What are Pieds? (Jinx)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Just because there can be "markers" (which I might add are not 100%) for a recessive trait does not make it not recessive. They still have the WT phenotype in the het form, which is what makes them recessive.

---

When you breed a pastel to a normal the pastels you make are not just pastels, they are pastel + whatever genetics the normal adds to the equation.

When you breed a clown X normal the sum total of that snake is whatever both sire and dam bring to the table.

In my opinion what you are saying isn't even possible, both parents add to the out come of every baby,
so how is it even possible to say only one trait shows?
Because early pioneers in the hobby said so?
I was always taught to question everything, so that don't fly with me.

Back to my photo's, I asked if het clown is truly recessive how does it alter those yellowbellys 100% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

When you breed a pastel to a normal the pastels you make are not just pastels, they are pastel + whatever genetics the normal adds to the equation.

When you breed a clown X normal the sum total of that snake is whatever both sire and dam bring to the table.

In my opinion what you are saying isn't even possible, both parents add to the out come of every baby,
so how is it even possible to say only one trait shows?
Because early pioneers in the hobby said so?
I was always taught to question everything, so that don't fly with me.

Back to my photo's, I asked if het clown is truly recessive how does it alter those yellowbellys 100% of the time.

---

Yes every parent adds to the outcome 99.999999999999% of the time. Where did I say they didn't? It's possible to say that only one trait shows because it is proven genetics. A clown male to a normal female will result in the babies having 1 WT gene and 1 Clown gene. Those babies will NOT look like a clown. They may have "markers" but they DON'T look like a clown. Hence clown is a recessive trait. It is not EXPRESSED in the het form. Like I said just because you can possibly see a marker doesn’t make it not a recessive trait. Not to mention more than one locus that can affect the appearance of an animal.

I to question everything. If I don't know the answer to something I will ask others who do and will also research it.

guys, calm down.


Maybe you just need to differentiate more between genes andtraits.

You can argue and debate all day, but i think the problem is not to be found in physical reality, the problem is in different imprecise and incompatible descriptions of reality.

There is no difference between a super form and a visible recessive. Its homozygous.

GENES can be absent, or present in heterozygous form, or present in homozygous form. nothing inbetween. If a homozygous form is invisible or absent or lethal, we call the gene dominant. Here you could call genes where the heterozygous form is completely undetectible recessives, but really there is not much of a point to it. Most genes we work with are codominant, some genes are dominant because there is no proven super, a few are recessive because the hets show no markers. But a snake can have each gene 0 times, 1 time, or 2 times.

TRAITS can be incomplete dominant or recessive. Albino is a recessive trait, Ivory is a recessive trait, blue-eye-lucy is a recessive trait, pied is a recessive trait. It doesnt matter that the gene is not recessive here! It just doesnt matter. Albino is a trait, and its described as white/yellow, absence of black pigment. And you need a homozygous or super (remember, these two are the same) to get there. Same for the Ivory. The gene may be clearly codominant, but Ivory is a recessive TRAIT. You need a homozygous super to get it. With pied you need a homozygous recessive to get visual pied, with leopard you need a super leopard to get a pied.

Really, you are fighting meaningless semantics. A deeper knowledge and more precise language causes these meaningless conflicts to simply vanish. You worry about het pieds? think het red axanthic. Visible supers are similar to visible recessives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

guys, calm down.


Maybe you just need to differentiate more between genes andtraits.

You can argue and debate all day, but i think the problem is not to be found in physical reality, the problem is in different imprecise and incompatible descriptions of reality.

There is no difference between a super form and a visible recessive. Its homozygous.

GENES can be absent, or present in heterozygous form, or present in homozygous form. nothing inbetween. If a homozygous form is invisible or absent or lethal, we call the gene dominant. Here you could call genes where the heterozygous form is completely undetectible recessives, but really there is not much of a point to it. Most genes we work with are codominant, some genes are dominant because there is no proven super, a few are recessive because the hets show no markers. But a snake can have each gene 0 times, 1 time, or 2 times.

TRAITS can be incomplete dominant or recessive. Albino is a recessive trait, Ivory is a recessive trait, blue-eye-lucy is a recessive trait, pied is a recessive trait. It doesnt matter that the gene is not recessive here! It just doesnt matter. Albino is a trait, and its described as white/yellow, absence of black pigment. And you need a homozygous or super (remember, these two are the same) to get there. Same for the Ivory. The gene may be clearly codominant, but Ivory is a recessive TRAIT. You need a homozygous super to get it. With pied you need a homozygous recessive to get visual pied, with leopard you need a super leopard to get a pied.

Really, you are fighting meaningless semantics. A deeper knowledge and more precise language causes these meaningless conflicts to simply vanish. You worry about het pieds? think het red axanthic. Visible supers are similar to visible recessives.

---

Oh I am calm and tranquil. Unfortunately typed letters do not convey emotions, just words.

Let me add... How about the NERD theory on Granites "attaching" to Hidden Gene Woma? Could this really be true and if so, I could see the Leopard/Pied thing in the same realm of becoming "attached", or they are just Allelic like some have proven them to be, or the original Leopards had already "attached" the pied gene, causing them to be what they are now.

I don't know, but what I do know is that we still have MANY years of figuring this stuff out... like the whole Banana "sex-link" issue... it boggles my mind... there is still much to figure out, holistically.

I agree with asplundii and Brant on their comments.

Quote:

---

Yes every parent adds to the outcome 99.999999999999% of the time. Where did I say they didn't? It's possible to say that only one trait shows because it is proven genetics. A clown male to a normal female will result in the babies having 1 WT gene and 1 Clown gene. Those babies will NOT look like a clown. They may have "markers" but they DON'T look like a clown. Hence clown is a recessive trait. It is not EXPRESSED in the het form. Like I said just because you can possibly see a marker doesn’t make it not a recessive trait. Not to mention more than one locus that can affect the appearance of an animal.

I to question everything. If I don't know the answer to something I will ask others who do and will also research it.

---

No one is saying that the clown gene is expressed as a clown in a het clown animal. What we're saying is that the clown GENE causes a slightly different phenotype than just a plane wild type animal. That phenotype won't be that of a clown animal, but it will be slightly different in the sense that if you were to put 10 normal babies in a tub with one of them being "het clown", just based on how the animal looks, you can pick out that "het clown" with pretty good accuracy.

If you did question everything, then you wouldn't be saying things along the lines of "Just accept that pied and clown are recessive." That's not questioning at all...that's simply conforming to the current paradigm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

Let me add... How about the NERD theory on Granites "attaching" to Hidden Gene Woma? Could this really be true and if so, I could see the Leopard/Pied thing in the same realm of becoming "attached", or they are just Allelic like some have proven them to be, or the original Leopards had already "attached" the pied gene, causing them to be what they are now.

