Recessive and co-dominant

LOL. I'm 49 and way past taking a basic bio class although I'd love too. I'm a professional geologist and an environmental attorney so genetics is definitely not my thing.

However, with that wonderful response, I think it clicked. I was linking the matter of recessive, dominant and co-dominant with Het and Hom. I didn't get that the genetics of a BP are due to recessive, co-dominant and dominant genes but also to whether the parents are het/hom. I see now that you have to look at both whether it is a recessive, co-dominant or dominant gene (singular) and whether it is a het or a Hom.

Let me try it out just to make sure. The only way one parent will in 100% probability make babies like itself is if it is Hom and mates with another similar one that is hom. All four genes the same....and...it doesn't matter if it is co-dominant or dominant. That will only affect whether it is the co-dominant form or super form visually. Is this correct? If so, all I need to figure out now is how one tells whether an animal is het or hom?

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to educate me on this.

ONe thing to rem is..
If you have a spider, bred to a normal. Half the babies are spider and therefor carry the spider gene. Half the babies "missed" the spider gene and are normals. The normal babies do NOT carry any version of the spider gene.. it's not recessive, so it doesn't "hide" in a otherwise normal looking baby. So if they look normal.. they don't carry any spider genes.
Sometimes you just have to hear the explanation over and over in slightly different forms before something "clicks" for you. I had to read it over and over, and ask a lot of questions myself about it.

Actually, I guess my example would be the super form since both have matched gene pairs. Re: the spider, I read that some thought there was no hom form due to such a combination being fatal.

Now I'm ready to work out some punnet tables for fun. Last question, is there a list somewhere of which typical morphs are hets to their associated homs (such as Lessers to BELs)? I've found the list of recessive, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nvar

LOL. I'm 49 and way past taking a basic bio class although I'd love too. I'm a professional geologist and an environmental attorney so genetics is definitely not my thing.

However, with that wonderful response, I think it clicked. I was linking the matter of recessive, dominant and co-dominant with Het and Hom. I didn't get that the genetics of a BP are due to recessive, co-dominant and dominant genes but also to whether the parents are het/hom. I see now that you have to look at both whether it is a recessive, co-dominant or dominant gene (singular) and whether it is a het or a Hom.

Let me try it out just to make sure. The only way one parent will in 100% probability make babies like itself is if it is Hom and mates with another similar one that is hom. All four genes the same....and...it doesn't matter if it is co-dominant or dominant. That will only affect whether it is the co-dominant form or super form visually. Is this correct? If so, all I need to figure out now is how one tells whether an animal is het or hom?

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to educate me on this.

---

Yes if you wanted to get 100% offspring genetically like the father or mother you MUST breed it with another homozygous animal of the same type. Like AlbinoxAlbino=all albinos since both are homozygous for the trait. That link I posted up explains everything. However the nice thing about a homozygous co-dom/dom is that when bred to a normal they throw all morphs. Like a lesserxlesser BEL bred to a normal=100% lessers which is the visual co-dom het.

As for how you tell if an animal is co-dominant or super visually? Um, you just have to know what is what. You know what a lesser looks like and you know it is a co-dom and that the super form of a lesser is the BEL. There are a ton of morphs out there, you just have to educate yourself as to what is what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nvar

Actually, I guess my example would be the super form since both have matched gene pairs. Re: the spider, I read that some thought there was no hom form due to such a combination being fatal.

---

so if i bred a spider to a spider...theyd be dead babies???
not that it was ever my intention to breed spider to spider unless they were both het for something. i.e. albino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azpythons

so if i bred a spider to a spider...theyd be dead babies???
not that it was ever my intention to breed spider to spider unless they were both het for something. i.e. albino.

---

The Super Woma (Woma x Woma) is thought to be a weak gene. The Supers die off within a few months, unless combined with other genes.

As for the Super Spider... That is questionable.

Well there are designer morph and there is base morph.

A spider, pastel, pied, albino, pinstripe, genetic stripe are all base morph. All these appears in the wild. They are not done by human.

While a bumblee, lemon blast, caramel glow, dreamstick etc... are all designer morph since they are all made of multiple base morph.

And to go further, yes a designer morph could exist in the wild. But the chance are low that a spider mate a pastel in the wild. They are probably from different part of their territory too.

I've heard that some supers are not genetically viable but who knows. You'll have to wait for one of the breeders on here to respond to that one. Still, with a dominant "super" like maybe a 100% homozygous pin you'd just have to prove it out. I love do love me some pins...

Ok. Now, I understand that some of the really wild morphs are double recessives but how does one go about getting different/new morphs from co-dominant or dominant-gene hom BPs? Do you bred for secondary traits such as to get the difference between a black-eyed Lucy and a blue-eyed Lucy?

I guess the incredible new piebald morphs are double recessives? I just saw a pic of a "Panda Pied" on a thread about the Tampa show. WOW! Was that a project or just an accident?