i got a Q for the pros that have an account on here!!!???!!!?!!

If you wanted to get technical, I don't think any of us know offhand how many genes a snake has--but the number is probably over 30,000.

Baby snakes are created from 2 sets of genes. One set comes from the mother, and the other from the father. Reproductive cells (eggs and sperm) have only half the number of genes needed to make an animal. One set of chromosomes. Each cell of your body contains 2 complete sets of chromosomes.

When we talk about which genes our snakes have, we're actually talking about mutations in single genes. A heterozygous animal has one mutant gene that keys for one very specific thing (from one parent), and one normal gene (from the other parent). A homozygous animal has 2 mutant genes that key for one very specific thing (both parents contributed the same mutant gene).

What the animal actually looks like has to do with whether or not the genes are 'expressed'--in other words, whether the snake's body is affected by the mutant gene. Co-dominant mutant genes are expressed when only one copy is present. Recessive genes are not expressed when only one copy is present. This is because the normal gene is a dominant gene, so it is expressed instead of the mutant gene in animals that are het for a recessive trait.

Now, if your question were, 'how many total mutant genes does a killerbee have?', the answer would be '3'. If the question is 'how many different mutant genes does a killerbee have?', then the answer is '2'.

I say a killer bee is a 3 gene animal, killer queen 4. I count super forms as 2 gene, recessives I count as 1.

Many may not agree and have their opinons but thats just how I do it.

Everybody has their own opinion, and method for this. This entire thread was spurred from the StingerlessBee thread where the price was debated. I simply stated that a Stingerless bee was more because it had more genes and breeding potential, than a killer bee which was Andrew's equivalent. I said this because he said it has 3 genes also and thus the stingerless bee should be cheaper than my 'guess' to the price.

Didn't know this was such a hot topic. :8:

Without reading all the post above, the Killer Bee is two separate mutations in one animal.

Some will call it a 3 gene snake because they are counting the number of mutated chromisomes, 2 pastel, 1 spider.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkobylka

Without reading all the post above, the Killer Bee is two separate mutations in one animal.

Some will call it a 3 gene snake because they are counting the number of mutated chromisomes, 2 pastel, 1 spider.

Justin

---

I am one of those people Justin. ;)

Super Pastel Ivory = 4 genes

Albino Silver Streak =5 genes

Super Pastel Hypo Power Ball = 6

When describing a mutation, I will say a pastel and a super pastel are both the result of the same mutation, which is correct. This is more aligned with calling both single gene animals, which is not technically correct for either. Basically what you are doing is equating the terms "mutation" and "gene" when you say it like that. At any locus there is always a pair of alleles. You can't really say that a pastel only has one gene because there is always a pair (the mutated pastel allele plus the wild-type allele). Hence the term heterozygous meaning a pairing of unequal alleles. So I would say it is incorrect to say that any animal has an odd number of genes. If you have a killerbee, you have three mutant genes at two different alleles. I would only call this two mutations though because two of the mutated genes are homozygous.

The significance of this is somewhat masked, and someone may counter with a statement along the lines of, "What does it matter if the heterozygous alleles are different? There is only one mutated gene that matters in the pair as far as the phenotypic expression of something different than the wild-type." I would counter by stating that even though in many mutations that is the case, it is very possible to have two different mutated alleles at the same locus. This is where it may get problematic if you start saying things only have one gene as opposed to a pair. Take for instance a mojave x lesser BEL (technically heterozygous, even though both alleles are mutated). You could do one of two things with this example if you were to try to describe it in terms of genes like with the other mutations. The first would be since it is essentially equal to a homozygous lesser you could say it is one gene. But wait, that's not right at all, clearly there are two genes at work. But wait, that can't be quite right either because if you can't reproduce both genes in the same animal if you paired it with the wild-type in comparison to another you would be calling a two gene animal like a bumblebee. The animal has more breeding power than one of your "single gene animals" but less than one of your "two gene animals." In the comparisons that were trying to be made with the pricing based on this gene numbering method in the other thread, it wouldn't work to call such a mutation either. The only way to really say it correctly is that it has two different mutant alleles at the same locus.

Anyway, I'll probably lose some people with those examples, but the point I really want to make here is that calling any mutation a "[x number] gene animal" is not really the best way to go about it because it either fails to describe what is really going on, or describes it incorrectly. Anyway, it's late, and I could have probably explained this a lot better if it weren't, but I just wanted to give everyone who cares to read some food for thought on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FIREball

I say a killer bee is a 3 gene animal, killer queen 4. I count super forms as 2 gene, recessives I count as 1.

Many may not agree and have their opinons but thats just how I do it.

---

but look at it this way, a het ivory is a yellow belly so would an ivory have two genes? if your counting say a clown as 1 then you should for co-doms too. Recessive or co-dom you still have het and homo forms

READ THIS

No one is using the term gene correctly here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

READ THIS

No one is using the term gene correctly here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

---

Wikipedia is never a reliable source for anything sine anyone can go in and edit the posts.

Go open a basic high school biology book then, but that article is very accurate.

And the argument of wikipedia not being reliable is hooey. It's been reviewed many times over and, especially recently, found to have a higher rate of accuracy than any major encyclopedia, especially in articles regarding math and science.

And don't forget that wikipedia, some time ago, tightened how editable articles are.