I don't know, but what I do know is that we still have MANY years of figuring this stuff out... like the whole Banana "sex-link" issue... it boggles my mind... there is still much to figure out, holistically.

I agree with asplundii and Brant on their comments.

---

Leopard and het pied are really just allelic. if you make a super leopard, it looks like a pied. Same if you make a homozygous pied. And same for the combination: one copy of leopard and one copy of het pied also looks pied. These are the only known combos that make a visible pied. So its just like with BEL, or albino /candy / toffee.

That two genes are difficult to combine and once combined difficult to seperate is possible, that means they are close together on the same chromosome. But NERD uses confusing language when talking about genetics, its often hard to interpret unless you already have the correct answer. When it comes to genetics, i doubt anything coming from NERD unless properly proven out by others as well. And hidden gene woma, i dont know, a weird gene with a lethal super that has the wobble.

I think the issue with banana / coral glow is properly figured out by now, it just sits on the sex-determining chromosome pair. "ww" is a male and "wz" is a female. If all the "w"s in your BP carry the coral glow gene, you get a visual coral glow. It sits on the "w", and the presence of a "z" makes your python female. Basically its like a recessive, except in females you get one for free. So male coral glows are a bit harder to produce and a bit more powerful, and you can get pairings where in the offspring all males look normal and all females are visual coral glows. Its not too difficult really.

Spider 100% het clown with pretty much no white sides from a high white blonde bumblebee that has thrown nothing but high white otherwise
http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/PICT1253.jpg

It's pretty well known that adding het clown to spider causes low white to no white sides,
odd thing for a recessive trait to do don't you think?
It displays itself quite well in all morphs but not the wild type gene, how odd :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creepin

makes sense. so i guess my question now would be.. if WT phenotype het clowns were indistinguishable from their 100% WT counterparts, yet one was able to pick out pastel or YB het clowns from other pastel, YB, or whatever non-hets, would you then consider the clown mutation incomplete dominant or recessive?

---

Hey Creepin,

The argument is that the het Clowns are distinguishable from their WT siblings, just that in an otherwise WT background the difference is subtle enough that it might be missed by those with the untrained eye. And yes it is still considered inc-dom because that designation applies to the “three-phenotype rule” as it relates to the allele pair regardless of the background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Actually I understand genetics quite a bit more than most people here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I do fortunately understand quite a bit about genetics. I also do not rely on wiki for my knowledge.

---

No, you do not understand genetics, you only think you do. Really, you know just enough about genetics to think you know what you are talking about and that is just getting you in to trouble. Everything you are saying proves that you have a fundamental lack of understanding about how genetics works.

And yes, you are relying on Wiki because you keep citing that as the source of your knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

You say they are and it is commonly accepted so, but this does not make it so. Again I refer you to look into other animals such as mice, fish or even birds. Maybe what we are really dealing with is transheterozygotes

---

Yes, please do look at piebaldism in other species… Know what you will find? That in other species that exhibit the trait it is incomplete-dominant. And the same thing applies for leucism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

My proclaiming came into this because it IS a discussion on such things. And for the simple reason that it IS fact that Albinos, Clowns, Hypos and even Pieds are recessive.

---

Albinos? Yes (with the possible exception of that one allele Brant mentioned.) Hypos? Sure. Clowns? Looks like they may be inc-dom, maybe not, I still think some work needs to be done. Pieds? Inc-dom all the way.

But all of that is beside the point. The point I was making is that you come in here and say that none of us know what we are talking about and that we just need to shut up and quit making things worse when you are the one who is spouting off wrong/incorrect information because you are misinformed and highly overconfident in your own knowledge. We are not the ones making things worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

What makes them recessive is that their het phenotype is the normal wild type appearance and their hom phenotype is the said morph appearance.

---

Except that Pieds hets have an altered phenotype when in heteroallelic form and a second phenotype when in homoallelic form which makes them incomplete-dominant. Their het phenotype is not WT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Actually it is only visible when it is Homozygous.

---

Oops, typo. My fingers and brain seem to have miscommunicated. I can own my mistake though. However, my example citation makes it clear what I meant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

This is a poor way to try and describe a dominant phenotype as Albino is a proven recessive trait.

---

I am not talking about the Albino allele I am talking about the WT allele at the tyr locus. Yes, Albino is recessive, I said that in the example right above this. But something is only recessive in relation to another allele, in this case the WT allele. So actually this is the perfect example because it shows how a dominant genetic trait works; one copy or two copies, the phenotype is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I feel that this also is a bad example to use, as I feel that the whole BEL complex is being over simplified.

---

You can feel whatever you want, it does not change the truth. The BluEL complex is not being “over simplified” here but if you do not like it then substitute the BlkEL allele group. Or SuperBlack allele group. Or the StripeBack allele group. Or the Pastel allele group. Or the Paint allele group. Or the Chocolate allele group. Or Enchi. Or Orange Dream... They all behave the same; one copy of the mutant gene gives phenotype A and two copies of the mutant gene gives phenotype B. The very definition of incomplete-dominance.

I am not sure how anyone could claim they are recessive. And yet you do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

A clown male to a normal female will result in the babies having 1 WT gene and 1 Clown gene. Those babies will NOT look like a clown. They may have "markers" but they DON'T look like a clown. Hence clown is a recessive trait. It is not EXPRESSED in the het form. Like I said just because you can possibly see a marker doesn’t make it not a recessive trait. Not to mention more than one locus that can affect the appearance of an animal.

---

[QUOTE=BHReptiles;2075317]No one is saying that the clown gene is expressed as a clown in a het clown animal. What we're saying is that the clown GENE causes a slightly different phenotype than just a plane wild type animal. That phenotype won't be that of a clown animal, but it will be slightly different in the sense that if you were to put 10 normal babies in a tub with one of them being "het clown", just based on how the animal looks, you can pick out that "het clown" with pretty good accuracy.[QUOTE]

Just so BHR. :gj:

This whole argument that “het Clown has to look like a Clown” or “het Pied has to look like a Pied” proves they are recessive once again highlights your lack of understanding of genetics. For something to be recessive the het has to have a phenotype no different than the WT. Pied hets do have a phenotype different than WT. All Pied hets. Clown hets also appear to have this difference. The point being that because there is a different phenotype, however subtle, that is proof that they are not recessive. The heteroallelic does not have to look like the homoallelic, in point of fact it cannot because then it would be a strictly dominant gene. And no one is saying that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I to question everything. If I don't know the answer to something I will ask others who do and will also research it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHReptiles

If you did question everything, then you wouldn't be saying things along the lines of "Just accept that pied and clown are recessive." That's not questioning at all...that's simply conforming to the current paradigm.

