HUGE Price difference between 8Ball and Henry Piorun

So if you took a Normal BP and a homozygous Albino or Pied or whatever and you got ur babies you would have Het Albino and they would be 100% het Albino

but if you took a Het Albino and a Normal BP you would have 66% Het Albino

Sorry if I bug you will all my questions! I just want to figure this out! lol
CHEERS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanledet

they are not het albino, they are homozygous,

Het - carries the trait
Homo - shows the trait

I think your thought is "het means they carry the gene"...technically speaking, homozygous does carry the gene...but they show it, therefore, they're homozygous.

---

Sort of, Nate...but not quite accurate.

Het is short for "heterozygous"....which, in layman's simple terms means the animal is carrying ONE copy of a particular pair of genes.

Homozygous means it is carrying BOTH copies of that pair of genes.

Some morphs will show a visual trait, but still not be homozygous...such as a spider or pastel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonny2184

So if you took a Normal BP and a homozygous Albino or Pied or whatever and you got ur babies you would have Het Albino and they would be 100% het Albino

but if you took a Het Albino and a Normal BP you would have 66% Het Albino

Sorry if I bug you will all my questions! I just want to figure this out! lol
CHEERS!

---

You're very close. :D

Yes....a normal BP x a homozygous Albino would yield babies that were all 100% het albino.

A het albino x a normal will yield 50% hets....meaning each baby stands a 50/50 chance that it carries that albino gene.

A het albino x a het albino may give you some albino babies...and each normal baby has a 66% chance of being het.

So a heterozygous snake could possibly show the morph but highly unlikly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

You're very close. :D

Yes....a normal BP x a homozygous Albino would yield babies that were all 100% het albino.

A het albino x a normal will yield 50% hets....meaning each baby stands a 50/50 chance that it carries that albino gene.

A het albino x a het albino may give you some albino babies...and each normal baby has a 66% chance of being het.

---

AH I was close eh! Dammit! I think I do understand!
This is kinda fun... I could get into the genetics things....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonny2184

So a heterozygous snake could possibly show the morph but highly unlikly?

---

Depends entirely on the morph in question. Different morphs work differently. The ones we've been talking about here (albino or pied) are Simple Recessive morphs....which means that the animals must have both copies of a pair of genes in order to display the visual trait.

The ones I mentioned...spiders and pastels....are examples of Dominant or Co-Dominant morphs. These morphs only need one copy of the gene pair in order to show their looks. So....a spider x normal has a good chance of yielding spider babies in the first generation. Any other "normals" in the clutch are totally normal and not considered "het" in any way because if they had inherited the spider gene, they would look like spiders already.

Thank you for the correction Judy ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Depends entirely on the morph in question. Different morphs work differently. The ones we've been talking about here (albino or pied) are Simple Recessive morphs....which means that the animals must have both copies of a pair of genes in order to display the visual trait.

The ones I mentioned...spiders and pastels....are examples of Dominant or Co-Dominant morphs. These morphs only need one copy of the gene pair in order to show their looks. So....a spider x normal has a good chance of yielding spider babies in the first generation. Any other "normals" in the clutch are totally normal and not considered "het" in any way because if they had inherited the spider gene, they would look like spiders already.

---

I was hoping to stay away from the codominant and completely dominant, until I got the recessive down packed... lol

Isn't a spider completely dominant if that's the case?
Since it only needs one gene to shows it's morph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonny2184

I was hoping to stay away from the codominant and completely dominant, until I got the recessive down packed... lol

Isn't a spider completely dominant if that's the case?
Since it only needs one gene to shows it's morph?

---

The dominants start to get a bit confusing because they can also act differently between different morphs, and people refer to this phenomenon with different names: Dominant, Complete Dominant, Incomplete Dominant, and Co-Dominant. ALL of these only require a single gene (het) to show a visual morph trait.

For simplicity's sake....let's just say that a "Dominant" morph looks the same whether it the animal is "het" or "homo" for that trait.

And "Co-Dominant" means that the animal displays one morph type while carrying a single gene, and an entirely different look when both genes are paired together.

Spiders and pinstripes could be considered "Dominant".....pastels, mojaves, and many others can be considered "Co-Dom."

That's a very simple overview of what can be very complex when studied in depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonny2184

So a heterozygous snake could possibly show the morph but highly unlikly?

---

Not really; a heterozygous only carrys the gene but doesn't express it. Now there are instances where it might somewhat show through. I'm more familiar with corn genetics; but het bloodred frequently have certain markings that give them away; but even that isn't 100%

Now back to the dominant morphs; in your comment you could technically say that a pastel was het for super-pastel; and in that case you could see the het. But that's not really the way you'd word it with regards to pastel and other dominant morphs.

You're doing a very good job of picking this up. Keep at it; it'll all come together.