Help on double het genes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

Ok im sort off starting to get it now so the het red axanthic is not a het but it is simalar to a heterogeneous gene except from its visual? And thank you to everyone that has helped me in this thread.

---

It works the exact same as the other codominant/incomplete dominant genes - it's just named funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

Ok im sort off starting to get it now so the het red axanthic is not a het but it is simalar to a heterogeneous gene except from its visual? And thank you to everyone that has helped me in this thread.

---

Actually no... Typically we call it 'heterozygous' only if we are talking about a recessive gene, and in all cases the 'het' is not a visual. (het is short for heterozygous). The only way you can tell if it's heterozygous is if you know for sure what the parents were. So 'het red axanthic' is similar to a co-dominant gene (not at all similar to heterozygous).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

Well... are you? :rolleye2:

---

Well I not to sure about that, but I can tell you I didn't buy a snake from that guys table LOL. And at the time I actually had a pocket full of cash burning a hole in my pocket!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

Well I not to sure about that, but I can tell you I didn't buy a snake from that guys table LOL.

---

LoL...... I have refused sales when the buyer starts asking too many questions that annoy me or throw up flags....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

LoL...... I have refused sales when the buyer starts asking too many questions that annoy me or throw up flags....

---

HA HA! You are like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld, 'NO SNAKE FOR YOU. COME BACK NEXT YEAR!'

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

How about this making things get cleared up. Het red axanthic is the same thing as a pastel. Both codominate not recessive. And both can produce a super.

Sorry but as a new person that barely knows much about genetics yet this and the other threads made absolutely no sense until just now lol it finally clicked and that's probably the easiest way to explain the answer to his question that I can think of coming from a person with the same or less knowledge of genetics as the op. In other words i put it into newbie terms hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

Actually this statement above is referring to 'classical' genetics, not snake genetics. When we refer to 'codominance' there is no mixing of visual traits to get a hybrid visual trait. Here are some 'cliff notes' on snake genetics:

Dominant: With a dominant gene there is no 'super' form. For example, if you bred a Pinstripe to a Pinstripe you would get 3 out of 4 pinstripes and one normal. The link to the genetics calculator is one I wouldn't use, if you plug in Pinstripe x Pinstripe it shows you get a 'super pinstripe'. This doesn't happen with a dominant gene (you'll only get supers with co-dominant genes).

Codominant: This is similar to a dominant gene except there is a 'super' form. Think of it as a recessive gene, but the difference is that it has a visual recessive, similar to the het red axanthic. Usually the super form is totally different than the codominant visual, such as a bamboo vs the pure white super Bamboo.

Recessive: Similar to classical genetics, if you breed a recessive pied to a normal all the babies look normal but all carry one copy of the recessive trait. You have to breed the babies together to get a visual (only one of four babies will be visual).

Allelic: This refers to two different genes that are on the same location of the DNA and act together as a single dominant gene to produce an unexpected visual that looks totally different than either gene. For example, if you cross a yellow belly with a Specter, both look almost exactly like a normal, you will get a 'super stripe' that has one copy of the yellowbelly and one copy of the Specter gene, looks totally different than either of the parents. Now if you start breeding using allelic traits things get interesting. They act like a codominant 'super' form but have two different genes instead of the same genes. So if you breed a super stripe to normal you get half yellow belly and half specter. And if you cross two super stripes you get super yellow bellies (Ivories), super Specters, and superstripes!

Super: Super is the results of a codominant trait having two copies of the same gene but almost always results in a completely different visual than the base form. If you breed a super to anything you never get a normal. For example, if you breed a super Bamboo to a normal all the babies will be Bamboos. And if you breed a super to a super you get all supers.

Confused yet?

:)

I would suggesting using this genetic calculator, it's pretty close to being perfect:

http://www.worldofballpythons.com/wizard/

---

Some things need to be addressed here.

Scaleless head/scaless might be a true co Dom

Your description of dominant is one repeated through the hobby but it is flat out misinformed. There's no such thing as "no super" unless something is physically preventing genes from pairing up. Like desert females not being able to make eggs or if we came across a W linked gene. Other than that they all have supers. Also we have super pins that produce all pins and super leopards that produce all leopards. Each looking just like the heterozygous form. Give me a year and perhaps I'll have some super pins proved out, just picked up 9 normal females, all with dates with possible Super pins :)

I have no problem arguing that is the least accurate calculator available. If anything I'd suggest morph markets for the UI. But if accuracy is what your after, it may not be updated with new morphs but I don't think there's one more accurate than mine.