Breed axanthics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gafaled

Sorry...I forgot the last post: My BPs are 100% phenotype axanthic.

---

Meaning they are hets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subzero

Not true with rescessive genes. the original poster was correct.

---

Yes it is true if it was not I would not post it ;), this might help you understand a little better http://www.ballpython.ca/what_get/recessive.html

Meaning that look like axanthic, not only carry out genes.
Thank a lot.

Deborah,

This link is very good information for me.

Thank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gafaled

Meaning that look like axanthic, not only carry out genes.
Thank a lot.

---

I bet you get all normals! Good luck..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA_Ball_Pythons

Yes it is true if it was not I would not post it ;), this might help you understand a little better http://www.ballpython.ca/what_get/recessive.html

---

Are you sure? What if I breed a VPI Axanthic to a Snakekeeper Axanthic? Joliff? Nerd? Other new line?

I think I understand what you're trying to say... that a HOMOZYGOUS Axanthic bred to a HOMOZYGOUS Axanthic will yield all Axanthics. That is true as long as the snakes are from compatible lines.

Recessive X Recessive does not necessarily = Recessive.
If I breed a homozygous Axanthic to a homozygous Albino (both recessive), I'm not getting snows or albinos or axanthics. I will get double hets, though.

Axanthic X Axanthic does not necessarily = Axanthic.
If I breed a VPI Axanthic to a Snakekeeper Axanthic, I'm not getting Axanthics. double hets, yes... Axanthics, no.

Steve

Here is examples of the punnett squares of all possible outcomes from the same line of axanthic

axanthics allies= xx
Het Axanthics allies= Xx or Nx
wild type allies= NN

so axanthic x axanthic=
___x__x_
x |xx|xx|
x |xx|xx|

which means 100% visible axanthics


or 2 100% het axantics =
___N__x_
N|NN|Nx|
x|Nx|xx|

which = 25% wild type NN , 50% Het axanthics Nx, 25% axanthics xx


or a 100% het x axanthic=
___N__x_
x|Nx|xx|
x|Nx|xx|

which = 50% het axanthic Nx & 50% axanthic xx

or axanthic x wild type =
___x__x_
N|Nx|Nx|
N|Nx|Nx|

which = 100% het axanthic Nx

Last het axanthic x wild type=
___N__x_
N|NN|Nx|
N|NN|Nx|

Now these will all appear normal the odds are 50% het Nx & 50% normal but all babies would be know as 50% possible het

hope these helps and doesn't confuse you writing punnett squares on the forum is kinda hard :D

what if it was a pastel to a pastel? or a pastel to a super?

or do you just look at a pastel as being a het for super pastel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by claytonfaulkner

what if it was a pastel to a pastel? or a pastel to a super?

---

As I mentioned in my first response in this thread, it makes no difference whether we're talking about recessive, co-dom, or dominant. The genetics work the same. The only difference is the visual result.

So, if a het Axanthic x het Axanthic =
25% homozygous Axanthic
50% het Axanthic
25% Normal

then

Pastel (heterozygous) x Pastel (heterozyous) =
25% Super Pastel (homozygous)
50% Pastel (heterozygous)
25% Normal

or

Pastel (heterozygous) x Super Pastel (homozygous) =
50% Super Pastel (homozygous)
50% Pastel (heterozygous)

Look at travisjara's post above, showing the punnet squares for axanthics, and plug in Pastel for het axanthic, and Super Pastel for Axanthic. The results will be the same. Again, the only difference is visual expression. In other words, where he said that het axanthics look normal, heterozygous Pastels do NOT look normal. Therefore, there would be no "50% probable het Pastels".

Steve