50% het?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim

I don't breed and I'm not a genetics guy, but can I assume that clutches with multiple possible sires complicate the Het math?

---

well say you have a het albino and pastel hypo breed to a female het albino.

you know all albinos are obviously albino
you know all pastels are het hypo 50% pos het albino
the rest of the clutch you can't be sure, your basically left telling the customer what you bred and they can decide for themselves. but i would assume your just going to be selling them as 50% pos het albino, only thing you can say that snake is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim

I don't breed and I'm not a genetics guy, but can I assume that clutches with multiple possible sires complicate the Het math?

---

Personally, I would likely avoid using multiple sires when hets are involved without weeding out any issues.

Example: Albino female bred to a het Albino and say a Super Mojo. They you would know any normals are het Albino as well as any Mojos being het Albino, and the Super lets you figure out who is the sire. So here you could get Albinos, WT het Albino and Mojo het Albino. Lineage would be clear for each offspring.

OR if both of your sires are in the same boat het-wise (ex. both 100% het for the same thing) but maybe with different codom (inc dom) visual morphs

ex. Female Albino (or het Albino) to both a Black Pastel het Albino male and a Enchi het Albino male. All of your non-albino offspring would have the same percentage possible het Albino and it really matters not who the sire is on the WT ones (but they would be het, or poss het Albino).

Now add double recessive hets and it gets a bit complicated....

I think the main point people get confused about, is that 50% het is not half het. It may be het, or it may not be. It's only going to be one or the other. If it is het--it carries the morph gene. If it's not, then it doesn't.
Regardless of what we know, an animal is either het (100% het), or it isn't.

The percentages only refer to what we know--the ODDS that the animal is, or is not, het, based on what was bred. The morph gene isn't passed on every time when you breed a het animal.

This is because het animals carry 1 copy of the morph gene, and one copy of the normal gene, and only pass one of them on to each offspring they produce.

Once an animal is proven--it's been bred to other animals carrying that gene, and has produced visual morph offspring, then it's no longer '50% het'--it becomes 100% het, or a proven het. If it never produces visual offspring, then after a while, and a number of breedings, people assume that it is not het.

Some animals may called 'possible het' for a long time, because the point at which different people give up will vary. There have been some het snakes that have rolled the dice the right way so many times in a row, that they were assumed to not be carrying the morph gene...but then later, were proven to have it after all. :)

I hope that helped, if there was any confusion remaining.

If I may interject, some morphs have a visible het. Though some may argue, pieds have a visible het and it is even more pronounced when combined with some codoms. At least with the line I have been working with, I can pick out hets from 50% and 66% clutches. So far my picks have proven in all cases.

I do agree the percentage of possibility should be fully disclosed. I think the use of 50% het and 66% het is only because of the assumption of common knowledge of the terms and meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Osborne

If I may interject, some morphs have a visible het. Though some may argue, pieds have a visible het and it is even more pronounced when combined with some codoms.

---

How can you distinguish het pieds from normals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LGray23

Het x het breeding

In this you can't tell between the hets and the normals, therefore they are 66% het instead of selling a normal as a het, since there is an equal chance of being het.

---

I admit i am still very confused. When we say 66% het what are we really saying?

a) this individual, normal looking snake, from het x het parents has 66% chances to be het

b) 66% of the normal looking snakes in a clutch from het x het parents are het

c) none of the above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

I admit i am still very confused. When we say 66% het what are we really saying?

a) this individual, normal looking snake, from het x het parents has 66% chances to be het

b) 66% of the normal looking snakes in a clutch from het x het parents are het

c) none of the above

---

There are markers, but not all het pieds have them. Also, not all normals don't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

a) this individual, normal looking snake, from het x het parents has 66% chances to be het

---

OK. So lets imagine a het x het generates a clutch of 5 snakes. One snake shows the morph (not het) and the remaining 4 snakes are normal looking. What chance does one of the normal looking snakes have of being het?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

OK. So lets imagine a het x het generates a clutch of 5 snakes. One snake shows the morph (not het) and the remaining 4 snakes are normal looking. What chance does one of the normal looking snakes have of being het?

---

66%