that you have enriched for high yellow animals in pastel breedings.


Granted, I could be wrong. More than happy to admit that. All I am trying to do is offer and argument that many people seem to be ignoring as a possibility.

---

[QUOTE=RandyRemington;934765]
1. The wobble in spiders. If it wasn't a side effect of the actual spider mutation surely the linkage would be broken with all the spider outbreeding by now and someone would be selling a line of guaranteed 100% non looping spiders.

wow very nicely put, I think from here on out when somebody questions me how I feel about spiders wobbling and if they all have it, I am going to tell them exactly what you just wrote. I agree with you 150percent. Great job!

Brandon,

I am not certain I understand what you are saying here so let me take a stab at what I think you are getting at and if I am wrong please do correct me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Osborne

but what about all the clutches from breeding hets with markers, to completely unrelated normals? In my experience, 50% of the offspring have had the marker from doing this

---

Okay so in a marker het x WT breeding say we get a 6 egg clutch. 3 of the offspring have marker (call them m3) and 3 do not (call them p3).

Quote:

---

and as you point out, 100% of actual 100% hets have carried the marker including those bred to pastels.

---

This is where I get confused because:

1) I do not think I said 100% of actual 100% hets carried the marker except in a very specific case where a pied animal was bred to an animal with the marker that may or may not have actually been a het. It is only in that very specific case that you could you guarantee that 100% of the marker animals were 100% het. The traits could still be unrelated because, in this example, the marker trait comes from the marker parent and the het allele comes from the pied parent.

2) I was not talking about breeding pieds to pastels so I am not sure what you are driving at there...


But, if I am reading it the way I think you are saying it then I think what you are saying is that the m3 animals and only the m3 animals in the breeding example from above are het pied and the p3 animals are simply WT. I do not think you can guarantee that this is necessarily the case 100% of the time. This would perpetuate the cycle though if it is assumed that only the m3 animals were the hets because people would be more likely to snatch those up and breed them in their projects which further perpetuates the enrichment of the marker trait in the pied pool. Those that do not have the marker are less likely to be used in breeding projects and so the "unmarked trait" is thereby selected against in the pied pool.

It is selfish gene theory. Same reason all female peacocks carry the gene for long tails

Quote:

---

I strongly believe the traits are much more than coincidence.

---

And, as I said, that may well be and I am more than willing to admit it. I am just arguing the case as devil's advocate, mostly because I feel it is a possibility that many people do not consider. Occam's razor is not always the right way of looking at things :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Now apply this same logic to pied breedings in terms of accidental marker selection. A "preferred" way of breeding for recessive traits is to breed the homozygous recessive to a het so that all offspring are either the recessive or 100% hets. Now, some how (does not matter if it was accident or intent) the marker was assigned as a trait of het pieds. Someone gets an animal with the marker and breeds it to their pied. Only hets were produced in the clutch, and for arguments sake say half have the marker. Now, marker and pied are separate but because of the correlation assigned to the marker more people are inclined to breed the marker animals in their projects. A couple rounds of breeding marker carrying het pieds and you have enriched for the marker trait in offspring of pied breedings in the same manner that you have enriched for high yellow animals in pastel breedings.


Granted, I could be wrong. More than happy to admit that. All I am trying to do is offer and argument that many people seem to be ignoring as a possibility.

---

Good point, i never thought of it in those terms before. I guess that kind of logic is applied to breeding any animals to achieve a certain 'affect.' Not that they're the same but i know the bichon dogs were bred specifically to wave, so that breed to known for their waving. Rats can be bred for personality and color or physical differences in either dom or rec genes. I never thought of applying that same type of thought into herp genes. Makes sence, but again as we have already learned (or as i have learned) none of those are 100% accurate within any species. I guess the markers make for a good basis but it ultimately comes down to the breeder and their knowlege of past clutches to determine the outcome of the latest clutch and genetic differences within those offspring alone, not necessarily all offspring of every clutch ever produced by anyone in anyplace. (if that makes sense)

or maybe because the het pied phenotype is just as variable and very similar in appearance to a normal ball python, we have mistaken the gene for a recessive one but the gene is actually incompletely dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Granted not all caramels kink, but you never see a higher rate of kinking in the hets do you? The kinking condition is a result of a pathway disruption that is only there when both recessive alleles are present, in the presence of a WT allele there is no indication that the animal is a het unless you know that based on breeding.