---

I could not have said it better myself BHR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

Most genes we work with are codominant, some genes are dominant because there is no proven super, a few are recessive because the hets show no markers.

---

Ummm… No… Most of the genes we work with are inc-dom. There are, as yet, no proven dominant morphs and no proven co-dominant morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

Let me add... How about the NERD theory on Granites "attaching" to Hidden Gene Woma? Could this really be true and if so, I could see the Leopard/Pied thing in the same realm of becoming "attached", or they are just Allelic like some have proven them to be, or the original Leopards had already "attached" the pied gene, causing them to be what they are now.

---

This is another great case of misinterpretation getting perpetuated along. Genes cannot “attach” to one another. Granite and HGW are not attached and the belief that the “neck-spot” proves an HGW is also a Granite is fallacious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

I don't know, but what I do know is that we still have MANY years of figuring this stuff out... like the whole Banana "sex-link" issue... it boggles my mind... there is still much to figure out, holistically.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

I think the issue with banana / coral glow is properly figured out by now, it just sits on the sex-determining chromosome pair. "ww" is a male and "wz" is a female. If all the "w"s in your BP carry the coral glow gene, you get a visual coral glow. It sits on the "w", and the presence of a "z" makes your python female. Basically its like a recessive, except in females you get one for free. So male coral glows are a bit harder to produce and a bit more powerful, and you can get pairings where in the offspring all males look normal and all females are visual coral glows. Its not too difficult really.

---

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

Please follow your own words here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

When it comes to genetics, i doubt anything coming from NERD unless properly proven out by others as well. And hidden gene woma, i dont know, a weird gene with a lethal super that has the wobble.

---

Banana/CG are not, in any way, shape or form sex-linked. I really do not have the time to go in to all the nitty-gritty on it but draw out the Punnett squares and you will see that the actual breeding results do not match what we should see of a sex-linked trait. I am not saying there is not something weird going on with Banana/CG but it is not sex-linked!

Look im done with your silly argument. You fail to grasp a simple concept of simpOre recessive. Pied is known for being recessive in all other animals as well as leucism. Just because you say its so, despite all other data is not the defining correct answer. I keep referring to wiki. Um yeah ok. I guess copying/pasting one (1) definition from a simple definition of recessive makes this so right.
Here let me break it down for you again. In. Albino sumple recessive. Pied simple recessive. Clown simple recessive. Hypo simple recessive. Genetic stripe simple recessive. Genes can have an influence on other genes. The genes we are working with in ball pythons are on more than just one locus. One locus can affect another. Just because you may be able to pick out a pastel het clown still does not make it not a recessive trait. Breedings of these mutarions prove without a doubt that they are simple recessive yet you continue to say otherwise. Go ahead and keep missinforning others. This hobby is already missinformed as it is.
Its going to be funny when some people will start saying the breed codom clowns. Or seeing the look on breeders faces when someone tells them that their pied is codom.

The other thing I find funny. With my so called lack of knowledge on genetics. You have always agreed with what I have had to say before and now all of a sudden I dont have a clue about what im talking about.

Enjoy your codom clowns.

Oh not to mention genes can become attached to others on a different loci. Do a little more research.

I've been following this still and regardless of what emotions are driving people to type these words; it seems to be getting a bit heated lol.

I'm not picking on you Tessadas, but telling a geneticist that they're wrong and they need to do some more research is just a bit rude/insulting imo. I mean its one thing to debate, but thats not debating lol.

I do stand corrected. And he should do more research. I could care less how much of a genetics expert he thinks to be. He was the one that wants to attack. Thats besides the fact though as i am confident and comfortable with the ammount of genetics that i know. Fortunately its more than wiki lol. Hmm im pretty sure he was the one who started being rude/insulting, not I. I guess we are both at fault. As far as debating, he's not debating either. Just trying to belittle and over power with his "knowledge". Its all good he can keep his non recessive recessives.
Pied is in fact an autosomal dominant in humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I do stand corrected. And he should do more research. I could care less how much of a genetics expert he thinks to be. He was the one that wants to attack. Thats besides the fact though as i am confident and comfortable with the ammount of genetics that i know. Fortunately its more than wiki lol. Hmm im pretty sure he was the one who started being rude/insulting, not I. I guess we are both at fault. As far as debating, he's not debating either. Just trying to belittle and over power with his "knowledge". Its all good he can keep his non recessive recessives.
Pied is in fact an autosomal dominant in humans.

---

I believe he in fact has a PhD in genetics... so you may want to re-assess your "comfort" with your "knowledge".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Look im done with your silly argument.

---

My (and Brant's and Jinx's and Kewl's) arguments are not silly. They are actually well thought out and explained and backed up with significant experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

You fail to grasp a simple concept of simpOre recessive.

---

I grasp simple recessive just fine thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Pied is known for being recessive in all other animals as well as leucism. Just because you say its so, despite all other data is not the defining correct answer.

---

Pied is not known for being recessive. Pied was assigned the label "recessive" by someone early in the dark ages of herping who, like you, had an incomplete grasp of genetics. This is the same reason all of our inc-dom mutations are universally, wrongly, called co-dom. Someone who thought they knew more than they actually did started talking about something as if it were fact when it was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Genes can have an influence on other genes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

The genes we are working with in ball pythons are on more than just one locus. One locus can affect another. Just because you may be able to pick out a pastel het clown still does not make it not a recessive trait.

---

I never said they could not. But you are looking at it too narrowly. Regardless of any other mutations, there is a distinct yet subtle phenotype to the hets in Pied. In the presence of some mutations that subtle phenotype becomes less subtle, but it is always there. That makes them inc-dom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Breedings of these mutarions prove without a doubt that they are simple recessive yet you continue to say otherwise.

---

No! I do not just "say otherwise". I (and other) look at data and trendlines observed by breedings of these mutations, by people with significantly greater experience and knowledge than you, which indicates that the decades-old label of recessive was premature and mistaken and that it is more appropriate to call them inc-dom.

As Nick Mutton is fond of pointing out: Specters and Paints are more subtle than het Pieds, why do we call them inc-dom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Go ahead and keep missinforning others.

---

Careful who you make that accusation of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

This hobby is already missinformed as it is.

---

And as I have said numerous times I am not the one spouting off misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Its going to be funny when some people will start saying the breed codom clowns. Or seeing the look on breeders faces when someone tells them that their pied is codom.

