Super Super

There would be much less confusion if everybody thought of it like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freakie_frog

That's funny my Punnet square says it produces 100% Het offspring not normals. Funny thing is that when I do the same thing with a "SUPER" pastel I get the same results no normal offspring..

I know they are normal looking when the het form is recessive but getting hung up on a name like Super Limits peoples mindset when it comes to breeding.. "SUPER" is merely a way of telling customers the difference in the Het and Homo form of the mutation..So in truth a pastel is really a het Super Pastel.

It's all in a name is all..

---

Ed is absolutely correct. Just as Pastels are het for super pastels (they could have even been called...oh say...pearls instead of super pastels.....wait....errr...)

In order to make a "super" pastel, the "super" pastel has to inherit 2 copies of the pastel gene - one from each parent.

In order to make a piebald, the piebald has to inherit 2 copies of the pied gene - one from each het parent.

So visual double recessives are genetically (in make up) the same as visual double supers.

Just my opinion but the generic term "Super" most commonly refers to a double similar gene co-dom only (e.g. Super Pastel not Spider or Pinstripe for example) so by implication, a Super Super would be a quad gene co-dom such as the Super Pewter (also produced by Mike Wilbanks in 2009 as well as Doug Matuszak in 2008 BTW). As for recessives, whilst I agree that a visual is a homozygous animal with similar genes from each parent, a Pied is not referred to as a Super het Pied is it just as a Pastel is not referred to as a het Super Pastel?

As for breeding Supers, I believe the common perception is that a Super x Normal = 100% visual morph offspring. This would therefore knock the recessive Super theory on the head too?

I suspect a lot of the more common Supers would produce varying shades of white snake (Super Lesser/Mojave/Butter/Russo/Fire combos etc) irrespective of what they are combined with but I'd be more interested to see a Super Pastel Super Enchi, Power Ball/Super Cinny/Black Pastel x something other than Super Pastel and Super Phantom/Mystic x anything!

Once again, this is just my opinion, this is a forum where views, opinions and experiences are shared and we're all entitled to have one before anyone starts bashing me!

Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubbleUK

Just my opinion but the generic term "Super" most commonly refers to a double similar gene co-dom only (e.g. Super Pastel not Spider or Pinstripe for example) so by implication, a Super Super would be a quad gene co-dom such as the Super Pewter (also produced by Mike Wilbanks in 2009 as well as Doug Matuszak in 2008 BTW). As for recessives, whilst I agree that a visual is a homozygous animal with similar genes from each parent, a Pied is not referred to as a Super het Pied is it just as a Pastel is not referred to as a het Super Pastel?

As for breeding Supers, I believe the common perception is that a Super x Normal = 100% visual morph offspring. This would therefore knock the recessive Super theory on the head too?

I suspect a lot of the more common Supers would produce varying shades of white snake (Super Lesser/Mojave/Butter/Russo/Fire combos etc) irrespective of what they are combined with but I'd be more interested to see a Super Pastel Super Enchi, Power Ball/Super Cinny/Black Pastel x something other than Super Pastel and Super Phantom/Mystic x anything!

Once again, this is just my opinion, this is a forum where views, opinions and experiences are shared and we're all entitled to have one before anyone starts bashing me!

Chris

---

No one is going to bash you..all your points are spot on.. I was simply try to illustrate the fact that in a breeding group any double homozygous carries the same potential.

My point was simply that a "Super" is merely an animal that's homozygous from looks different than its het form. Now to me not all Homo animals would be called supers Like with pins or the like. But not all homozygous Co-Dom animals are called super "what-ever". Take Red Axanthics for example.. Co-dom mutation that the Het is called a "Het Red Axanthic" and the Homo form is called a "Red Axanthic" Yellow Bellies are also commonly listed and sold as Het Ivorys, Het Russo's are a co-dom mutation that the Het from is named such, Het Super Stripe. I'm sure there's one or two more..

It's just a NAME nothing more. Simply a name.. When concidering breeders a Homozygous animal is a Homozygous animal whether recessive or Co-dom..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freakie_frog

Super pastel pied
Super Blk Pastel pied.
Super pastel Hypo
Super Mojo Hypo.
Hypo Pied.
Super pastel Axanthic
Super Pastel Ivory.

Any double Homozygous is a super super. :D

---

I would love to see the Super Pastel Ivory, who produced it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonzzer

I would love to see the Super Pastel Ivory, who produced it?

---

http://www.ballpython.com/index.php?page=morphs&sort=dl

bottom of the page.. right hand side

The Best super super I have seen yet is the super pastel super vanilla. Pure awesome, super bright, extremely clean, white head and yellow body. Again just pure awesome! ~Caylan.S.~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freakie_frog

No one is going to bash you..all your points are spot on.. I was simply try to illustrate the fact that in a breeding group any double homozygous carries the same potential.

My point was simply that a "Super" is merely an animal that's homozygous from looks different than its het form. Now to me not all Homo animals would be called supers Like with pins or the like. But not all homozygous Co-Dom animals are called super "what-ever". Take Red Axanthics for example.. Co-dom mutation that the Het is called a "Het Red Axanthic" and the Homo form is called a "Red Axanthic" Yellow Bellies are also commonly listed and sold as Het Ivorys, Het Russo's are a co-dom mutation that the Het from is named such, Het Super Stripe. I'm sure there's one or two more..

It's just a NAME nothing more. Simply a name.. When concidering breeders a Homozygous animal is a Homozygous animal whether recessive or Co-dom..

---

I accept your points but I don't entirely agree.

The term "Super" is not a scientific term like homozygous or heterozygous, it's colloquial and therefore should not be used in a scientific context.

Even in it's colloquial context "Super" is only associated with co-doms, not recessives. Given that most people would understand a "Super" Pastel or "Super" Lesser to be a double gene Pastel or Lesser that would pass on the Pastel or Lesser gene visually to 100% of its offspring so genetically, the term "Super" could also be assumed to be associated with the production of visual incomplete co-dom morphs only.

In summary, the term "Super" is colloquial not scientific, it is associated by the majority of people with the genetic power of complete co-doms, not recessives and in the context of the OP, I suspect this means a double homozygous co-dom animal like a Super Pewter

JMHO

Chris

The Super Pastel Super Black Pastel is anything but ugly. It is an exceptional animal. Produce one for yourself, hold it in your hands, and then let me know how you feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinWeaver

The Super Pastel Super Black Pastel is anything but ugly. It is an exceptional animal. Produce one for yourself, hold it in your hands, and then let me know how you feel.

---

Only when there's Lesser in the mix ;)

How's that thing look now man??