Normal X Pastel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Okay, lets do this one more time.

Yes, I see your punnet square.

Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons.

Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

---

That is what has happened to genetics in the Ball Python Industry, when someone says Het pastel people automatically think recessive, which I was trying to correct.

I agree people leave off the het because it is unneccessary and can cause confusion. I just don't like people being ridiculed and made fun of for something they aren't wrong about.

I personally call it a pastel, and as stated before, its all sematics

wow you guys are funny i just looked and there are 29 posts and i stoped looking after 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew420

wow you guys are funny i just looked and there are 29 posts and i stoped looking after 12

---

Its all good, its what civil debate is all about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew420

wow you guys are funny i just looked and there are 29 posts and i stoped looking after 12

---

Its all for you, Babaay ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

So you are saying that a normal can be Het for Pastel???

I think I am misunderstanding your arguement here.

---

I think the problem here all goes back to a misunderstanding of what heterozygous means. I didn't say anything about a normal looking pastel het. Many ball python people hear the word het and think it has to look normal because with the recessive mutations where they first learned about hets they just happened to look normal. You made the jump from het pastel to normal looking because of the common and deeply ingrained misunderstanding of the word het in the ball python community.

The solution is to stop thinking heterozygous means "normal looking gene carrier".

Het also doesn't mean "half way to something else". Technically a pastel isn't het for super pastel. Even if it turns out that spider or pinstripe are dominant and the homozygous versions look the same there will still be heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. In fact, if we ever do get a proven dominant ball python mutation it will be more important than ever to understand genotype terms because the heterozygous and homozygous mutant genotype animals will look the same so we’ll have to start talking about het pinstripes (or whatever mutation) to tell them apart.

The key is to go back to the real meaning of heterozygous - having an unmatched pair of whatever genes you are talking about. Deciding what a heterozygous animal looks like in relation to a homozygous normal and a homozygous mutant depends on the mutation type. The pastel phenotype animals are heterozygous for the pastel mutation because they have two different versions of the pastel gene; one with the pastel mutation inherited from one of the parents and one normal for pastel version of the pastel gene inherited from the other parent. Because pastel is a co-dominant mutation the hets do not look normal and the homozygous for the pastel mutation animals are a different non normal phenotype animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Het also doesn't mean "half way to something else". Technically a pastel isn't het for super pastel. Even if it turns out that spider or pinstripe are dominant and the homozygous versions look the same there will still be heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. In fact, if we ever do get a proven dominant ball python mutation it will be more important than ever to understand genotype terms because the heterozygous and homozygous mutant genotype animals will look the same so we’ll have to start talking about het pinstripes (or whatever mutation) to tell them apart.

---

AKA Boa Morphs? I honestly don't follow that well, so therefore do not know if the problem is apparent on that end as well???

Granted, I was arguing a point that has been brought up often, and yes, there is misconceptions within the genetics of the BP industry. I acquiese to that completely.

I just need to know how to phrase it so that it doesn't end up being confusing to the general public, as HET is as you said, misconstrued.

Which is why I defended Pastel. I think I'll just stick with that.

:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Okay, lets do this one more time.

Yes, I see your punnet square.

Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons.

Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

---

IMHO, although it will be very difficult to undue the years of "het = normal looking" thinking and there will be lots of confusion along the way I think we as an industry need to work through it to start understanding genotypes. I just don't see how when the average Joe has the opportunity to do crosses like killer bee het ghost X pastel ghost they will be able to predict the offspring without being able to break each component down to its genotype. So basically I'm arguing that we need to fix the general public's expectation that "het pastel" is a normal looking animal rather than accepting it and continuing to say things like "there are no het pastel/spider/etc.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I think the problem here all goes back to a misunderstanding of what heterozygous means. I didn't say anything about a normal looking pastel het. Many ball python people hear the word het and think it has to look normal because with the recessive mutations where they first learned about hets they just happened to look normal. You made the jump from het pastel to normal looking because of the common and deeply ingrained misunderstanding of the word het in the ball python community.

The solution is to stop thinking heterozygous means "normal looking gene carrier".

Het also doesn't mean "half way to something else". Technically a pastel isn't het for super pastel. Even if it turns out that spider or pinstripe are dominant and the homozygous versions look the same there will still be heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. In fact, if we ever do get a proven dominant ball python mutation it will be more important than ever to understand genotype terms because the heterozygous and homozygous mutant genotype animals will look the same so we’ll have to start talking about het pinstripes (or whatever mutation) to tell them apart.

The key is to go back to the real meaning of heterozygous - having an unmatched pair of whatever genes you are talking about. Deciding what a heterozygous animal looks like in relation to a homozygous normal and a homozygous mutant depends on the mutation type. The pastel phenotype animals are heterozygous for the pastel mutation because they have two different versions of the pastel gene; one with the pastel mutation inherited from one of the parents and one normal for pastel version of the pastel gene inherited from the other parent. Because pastel is a co-dominant mutation the hets do not look normal and the homozygous for the pastel mutation animals are a different non normal phenotype animal.

---

Thats what I meant to say! Thanks Randy!

Here is another terminology issue that IMHO might be better worded differently. You aren't out right using mutation types like co-dom and dominant as genotypes like on some ball python sites but you are close to it. In the below example it's implied that your "co-dom" and "dominant" mutation animals are heterozygous based on your results. But since the pastel mutation type is co-dominant isn't a super pastel just as much a co-dom as a regular pastel? If there is a homozygous pinstripe out there and pinstripe mutation type is dominant then wouldn't the homozygous pinstripe be just as much a dominant as the heterozygous pinstripes we've seen so far? Basically I think we should stick to using co-dom and dominant at the mutation type level and not apply it to specific genotype examples. The pastel mutation type is co-dominant compared to the normal version of the pastel gene, so co-dom refers to the mutation and not the snake that might have 1 or two copies of that mutation.