---

I have said numerous times that I am still on the fence with Clown but there are plenty of breeders, big name ones at that, who already agree that Pied is inc-dom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

The other thing I find funny. With my so called lack of knowledge on genetics. You have always agreed with what I have had to say before and now all of a sudden I dont have a clue about what im talking about.

---

I have never "always" agreed with you. And I can grant that I may have agreed with you on occasion in the past but that does not mean I will always agree with everything you say.

Also, I could make the same argument. Why now all of the sudden do you accuse me of not having a clue what I am talking about when you have agreed with me in the past??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Oh not to mention genes can become attached to others on a different loci. Do a little more research.

---

I do not need to do a little more research. Two genes cannot "fuse in to one" as Kevin claims happened with the HGW and Granite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

He was the one that wants to attack… Hmm im pretty sure he was the one who started being rude/insulting, not I.

---

I was not attacking, rude or insulting. At least not by intent and I do apologize if it seemed that way.

I will say however that you accusing me of wantonly spreading misinformation was more than a little offputting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

As far as debating, he's not debating either. Just trying to belittle and over power with his "knowledge". Its all good he can

---

I accept the accusation that I am not debating because, frankly, I am not. But I am not belittling and overpowering as a means of getting my kicks in. As I have had to say to many many people before in situations like this: I never claimed to know more than everyone about everything. I know more than some people and I know less than other people. When I know less than someone, my goal is to learn. When I know more than someone I strive to teach. It is just really hard to try and teach someone when they are so set on refusing to listen to anything or consider that just maybe they could learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I could care less how much of a genetics expert he thinks to be..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royal Hijinx

I believe he in fact has a PhD in genetics... so you may want to re-assess your "comfort" with your "knowledge".

---

There is a reason my signature reads the way it does. Cheers Jinx :gj:

I think this discussion or whatever you want to call it is pretty simple, there is one person who thinks they know everything and just states its so, and says it cant be questioned, while there is another who very carefully chooses his words, backs his statements up with examples and knowledge. I for one am on the side of pied being incomplete dominant. It fits, it makes the most sense, and if you want people to think that its recessive just saying so and just because someone said it is does not make it so. Where is a well thought out well backed up reasoning for it being recessive. I see the other side, makes sense, wheres yours? And just because the homozygous phenotype does not look like the heterozygous phenotype does not make it recessive. Just because you cannot differentiate it from a wild type does not mean its not phenotypically different from a wild type.

What im getting at is where is the proof for the recessive argument?

I really like that thread, despite the negative temper that has come up. Maybe that just appertains to such a discussion. However, coming from the 01 industry (IT), I'm not that happy with the actual naming. Since it leads to misunderstanding. I know, one might say that doesn't matter if I'm happy or not, definitely true, but I think there is the crux of the matter.

Dominant -> Rules over something
Recessive -> Stands back for something

Considering this two words, I can't see how the gene(s) responsible for piebald can be incomplete dominant. I actually see the point and agree that genes showing up in heterozygous form can't be simple recessive, at least not in a manner as we used to use the term. So, to not make the chaos bigger as it already is, we probably should let simple recessive be what it is. Simple.

So, what would fit then? Making a virtual example. Considering every het. pied would show a small ringer (again, virtually), then the term incomplete dominance would fit perfect for my understanding. It shows up in the phenotype but doesn't affect the appearance as the homozygous form does. So incomplete then.

But that isn't the case on all those genes that we're talking about here. As long as a few are able to pick those heterozygous animals, meaning, as long as there is something in the phenotype to distinguish those from wildtype animals, there is a need for another word in my opinion. They're too subtle to be any sort of dominant. I rather would see the term incomplete/partial recessive, since it is closer to be recessive than dominant. But better something new. Maybe it is time for something new?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eatgoodfood

What im getting at is where is the proof for the recessive argument?

---

Because someone called it recessive a long time ago. And the older the theory, the more right it is. Obviously.

The earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and nobody will ever need a computer in their house.

Science is all about disproving old theories. Probably at the start of the whole ball python breeding thing, we didn't notice the difference between het pieds and normals. As time went on and our experiments became more frequent, we noticed multiple factors that can aid us in picking out the hets. It's how the world ever moves forwards. We go out and get new info and change our theories. Come on, are we all still rocking model T fords? No! We have improved the car to what we have today.

Things change. You just got to roll with it.

Tim brought this to my attention, i didnt think to post it lol. But here is my female cinnamon:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/22/tumaze8e.jpg

And here is my other cinnamon. Shes 50% ph pied. Would anyone like to bet against me that she doesn't prove out? ;)
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/22/zapagesu.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/22/u5y8u7yd.jpg

This narrow-mindedness is something I'm always trying to get people away from. I hope this thread can be enlightening to those who read it.

I get negativity with imports as well. Only the people who understand what I know and what I do are the ones who really appreciate it.

I'm always trying to learn, whether from my own experience or for someone who actually has an education in genetics like Travis (asplundii).

I firmly believe that my ability to make my OWN decisions through my OWN hard work, to acquire my OWN knowledge through my OWN experience has helped get me where I am today. I'm constantly proving out new genes at a rapid pace because I have allowed myself to appreciate the genetics of every ball python. Whether drastic or simple. The fruits of my labor will be seen sooner than later.

I've learned that all ball pythons are genetic. I've learned that many ball pythons don't take on the appearance of their genetics. I've learned how to recognize the difference. I've learned that even normals have their own genetic traits that can significantly influence other mutations.

Being able to have an open mind has allowed me to expanded my collection into something I believe is truly special. I actually am very proud of those who have come on here and recognized that these hets can be visual. It actually makes me believe in this industry even more. I hope people continue to dig deeper into ball python genetics as we all continue to expand our knowledge.

I believe those who are close minded, complacent, dishonest or lazy will be the ones who fail in making this a successful business or hobby for them.

Mike, solid example! It's exactly what some of us have been preaching. Those who fail to see the difference are shooting themselves in the foot. This industry is about training your eye. People would be surprised what you can acquire having a good eye for ball python morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foobar

I really like that thread, despite the negative temper that has come up. Maybe that just appertains to such a discussion. However, coming from the 01 industry (IT), I'm not that happy with the actual naming. Since it leads to misunderstanding. I know, one might say that doesn't matter if I'm happy or not, definitely true, but I think there is the crux of the matter.

Dominant -> Rules over something
Recessive -> Stands back for something

Considering this two words, I can't see how the gene(s) responsible for piebald can be incomplete dominant. I actually see the point and agree that genes showing up in heterozygous form can't be simple recessive, at least not in a manner as we used to use the term. So, to not make the chaos bigger as it already is, we probably should let simple recessive be what it is. Simple.

