Ok, now I am confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

If what is claimed is true, Leopard does not make pied animals, read the link above. It is just a simple dominant trait. Also Mojave and fire have nothing to do with each other. Completely different loci.




The claim is super leopard looks like a leopard. I think more people are realizing what a joke wobp has become. Facebook probably has more morphs than wobp.

---

I did read the link, they are trying to prove leopard as a separate gene but why keep breeding het pieds if they are trying to separate the two. If it is a dominant gene then there can be no super leopard, just like a spider or pin. They have the gene separated, why not do a leopard to leopard not being het for anything. I am aware that the fire and mojave have nothing to do with each other, but they both make a white snake. The point I was making is that the leopard and pied are completely different but that doesn't mean that they can't both make a pied looking animal.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztec4mia

I did read the link, they are trying to prove leopard as a separate gene but why keep breeding het pieds if they are trying to separate the two. If it is a dominant gene then there can be no super leopard, just like a spider or pin. They have the gene separated, why not do a leopard to leopard not being het for anything. I am aware that the fire and mojave have nothing to do with each other, but they both make a white snake. The point I was making is that the leopard and pied are completely different but that doesn't mean that they can't both make a pied looking animal.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

---

Read it again, they already have proved out a super leopard that is not pied, super leopard looks like a leopard, there is supposedly no visual difference, just like pin. The only way they relate it they appear to be closely linked. Dominant means the het and homo (super) versions look the same, there has to be a super to be dominant. A couple people have proved them with the pinstripe, no one has done that with the spider, thus spider cannot be classified as dominant.

Here's an episode of Reptile Radio from March 13, 2014 with Greg Graziani discusing with a geneticist, Dr. Travis Wyman talking about separating the two genes.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/reptile...r-travis-wyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajmreptiles

Here's an episode of Reptile Radio from March 13, 2014 with Greg Graziani discusing with a geneticist, Dr. Travis Wyman talking about separating the two genes.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/reptile...r-travis-wyman

---

That was a good episode

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Read it again, they already have proved out a super leopard that is not pied, super leopard looks like a leopard, there is supposedly no visual difference, just like pin. The only way they relate it they appear to be closely linked. Dominant means the het and homo (super) versions look the same, there has to be a super to be dominant. A couple people have proved them with the pinstripe, no one has done that with the spider, thus spider cannot be classified as dominant.

---

We're saying the same thing, the leopard is a different gene, but besides someone saying we breed two leopards and they all looked the same. Has anyone proven which one is a super, did they breed it with a normal and get all leopards? They did the same thing with spiders. I thought I remember hearing a few years back a spider to spider breeding that made all spiders.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztec4mia

Has anyone proven which one is a super, did they breed it with a normal and get all leopards?

---

In the article above....

Quote:

---

Direct Evidence:

Recently Greg Graziani posted up a great statement about his breeding results on his Facebook page:

“In 2013 we bred a Spider Piebald (from a Leopard x Spider Leopard breeding theorizing that is was a Super Leopard) to 3 females for a total of 23 eggs. None of the offspring were Leopard. We are now convinced that the Leopard gene and the Piebald gene can be separated.
To further support our theory we have been made aware of 2 other Super Leopards that were not Piebalds. One of which is owned by Markus Jayne and was proven after producing 5 clutches with 100% of the offspring displaying the Leopard trait.” Read his full statement here.

To summarize the quote: First, Graziani proved that a Spider Piebald that was produced by two Leopard parents did not carry the Leopard gene. This violates point 1 & 2 above, breaking the theory completely.

Second, he proved two Super Leopards that were not visual piebalds, and yet did not look different than a regular Leopard. This violates point 1 above. It also shows that the the Super Leopard does exist, but hasn’t been shown to be visually different than a standard Leopard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztec4mia

They did the same thing with spiders. I thought I remember hearing a few years back a spider to spider breeding that made all spiders.

---

i just did a pin x pin breeding and got all pins, it doesn't prove out any supers. Any of those offspring has a 33% chance of being a super, it takes breeding records to prove it out though. No one has done that with a spider yet, at least that I have seen.

From what I have heard about the leopard gene is that the first leopards actually came from a visual pied and that's why some people believe their all at least 50% possible het pied and some believe that the super leopard looks like a pie bald

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

I personally believe that the leopard and pied genes are probably linked. That being said, please forget everything you think about what "linked" means. There is a misconception among ball python hobbyists that linked means these genes must always occur together or are somehow actually two alleles from the same locus, but that is not what the term linked actually implies.

From Wikipedia: "Genetic linkage is the tendency of alleles that are located close together on a chromosome to be inherited together during the meiosis phase of sexual reproduction. Genes whose loci are nearer to each other are less likely to be separated onto different chromatids during chromosomal crossover, and are therefore said to be genetically linked. In other words, the nearer two genes are on a chromosome, the lower is the chance of a swap occurring between them, and the more likely they are to be inherited together."

"Linked" would simply mean that Leopard and Pied are distinct genes located close together. Two mutations are more likely to be inherited together if they were already paired on the same chromosome, and located next to one another. I personally have a leopard het pied which (after multiple pairings to piebalds) appears to have his leopard and pied traits on opposite homologous chromosomes... meaning he is actually less likely to pass them on as a pair... a fact which still supports the "linked" hypothesis (if being on the same chromosome increases likelihood of being inherited together, then being on opposite chromosomes must decrease the likelihood of being paired together). All his offspring have either inherited his pied gene or his leopard gene, never both. Likewise, if many of the earliest animals in this project had their mutations on the same chromosome, it would give the confusing impression that all leopards are het pied, due to the extremely skewed ratios of paired inheritance.

Linkage is determined through statistical analysis of offspring ratios.

If linkage is true, this still allows for the leopard gene and piebald gene to be completely isolated from one another. It allows for the existence of "super leopards." And finally, it explains why so many of the early breeders, and some still to this day, insist that all leopards are pieds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARBallMorphs

ok thanks.

what Brian said in that youtube vid was, "all Leopards are actually het. pied"

and that is where my confusion came from, thanks again

---

I don't know exactly which BHB video it was, but later on, he does another video saying that are not directly linked. He just originally theorized they were. I believe that video also echoed what Family Jewels explained as well.