Super Calico

So wait a sec here. The first BP I ever bought was a normal for 25 bucks, I asked the lineage and he said it was a result of his butter x calico breeding. So even though she looks normal is there special blood that be flowing in them veins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rab21w

So wait a sec here. The first BP I ever bought was a normal for 25 bucks, I asked the lineage and he said it was a result of his butter x calico breeding. So even though she looks normal is there special blood that be flowing in them veins?

---

Butter to Calico can make normals, they are both co-doms.

didn't notice the date on the thread......lol

My turn to do a huge thread bump.......yea that is kinda fun. :D

My question, any updates on this? Did someone actually prove it to be a homozygous calico? or were more produced? I think I have seen heterozygous calicos that were more extreme, was it just a variation of the calico? or was it a homozygous?

Everything I have seen said the Calico was a dominate gene. No super forms??

That's what I thought too but I hadn't seen this thread before. Someone get a hold of Ralph. If anyone would know, it would be him.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MS2

Everything I have seen said the Calico was a dominate gene. No super forms??

---

This seem to be a common misconception in the ball python world. To truly be a dominant gene, it needs to look the same in heterozygous and homozgyous(super) form, there are only 3 genes I know of that can make that claim. The rest of what we call dominant, we have an unknown homozgyous form. When we call them dominant, we are more just saying they are not recessive. It is why I suggested the use of the term "unproven dominant".

There no reason to think there is no super form of any gene right now, just many are not proven. Which is what sparked my curiosity rereading this thread, 4 or so years later, maybe something has come up? Also say that animal was proven homozygous, would of guys say it looks like some of the nicer examples of the heterozygous calicos we have seen? or is there differences where we would call it inc-dom/co-dom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

This seem to be a common misconception in the ball python world. To truly be a dominant gene, it needs to look the same in heterozygous and homozgyous(super) form, there are only 3 genes I know of that can make that claim. The rest of what we call dominant, we have an unknown homozgyous form. When we call them dominant, we are more just saying they are not recessive. It is why I suggested the use of the term "unproven dominant".

There no reason to think there is no super form of any gene right now, just many are not proven. Which is what sparked my curiosity rereading this thread, 4 or so years later, maybe something has come up? Also say that animal was proven homozygous, would of guys say it looks like some of the nicer examples of the heterozygous calicos we have seen? or is there differences where we would call it inc-dom/co-dom?

---

I was wondering this exact thing. I wonder if it could be


Sent from iPhone 5 using tapatalk :)

As far as I know it is just a dominate gene, there is no super form but calicos can vary in visual quality significantly such as pieds do. There are also at least 3 lines of calicos which all look significantly different from each other.

The link won't work for me but I do have a question and some input. Has this super calico been bred out or is this just a high white calico that someone is calling a super calico? Calico is pretty polymorphic from what I have seen and the only way I'm going to believe that a calico is a "super" is if this bad boy or girl has been bred and produces nothing but calicos until then it's just a high white calico in my opinion.