So, what would fit then? Making a virtual example. Considering every het. pied would show a small ringer (again, virtually), then the term incomplete dominance would fit perfect for my understanding. It shows up in the phenotype but doesn't affect the appearance as the homozygous form does. So incomplete then.

But that isn't the case on all those genes that we're talking about here. As long as a few are able to pick those heterozygous animals, meaning, as long as there is something in the phenotype to distinguish those from wildtype animals, there is a need for another word in my opinion. They're too subtle to be any sort of dominant. I rather would see the term incomplete/partial recessive, since it is closer to be recessive than dominant. But better something new. Maybe it is time for something new?

---

If their there to begin with then it makes it incomplete dominant. Trying to add some new term that is genetically incorrect will do nothing but confuse and perpetuate the false naming of genes.

Im on the other side of the fence... i dont agree but hey... its all good. I think certain lines of recessive have been line bred to better looking snakes in the long run that throw better looking markers. But i don't feel as if it can be generalized for the whole gene. My opinion

Well I guess by your definition and understanding of genetics is law. My bad. So ok everyone pied is incomplete dominant. Because it is then that makes NO recessive ball python morphs exist. I am able to pick out lavender albino hets from my clutches. I am also able to pick out het hypos from our clutches. I have also picked out het albinos. I am not the only one either. So by this reasoning they can not be recessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishanaconda

Im on the other side of the fence... i dont agree but hey... its all good. I think certain lines of recessive have been line bred to better looking snakes in the long run that throw better looking markers. But i don't feel as if it can be generalized for the whole gene. My opinion

---

Line breeding or not, if there are 'markers' then it is phenotypically different than a wild type. Just because only 10 out of 100 people can identify the hets does not mean that the other 90 must be right. It just means the 90 are not as trained at picking out the gene. Heck how often do you see people on this forum asking if their normal is a yellow belly or if their yellow belly really is one? Does that make it recessive? Some people cant see subtle differences, or they are not as trained to do so, even if those subtle differences are not so subtle.

What a great thread, except for the drama (sorry). Looking forward to more educational threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Well I guess by your definition and understanding of genetics is law. My bad. So ok everyone pied is incomplete dominant. Because it is then that makes NO recessive ball python morphs exist. I am able to pick out lavender albino hets from my clutches. I am also able to pick out het hypos from our clutches. I have also picked out het albinos. I am not the only one either. So by this reasoning they can not be recessive.

---

If you are referring to me, then no I dont think its FACT, but law, some of it, none the less, if the proof points in one direction I am more willing to believe it. You have yet to show any proof to back why you think its recessive. I am not trying to argue with you, I just want to see why you are so adamant that its recessive. Give me a compelling case, like your opposition so aptly has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royal Hijinx

I believe he in fact has a PhD in genetics... so you may want to re-assess your "comfort" with your "knowledge".

---

I am aware that Travis has a Phd. He says so in his signature. He may think I do not understand genetics beyond wiki yet he is incorrect.

Great thread, lots of information here :D. Keep it up please :).

Can someone of the experienced guys point out what to look for if I want to pick a het clown out of a pile of babies? I mean I think there is a change in colors as we can see on the pictures and also a slight change in pattern. Anything else apart from those two signs? I know it's hard to describe and it's easier to show an example, that's why it's easier to pick a het from a group, then tell by looking at an individual animal :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eatgoodfood

If their there to begin with then it makes it incomplete dominant. Trying to add some new term that is genetically incorrect will do nothing but confuse and perpetuate the false naming of genes.

---

Alright, I see your point. But anyway, I still think incomplete dominant is a washy term and would rather stick to intermediate inheritance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GPreptiles

Great thread, lots of information here :D. Keep it up please :).

Can someone of the experienced guys point out what to look for if I want to pick a het clown out of a pile of babies? I mean I think there is a change in colors as we can see on the pictures and also a slight change in pattern. Anything else apart from those two signs? I know it's hard to describe and it's easier to show an example, that's why it's easier to pick a het from a group, then tell by looking at an individual animal :).

---

As I said earlier, it's much easier to identify these when have a solid base. Like Travis said a WT (wild type) aka a normal. Sibling comparison is really great not only for these hets, but even when trying to identify combos. I get texts from many experienced breeders asking "hey brant what do you see?" While I'm pretty good at seeing stuff, I need the base to make good decisions. Whether its other genes, other combos in the clutch, etc.

I was asked how could you tell you hatched an epic pastel yb vs. a pastel yb. If i didn't hatch a pastel yb in the same clutch with an epic pastel yb, I honestly probably couldn't tell you with certainty, other than basing my decision on other examples outside the immediate genepool within the clutch. As we know with genetic variation it can be difficult to do so. Thats why a solid base within the clutch is really the base way to train the eye on genetic mutations.

I mentioned previously about using super forms when identifying hets because what it would do is give the base to analyze the difference. Going through 40,000 imports, its not like I'm going to pull out a het clown from a group of ball pythons. As we know WT have genetic variation. Again, normals have their own genetics. In cases when identifying these subtle hets, its important to have the background and clutch base to really make the decision.

Last season I bred an Arroyo (het rio). Dan Wolfe and I discussed how he previously named them het rios because they weren't nearly as visual as the Rio (obviously). However, after closer analysis, we both agreed that identifying hets were far too easy. Especially in combo form. So the morph was changed to inc-dom and the hets were renamed Arroyo. Honestly, to someone close-minded they would receive an arroyo and probably say, it just looks like a fancy normal. Which without knowing the base, is actually a good analysis. However, it doesn't change the fact that I can easily identify them within a clutch of arroyo x normal. So it would be pretty foolish to sell an identifiable inc-dom mutation and call them hets. Would make it simple for someone like me, who did purchase an Arroyo (het Rio), to breed it out, and raise up arroyo females to make the fantastic Rio. That is really why the pricing schematics changed within the project as well. Instead of pricing a project as a recessive, it's priced as a co-dom which is actually a large difference.

These are just some examples I wanted to share and discuss how important the base is when identifying morphs and combos. It's why I love large clutches when I'm trying to figure out genetics. It gives me the large base I'm looking for to break it down accurately. Thats why sometimes multiple clutches are needed to figure things out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majorleaguereptiles

As I said earlier, it's much easier to identify these when have a solid base. Like Travis said a WT (wild type) aka a normal. Sibling comparison is really great not only for these hets, but even when trying to identify combos. I get texts from many experienced breeders asking "hey brant what do you see?" While I'm pretty good at seeing stuff, I need the base to make good decisions. Whether its other genes, other combos in the clutch, etc.

