Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 1,574

0 members and 1,574 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 76,083
Threads: 249,223
Posts: 2,572,823
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Morphology
  • 10-25-2007, 03:24 PM
    jhall1468
    Re: normal ball + norml ball = albino (is this possible?)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kc261 View Post
    Are you sure you had it backwards the first time? After I posted my reply I was getting kind of excited that maybe I understood it and went and googled it, and based on the pages I looked at, I thought I was understanding which means you had it right the first time. Either that or I'm just lost beyond belief.

    I had it right the first time, but screwed it up when I decided to double check. I did a quick google search, and the first site I came up with (http://www.cccoe.net/genetics/codominant.html) has it backwards... so I lost faith in myself and did a switcheroo :P.

    That being said... the term "co-dominant" is pretty much used interchangeably with incomplete dominance in ball pythons. Although, from a scientific standpoint that's clearly erroneous. Given that information, I can't think of a single "real" co-dominant mutation, except perhaps the het BEL's you spoke of. In reality, all of the "co-dominant" mutations are actually incomplete dominant.

    But now curiosity has me, so I'm trying to think of a truly co-dominant ball python morph.
  • 10-25-2007, 04:51 PM
    kc261
    Re: normal ball + norml ball = albino (is this possible?)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jhall1468 View Post
    Damn I've made a bigger mess of this than I thought :P. You are right, I was right the first time... but I'm going to keep my mouth shut and let someone that knows what there talking about... do the talking:

    http://users.adelphia.net/~lubehawk/...!/inccodom.htm

    Hey, that's one of the pages I posted! I thought it was pretty good too.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jhall1468 View Post
    I had it right the first time, but screwed it up when I decided to double check. I did a quick google search, and the first site I came up with (http://www.cccoe.net/genetics/codominant.html) has it backwards... so I lost faith in myself and did a switcheroo :P.

    That site is messed up. Kinda sloppy with typos and such too. I emailed the guy (who I think is a 7th grade teacher) and basically said he should be embarrassed because he wouldn't accept that kind of work from his students.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jhall1468 View Post
    That being said... the term "co-dominant" is pretty much used interchangeably with incomplete dominance in ball pythons. Although, from a scientific standpoint that's clearly erroneous. Given that information, I can't think of a single "real" co-dominant mutation, except perhaps the het BEL's you spoke of. In reality, all of the "co-dominant" mutations are actually incomplete dominant.

    But now curiosity has me, so I'm trying to think of a truly co-dominant ball python morph.

    I understood that with BPs people are pretty much using co-dom for both. It was most of a mental exercise to learn something new.

    We should have a contest to see who can come up with a true co-dom morph first! :)
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1