---

Are you 100% on that? ;)

Quote:

---

Again, you are talking homozygous vs. heterozygous condition. The specific condition is the result of a homozygous induced disruption. In the heterozygous condition there is no indication of any other factor associate.

---

Are you 100% on that too?

Quote:

---

I do not deny that the above mentioned conditions are real but I do not think they are exactly in the same range of condition as the het pied marker. If pied is a recessive trait then the hets should be phenotype WT. If they are not phenotype WT then pied has to be a co-dom trait (albeit a state where the het form is a very very subtle one but we have that like with a few other morphs so it is not unheard of.)

---

Are you 100% on that one too?

Quote:

---

Look at it in this manner:

When someone is breeding a pastel to a WT they usually pick a WT with high yellow/gold so as to enhance the pastel effect (why breed a pastel to a dark animal if it is just going to give you sub par pastels?) As a result, WT offspring from pastel breedings tend to be higher yellow animals.

---

And this?




No on is ignoring your speculation, however genetics in of themselves are complicated, and many are simply trying to wrap their heads around what co-dom vs incomplete dom really means.

Randy Remington is the guy people go to for guidance in understanding ball python genetics. Your broad declarations on the results from ball python breedings is really quite authoritative.

Have you been to a reptile show? Have you seen the multitudes of dirty brown pastels and normal looking co-dom morphs? I would think it's safe to say that few people are truly working on selective breeding, even far less likely are they accidentally selectively breeding for a trait that could be a marker.

I bring up deserts as my example number one. Look at the pattern changes the desert morph does to HET recessive animals like the desert het clown? Wow... it's really amazing.

Or perhaps there are genes at work in the marker animals that are expressed in the phenotype as "markers" when the heterozygous form of the recessive morph gene is present?

Maybe the way these genes work are not so cut and dry that we can say for CERTAIN that they only work this way, and there is NO possibility that the interactions, distance, or accumulation of genes has no phenotypical expression when the recessive gene of the desired morph is only heterozygous.

markers arent 100% here's my example. Here's a pic of my 100% het pied:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...s/S6302034.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...s/S6302035.jpg

Here's a female I bought as a normal/possible mystery het, looks like the same belly markings:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...s/S6302036.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

Are you 100% on that? ;)

Are you 100% on that too?

Are you 100% on that one too?

And this?

---

I am not 100% on anything and I have said that through out my postings. ;)

Quote:

---

No on is ignoring your speculation,

---

Well I have not heard it spoken of anywhere so I do not think it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that it was not an idea tossed around. If no one is talking about it how am I to know that others are thinking about it? Hmmm??

Quote:

---

however genetics in of themselves are complicated,

---

There is a reason for my signature :) I am not a neophyte to genetics. :)

Quote:

---

and many are simply trying to wrap their heads around what co-dom vs incomplete dom really means.

---

Yes, something that has not escaped my attention.

Quote:

---

Randy Remington is the guy people go to for guidance in understanding ball python genetics.

---

That may be. I honestly would not know Randy from Joe on the street. From what I have read that Randy has posted I have enormous respect for him. (Cheers Randy :gj: ) However, just cause he is the "go to" guy does not make him the end all be all. "Authorities" and "experts" can still be wrong. And sometimes it is not that they are wrong it is just that there is something they may not have considered that an outside source might. In point of fact any real expert will happily admit that they do not know everything and will readily hear out other ideas.

Quote:

---

Your broad declarations on the results from ball python breedings is really quite authoritative.

---

No more so than half the other broad declarations I have read on forums... Nothing authoritative about it. Point of fact I pretty much ripped that part about pastel breeding word for word from another thread here so... I was using it as an example, nothing more and nothing less.