I was asked how could you tell you hatched an epic pastel yb vs. a pastel yb. If i didn't hatch a pastel yb in the same clutch with an epic pastel yb, I honestly probably couldn't tell you with certainty, other than basing my decision on other examples outside the immediate genepool within the clutch. As we know with genetic variation it can be difficult to do so. Thats why a solid base within the clutch is really the base way to train the eye on genetic mutations.

I mentioned previously about using super forms when identifying hets because what it would do is give the base to analyze the difference. Going through 40,000 imports, its not like I'm going to pull out a het clown from a group of ball pythons. As we know WT have genetic variation. Again, normals have their own genetics. In cases when identifying these subtle hets, its important to have the background and clutch base to really make the decision.

Last season I bred an Arroyo (het rio). Dan Wolfe and I discussed how he previously named them het rios because they weren't nearly as visual as the Rio (obviously). However, after closer analysis, we both agreed that identifying hets were far too easy. Especially in combo form. So the morph was changed to inc-dom and the hets were renamed Arroyo. Honestly, to someone close-minded they would receive an arroyo and probably say, it just looks like a fancy normal. Which without knowing the base, is actually a good analysis. However, it doesn't change the fact that I can easily identify them within a clutch of arroyo x normal. So it would be pretty foolish to sell an identifiable inc-dom mutation and call them hets. Would make it simple for someone like me, who did purchase an Arroyo (het Rio), to breed it out, and raise up arroyo females to make the fantastic Rio. That is really why the pricing schematics changed within the project as well. Instead of pricing a project as a recessive, it's priced as a co-dom which is actually a large difference.

These are just some examples I wanted to share and discuss how important the base is when identifying morphs and combos. It's why I love large clutches when I'm trying to figure out genetics. It gives me the large base I'm looking for to break it down accurately. Thats why sometimes multiple clutches are needed to figure things out.

---

Prime example. You can NOT pick out het pieds, het clowns or any other recessive trait just by markers. If you are working with a known recessive phenotype then yes it can be possible with some experience. This does not make them incomplete dominant. Like I said I can pick het lavs from our clutches. So they are not recessive? I can do the same with our hypo clutches. Are they not recessive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Prime example. You can NOT pick out het pieds, het clowns or any other recessive trait just by markers. If you are working with a known recessive phenotype then yes it can be possible with some experience. This does not make them incomplete dominant. Like I said I can pick het lavs from our clutches. So they are not recessive? I can do the same with our hypo clutches. Are they not recessive?

---

As I said before, every ball python is genetic. Therefore it would make it hard to pick out a het from a wt when the base is 40,000.
I couldn't 100% pick out an arroyo either from imports and its inc-Dom. And to be honest, I might be able to pick out a het pied, but again it wouldn't be 100% without the accurate base comparison.

However, that absolutely doesn't mean it's recessive. I don't know why you are so firm on your interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

If you are working with a known recessive phenotype then yes it can be possible with some experience.

---

Exactly! :)

around and around we go. maybe it's finally time to just agree to disagree. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foobar

However, coming from the 01 industry (IT), I'm not that happy with the actual naming. Since it leads to misunderstanding. I know, one might say that doesn't matter if I'm happy or not, definitely true, but I think there is the crux of the matter.

Dominant -> Rules over something
Recessive -> Stands back for something

Considering this two words, I can't see how the gene(s) responsible for piebald can be incomplete dominant. I actually see the point and agree that genes showing up in heterozygous form can't be simple recessive, at least not in a manner as we used to use the term.

…

But that isn't the case on all those genes that we're talking about here. As long as a few are able to pick those heterozygous animals, meaning, as long as there is something in the phenotype to distinguish those from wildtype animals, there is a need for another word in my opinion. They're too subtle to be any sort of dominant. I rather would see the term incomplete/partial recessive, since it is closer to be recessive than dominant. But better something new. Maybe it is time for something new?

---

Hey Foo,

I see what you are driving at here and I think part of your… dislike… may stem from you being an IT guy. But first, let me address this comment and then I will come back:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foobar

But anyway, I still think incomplete dominant is a washy term and would rather stick to intermediate inheritance.

---

Like it or not this term is an established on in the field of genetics. So you cannot just decide to scrap it and come up with something better. Sorry.


No, back to the earlier point. I think that the reason this seems a bit muddled is because, as an IT-type, you are accustomed to thinking 1 and 0, yes and no. You even illustrate this with your breakdown of dominant and recessive

Dominant -> Rules over something -> 1
Recessive -> Stands back for something -> 0

Genetics is not quite as neat and tidy as binary. But if you can approach the problem like this it might make a bit more sense for inc-dom:

Dominant -> 1
Incomplete Dominant -> any value between 0 and 1
Recessive -> 0

So if something has a value of 0.0000000000001 even though it is very minute, it still has a value greater than 0 so it “rules over” 0. But it is also less than 1 so it does not “absolutely” rule over

And if something has a value of 0.5 there is now a significant value greater than 0 while still being less than the “absolute” rule of 1

Putting it all back in to morph terms… A value of 0.8 would apply to a morph like Lesser. For a BlackPastel you might put it at 0.6 on the scale. YellowBelly probably falls at around 0.3 or 0.25. Pied might hit 0.1, maybe a little higher depending on who you talk to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishanaconda

Im on the other side of the fence... i dont agree but hey... its all good. I think certain lines of recessive have been line bred to better looking snakes in the long run that throw better looking markers. But i don't feel as if it can be generalized for the whole gene. My opinion

---

Fair enough Irish, and with some morphs, to some extent, I can even agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eatgoodfood

Line breeding or not, if there are 'markers' then it is phenotypically different than a wild type.

---

I disagree with this… Line breeding is not a consistent thing because any one persons selective criteria are going to be different than any other persons so line breeding is not inherently/consistently stable. A true, phenotypic difference cause by the single gene in question is stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I am aware that Travis has a Phd. He says so in his signature. He may think I do not understand genetics beyond wiki yet he is incorrect.

---

Okay, let me try this…

Tessa, I did not say you did not understand genetics beyond Wiki but obviously you take great offense to my making the Wiki comment and so I apologize.


That said, I stand by my statement that you are not as fluent in genetics as you believe yourself to be. That is not said as an insult and I dearly wish you would recognize that. A person cannot learn until they recognize their limitations. To someone as well versed in genetics as myself, I can see that you are confused/mistaken/mislead/whatever descriptive will not piss you off further.