I've argued for using one set of inheritance rules based on genotypes that applies to each mutation type and then using the mutation type to sort out the phenotypes later.

Basically:

1. If starting with parent phenotypes break the parents down to their genotypes. Example, a Killerbee het ghost could be represented as sSPPGg where S, P, and g are the mutant versions of the Spider, Pastel, and Ghost genes respectively with the capital versions indicating the more dominant when compared with the normal versions of the same genes (s, p, and G).

2. Use the same genotype inheritance rules for all non sex linked mutations:

a. homozygous X homozygous = 100% homozygous (applies to both homozygous normal and homozygous mutant, the results are the same as the parents – homozygous normal X homozygous normal = 100% homozygous normal just like homozygous mutant X homozygous mutant = 100% homozygous mutant).

b. het X homozygous normal = 50% chance het, 50% chance homozygous normal. Depending on the mutation you may know which of your 50% chance het eggs hit the odds as soon as they hatch but they are still 50% chance hets when laid.

c. het X het = 25% homozygous mutant, 50% heterozygous, 25% homozygous normal. Once the eggs hatch if the mutation type isn’t co-dom you will have two of these groups together based on phenotype making a 33/66% possible split - as in 66% chance het recessives mutation animal or eventually 33% chance homozygous dominant mutation animals.

d. het X homozygous mutant = 50% chance het and 50% chance homozygous mutant. This is really the same rule as b. just inverted homozygous mutant for homozygous normal.

3. Convert back to phenotypes by knowing the mutation types. Example, realize that your homozygous mutant pastels (PP) are super pastel phenotype.

We may eventually get comfortable enough with genotypes that we don't even need step 1 and 3. If we called super pastels “homozygous pastels” then there would be no need to convert between the common name of the phenotype and the genotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

These co-dom x normal questions have been popping up a lot lately. Maybe we can have a sticky with something like this:

Breeding a Co-dom x Normal results in 50% co-doms and 50% normals

Breeding a co-dom x co-dom results in 50% co-doms, 25% normals, and 25% supers

Breeding a dominant x normal results in 50% doms and 50% normals

Breeding a dominant x dominant results in 75% doms and 25% normals

Breeding a het x normal results in 50% hets and 50% normals with all of them appearing normal

Breeding a het x het results in 25% homozygous visual morph and 66% poss. hets, all appearing normal

Breeding a recessive visual x het results in 50% homozygous visual morph and the other half are 100% hets

Breeding a recessive visual to a normal results in 100% hets

Co-Doms:
pastel - super = super pastel
mojave - super = Blue eye leusistic
lesser - super = Blue eye leusistic
butter - super = Blue eye leusistic
black pastel - super = super black pastel (solid black)
cinnamon pastel - super = super cinny (solid black)
fire - super = Black eye leusistic
vanilla (thunder) - super = super vanilla aka lightning
woma - super = pearl
yellow belly - super = ivory
het red axanthic - super = red axanthic
spot nose - super = power ball
phantom - super = super phantom
Lori ball - super = super Lori ball
Enchi - super = super Enchi
sable - super = super sable
banana ball - super = ???

Dominants:
Spider
Pinstripe
calico?

Recessives:
Albino
Piebald
Clown
Axanthic
Hypo/Ghost
Caramel Albino
Lavendar albino
Genetic Stripe

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Here is another terminology issue that IMHO might be better worded differently. You aren't out right using mutation types like co-dom and dominant as genotypes like on some ball python sites but you are close to it. In the below example it's implied that your "co-dom" and "dominant" mutation animals are heterozygous based on your results. But since the pastel mutation type is co-dominant isn't a super pastel just as much a co-dom as a regular pastel? If there is a homozygous pinstripe out there and pinstripe mutation type is dominant then wouldn't the homozygous pinstripe be just as much a dominant as the heterozygous pinstripes we've seen so far? Basically I think we should stick to using co-dom and dominant at the mutation type level and not apply it to specific genotype examples.
I've argued for using one set of inheritance rules based on genotypes that applies to each mutation type and then using the mutation type to sort out the phenotypes later.

---

Randy, I know exactly what you are saying, and I agree that we should be using one set of rules based on genotype and not phenotype. I think that ball python genetics can be confusing to newbies, and we can do better at standardizing the lingo.

I made this chart with the thoughts that newbies can give it a quick look and see that a pastel x normal will give you chances of 50% normals and 50% pastels. Since there is no evidence of homozygotes for the spiders and pinstripes, I wanted to keep it basic. I also agree that it's important that we start recognizing genotypes for what they are, and get rid of the "all hets look normal" way of thinking. I always try to explain co-doms as being heterozygous for a super form, while having a different phenotype than a wild type color and pattern, because that's what they are, hets. Just for the sake of providing this to newbies, while not jumping to any conclusions about homozygous dominant phenotypes, I wanted to keep it simple. Obviously when I say that a spider x spider breeding will give you 75% spiders, common sense would tell you that statistically 1/3 of those should technically be homozygous animals, I wanted to stick to a simple chart keeping with what we know to be true as this point. Once people start getting into those double co-dom het recessive X visual recessive, they would be wise to dig a little deeper into genotypes before assuming any potential outcomes. :)

Edit: I just realized I didn't write anything for homozygous co-doms in my first post, though. That's not helping anything. :(