That is moot however because I have said all along that I am:

1) Playing devil's advocate

2) Making generalizations

I am not claiming anything as 100% fact (as you seem to be accusing me of) but I am trying to get people to engage in an idea that I do not think is without merit. If nothing else just for some interesting conversation on an interesting topic.

Quote:

---

Have you been to a reptile show? Have you seen the multitudes of dirty brown pastels and normal looking co-dom morphs?

---

Yes I have. That point does not prove anything.

Quote:

---

I would think it's safe to say that few people are truly working on selective breeding, even far less likely are they accidentally selectively breeding for a trait that could be a marker.

---

That is a rather broad declarations you are making quite authoritatively. :P

Personally, I am more inclined to think that serious breeder are being quite selective and that is obvious in the fact that they do not sell crap animals like $75 pastels and $300 lessers. Any closet breeder can slap two animals together for the intent of making a quick buck and co-coms are a great way to do that cause you get instant results. Investing a couple thousand in a pied is a little different (at least to me).

Quote:

---

I bring up deserts as my example number one. Look at the pattern changes the desert morph does to HET recessive animals like the desert het clown? Wow... it's really amazing.

---

Yes it is amazing. But are you 100% certain that that is all down to the desert? What if that is something about the clown? Or maybe a hidden gene? Or maybe none of the above but a maternally inherited RNA factor (maybe the reciprocal will look different? Who can say?)

Quote:

---

Or perhaps there are genes at work in the marker animals that are expressed in the phenotype as "markers" when the heterozygous form of the recessive morph gene is present?

---

Never denied that. As I have said all along I could be wrong. I am more than happy to admit that.

Quote:

---

Maybe the way these genes work are not so cut and dry that we can say for CERTAIN that they only work this way, and there is NO possibility that the interactions, distance, or accumulation of genes has no phenotypical expression when the recessive gene of the desired morph is only heterozygous.

---

And once again, I never denied any of these things. I do find it ironic that you can sit here and lecture me about it not being so "cut and dry" when the whole point of my playing devil's advocate (as I have been saying I was doing all along) was done to get people to realize that maybe this whole marker thing is not as cut and dry as it is being made out to be...

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Osborne

Again I'll ask, why did the largest producer of Pieds in the world hold back all of this possible hets and sell the 100% hets? From what I know, the marker was first discovered by him.

---

Are you talking about Peter Kahl?

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

And once again, I never denied any of these things. I do find it ironic that you can sit here and lecture me about it not being so "cut and dry" when the whole point of my playing devil's advocate (as I have been saying I was doing all along) was done to get people to realize that maybe this whole marker thing is not as cut and dry as it is being made out to be...

---

If your going to play devil's advocate, then don't take my responses to your advocacy so personally. ;)

Since it's a genetic trait - I sincerely doubt there is any physical features that would identify het anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrLew

Since it's a genetic trait - I sincerely doubt there is any physical features that would identify het anything.

---

Do you really mean "genetic" trait or maybe "recessive" trait? I'd point out that pastel (co-dominant) is genetic and heterozygous pastels are identifiable. But even if you meant "recessive" I don't think pied is text book recessive but rather in a gray area with sporadic co-dominant tendencies. Maybe it's as simple as there being several different normal alleles of the piebald gene and the pied mutation can be either recessive or co-dominant depending on which "normal" allele it's paired with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I don't think pied is text book recessive but rather in a gray area with sporadic co-dominant tendencies. Maybe it's as simple as there being several different normal alleles of the piebald gene and the pied mutation can be either recessive or co-dominant depending on which "normal" allele it's paired with.

---

Now there is an interesting idea. Sort of like the "hidden" gene in the platty complex... Silent when paired with the true WT allele but causing the marker when paired with a pied allele... Very interesting...

Its also possilbe that whatever gene responsible for the het pied marker is a totally separate gene from the piebald gene. If the marker gene is positioned near enough to the piebald gene on the chromosome, it should be linked and inherited with the pied gene, which is why it tends to show up frequently in het pied animals. Like everyone is saying, this is definetlely not cut and dry, especially since there is no sequenced genom information on ball pythons and we really have no idea what genes are actually responsible for what mutation.