Look at it like this; when I take my car to the garage to get it worked on, if I tell the mechanic I think the problem is X but after examining the car my mechanic tells me that it is actually problem Y, how successfully is my car going to be repaired if I tell him, I know all I need to know so just fix X and be done with it??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majorleaguereptiles

Going through 40,000 imports, its not like I'm going to pull out a het clown from a group of ball pythons. As we know WT have genetic variation. Again, normals have their own genetics. In cases when identifying these subtle hets, its important to have the background and clutch base to really make the decision.

---

This right here is why I am not fully convinced on the Clown thing. I think if I were to take a bunch of known het Pieds and mix them in with a bunch of normal that the hets could be ID’d without much fuss. I have not seen enough het Clowns hands on to feel the same experiment would be as easy. And I have yet to see compelling proof that the same feat can be executed reliably with any of the other recessives.

I think it is going to take a lot more discussion before breeders start selling het pieds as pieds and pieds as super pieds. It can get very confusing because terminology (whether correct or wrong) has been established and recognized in the community.

Next we will discuss the pronunciation of the word Leucistic. I've rarely heard it pronounced properly in the herp community. And, yes - I do know how to say it correctly. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don

Next we will discuss the pronunciation of the word Leucistic. I've rarely heard it pronounced properly in the herp community. And, yes - I do know how to say it correctly. :D

---

Both ways are considered ok. I've debated this with someone before lol. I understand and probably agree that the "k" sound is more correct, but lu-sis-stick is how oxford dictionary (and other legitimate sources) say to pronounce it.

I do understand genetics and my knowledge is not that limited. Despite what you may feel.

Now by your example/interpritation of why a pied is not recessive..... I can pick out our het lavs and our het hypos from our hatchlings. Does this make them non recessive? How about people who can pick out their het albinos? Im sorry but just because a pied allele can slightly influence the het snake WT allele does not rule it out as not a recessive trait. Another example. And understand I am not talking about added mutations I am talking WT. Many WT show the het pied markers yet they are in fact not het pied. That being said if I took 1 or 2 hetppieds and put them with 20 WT snakes, do you honestly think that you can positively identify those 1 or 2 het pieds from out of the group? I think not. Sorry but I dont buy it.

I think these are great examples of het clown altering the phenotype of normals and morphs:


66% het clowns w/ clown from Cypress Creek Reps:
http://www.cypresscreekreptiles.com/...91710_1109.JPG

100% het clowns:
http://www.cypresscreekreptiles.com/...01509_0229.JPG

Super Pastel 100% het clown (hooblah's img)
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...0/3a2d2add.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike41793

Both ways are considered ok. I've debated this with someone before lol. I understand and probably agree that the "k" sound is more correct, but lu-sis-stick is how oxford dictionary (and other legitimate sources) say to pronounce it.

---

I've always pronouced it 'lu-sis-stick'. I didn't realize people pronounced it different..

Great thread minus the emotion. I am very new to ball pythons and genetics so I probably shouldn't even be posting. But post a shall.

I can easily see how can easily a pied can be seen as as recessive becuase I couldn't tell a het if my life depended on it. There are plenty of very sublt inc. Dom morphs that i think many would have considered recessive if discoverd in the bigginnig of ball python breeding. Time of discovery is an important factor with morph identification. Same line of thought as we "knew" the earth was flat until we learned later it was not. As we (as a hobby) work with this breed more, we are developing a better eye for genetics over time.

Perhaps my newbish approach is of value to the discussion because I don't have a very trained eye or a ton of experience. I believe the hobby is constantly developing a better eye for spotting morphs and differences from WT. Use me as an example. First looked at ball pythons a little over a year ago. I couldn't believe people were paying so much for what looked like normal ball pythons to me. I will use yellow belly as an example. I couldn't see the genes influence at all. It just looked normal to me. Sure I could see pastel, spider, clown etc. In one years time I could now identify many more morphs and combination with some confidence. I am seeing things I never saw a year ago. If I was in charge of naming I would have also claimed many of these to be traits recessive when I started, as I saw no visible change in "hets". I would have been prooven incorrect of course.

Now take my experience and apply it to time frame of the hobby. Forgive me I know pieds were discovered a long time ago but I don't know when. The hobby's eyes have seem countless new morphs since and has developed a better eye for subtlety. In my limited understanding, if you can reliably see a difference in a wild type, no matter how subtle, it is still a visible difference and therefore not recessive but incomplete dominant. Going back to older morphs such as pieds it is not far fetched for us to believe we can see details we were unable to see before. Markers are IMO a visible change in appearance from wild type like spot nose or yellow belly. (I realize these aren't super subtle but to someone new they are).

I think this conversation is very interesting and I think it is a disservice to the hobby not to reevaluate how we look at previously defined morphs. If we don't challenge ourselves we inhibit growth.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect those of BP.net. ;)

I would like to add that I think it is very interesting how much het pieds affect other morphs and the theory that it overpowers some Morphs visible traits seems very plausible and a good explanation. Just like only the spider head pattern in spider x pied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

I've always pronouced it 'lu-sis-stick'. I didn't realize people pronounced it different..

---

So do i, and a bunch of dictionaries lol. But lu-kiss-stick is correct as well

I only skimmed through all ten pages so please forgive me if I repeat anything that has been said. I think sometimes ADD kicks in and I have a hard time focusing when threads are long.

I haven't been in the hobby long and actually this is my first year breeding and producing babies. I work with several "recessives". I'll use that term lightly because I am not sure that I completely believe we are working with 100% Recessive genes. I talk to Jerry Robertson (snakesRkewl) on a daily basis and have learned a lot from him on "hets" and have noticed a few things on my own too.

I believe that what we are seeing is actually codoms at play. The "super" form being the albino, pied, clown, hypo, etc. I believe that markers are indeed the "codom" form.

I have noticed on many of my het albino females that they very from your run of the mill normals. All my het albino females have high orange sides, increased white around the alien heads, and usually more busy patterns. Same with my het hypos. Typical markers I have seen on het pieds are the train tracks, reduced pattern, and ringers.

Yes, not all babies from Pied x Normal pairings, or Albino x Normal pairings, etc produce such extreme markers. But I have noticed that the het clowns can be picked out by a very untrained eye even. Not being in the game long has shown me that you can bet on a possible het and have that het prove out by knowing these markers.

I think as a community we do need to keep better records of these things and do some more experimentation. I also think we need to keep an open mind towards the possibility that how we have been labeling and seeing things in the ball python world, might indeed be different now.

I will continue to watch this thread and see any updates. I will try to get pictures to add to the discussion too showing my results.

I have only had one season of working with recessive genes. Pied and Hypo, and I combined them last year, so my experience is limited. That being said, I have noticed that my female Mojave 100% het Hypo is far lighter and has more intense blushings than my other 3 female Mojaves and 1 male Mojave and that my female Pied possible het Hypo (who proved to be het Hypo by producing 1.0 Pastel Double Het, 0.1 Hypo Het Pied, and 0.1 Pastel Hypo Het Pied) is significantly lighter than other Pieds of her size that I have seen. Also, a female Butter possible het Hypo that I purchased has maintained her bright and light colors far longer than other Butters that I have seen. So I can certainly agree that, in my limited experience, a "recessive" gene has appeared to have an influence more like an incomplete dominate gene would when combined with other morphs. However, with only having 3 animals that are all 100% het Pied, none of them display the classic heavy train tracks, but the heaviness of the train tracks may be reduced by the Pastel and Hypo genes, so I don't know that these 3 het Pied animals are the best to draw conclusions from. I am more confident in my observations about the Hypo gene in the het form than I am about the Pied gene in the het form.

..... Anyways .....

Travis and Brant have some damn good experience and knowledge in this stuff and I can't wait to see what comes out in the next few years. Having personally met Brant, and purchased a few of his Prospects, the guy has an eye for things... and a damn good eye at that... Travis is just, well, a Freaking genius at this stuff... and a darn good mentor... whether he knows it or not. This exact topic is what brings a lot of people into this 'lifestyle', per say, because of the interesting things that happens to these creatures and mysterious genetics behind it all.

Rock on guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

The problem is that the information that has been around for decades has been misinterpreted/misrepresented. What is happening now is that people are trying to set things to right and are meeting with the inertia that those decades of wrong/incorrect information have wrought.



.

---

Best statement yet. :clap:

Yes indead. Rock on. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Yes indead. Rock on. Lol

---

By agreeing with that, you are rendering ANY points you made in this thread moot because YOU are being the wall that Travis, Dave and Brant are trying to break down. You have been disagreeing this whole time. Now for some reason you say that the problem is when people are trying to correct things, there are always people standing in the way who refuse to let go of the old ways. Stop being that person. Like I said before, things change. Deal with the change. Accept the change. Be the change.

HmmHmmHmm.... Reading through those ten pages hurt my brain. I won't comment on who's throwing stones in a house made of glass, but it pretty much covers everyone, most likely even myself.

Anyhow, I would be more interested in seeing a real gene test being done, not just on pied, het pied, albino and het albino, but on all kinds of morphs and on a large group of ball pythons.
People here talk about genes, but all we have to go on right now are visible changes, that can only be seen from the outside. Genes control EVERYTHING, outside in, personality, temperament, color, fertility etc.

As an example, in russia they have been breeding foxes for more then 50 fox generations, and the things they picked their breeding animals on was; How much did the animal like humans? They wanted to see, and prove out, how dogs had been breed from wolves and try out how fast you could achieve that.
For all those that starts to think this is unrelated, bear with me here.
They breed on temperament alone, but after a few generations, the 'kind' foxes started showing other traits, such as curled tails, floppy ears, new coloration's such as piebald, blaze, white socks etc. Their behavior changed, and they are now visible different from the 'wild' foxes.

So what is there to learn from this, and how is it relevant to this thread? My point is that just because some genes expresses color, and is related to color, that same gene controls more then just that simple color. Spider ball pythons tend to have the head wobble for example, because that gene controls more then just the withdrawal of color and pattern. It also controls things inside the animal.
Now, there are spiders with a 'bad' wobble, and spiders with almost no wobble, so there is a scale on how much the gene affect the animal. This change could be related to the other side of the genetic, since spiders are dom it means one gene on that pair, and for all we know the other gene might affect the wobble, or the combination or other genes from one or both or it's parents might. It might be random, it may not be.
Hets have one gene, just like spiders, and just like spiders they will show their gene and it's effect differently. Just like there are pattern and color variation within every morph, there will be differences in the hets too. In my eyes that is only logical.

Now I know there will be flames and fire because I just compared a dom to a het, but bear with me. What I want to compare is not (only) how much it shows or does not show, but rather how diffidently they may express themselves even within the same group. Also if you compare a spider to a het pied, then the het pied will in my eyes be a recessive and the spider without a doubt dom. There is a scale, and pied is inherited way more subtitle and invisible.

You guys keep obsessing over 'is it seen or is it not' and 'that means it is, it means it is not' but I don't think you see the big picture all together.
Genes control EVERYTHING, so if one gene is present, it might, and most likely will, affect more then just ONE thing.
Can het pieds have markers? Yes, they can. Is there a case, known cases, where there was NO markers? Yes, there have been. Where does that put us?

It is proven that markers is not a 100% way to identify a het, some morph hets are easier to identify because the color gene that causes the homogeneous form does have some more gene coverage than just that one thing, and thus it MIGHT, but is not GUARANTIED to affect other genes on different scales. Is it still a recessive? It is interesting to think about, and I think it is, but think about it like this;

Even though spider is not a het, I will use it for example once again (one of my fav colors, what can I say):

If a het pied have a ring, and a spider have a wobble, in the grand picture all that tells us is that the gene have more jobs than one or that the gene works together with other genes and creates a ripple effect. Can the one gene in a heterogeneous animal have any visible change and still be het? Yes, it can, in SOME cases, and in those cases it is based on what the OTHER genes are.
Don't forget the other genes.
The 'normal' genes and the 'pied' genes play together, and that is why I would love to see a real genetic analyse on several het pieds and similar morphs. Only then can you with certainly say you understand the GENES. I would love to see an gene analysis on a het pied with high markers, and one without any markers at all for example. I know the het pied gene would be there in both cases, but what about the other genes except that one/s? How do they play together?

As for the visual bit and the name for them....I liked the sound of 'expressed hets' - and I know at least one of you will spit fire and flames at the combo of those words since they do in fact contradict each other, but truth is that hets are not 100% certain to display any markers at all, and thus I don't consider it to be proven anything else than recessive.
In the case with markers the gene/s that was passed along played with the genes of the other part in the animal, causing some small, occasional visible changes, and some breeders that have seen many, many, many animals will have an easier time identifying a possible het, but this warning goes to ALL of you;

Until something is proven by more than your own experience overconfidence in your own ability will only do you harm, and close any paths in your mind to be open for new ideas.

Genes are not always simple. Genes can not always be understood completely by just looking at an animal, simply because we don't understand what the genes does exactly in the animal without a complete analysis, and I have yet to see any one here present such. One color morph have great variations, no matter what animal it is, and its only to be expected that hets may have variations too, this does not make them more or less het, but as with the other colors it may affect the end result in the animal, and what visual genes you can actually see in them.

....Yeah...I hope anyone understood where I'm coming from with this. Sorry for the long speech.