Homozygous Spider Morph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that_dc5

So you're saying you'd call a Super Black Pastel a co-dominant snake, even though when paired to a normal you'd get nothing but Black Pastels? .

---

yes. the homozygous form of a co-dominant gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that_dc5

So you're saying you'd call a Super Black Pastel a co-dominant snake, even though when paired to a normal you'd get nothing but Black Pastels? The same as if there was a homozygous Spider, you put to a normal and get nothing but Spiders. Because I wouldn't.

---

That is the definition of a Co-Dom animal. It is only dominate if both the het and homo are identical. The black pastel and super black pastel look different so it cannot be a dominate trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrBig

You obviously don't understand gentetics 100%. A super Black pastel is not a Dominant gene it is a Homo versus the Black Pastel being a het. Making this by definition a co-dom gene, meaning that when two Hets(black pastels) breed they can produce a Super or Homo (super Black Pastel) version that looks differant then the hets. To be considered Dominant there can or can not be a super or Homo version, if there is it will look exactly as the het version does. Your analogy to super pastel vs pastel is flawed because you are comparing a co-dom homo to a co-dom het, just doesn't make sense. I think you are confusing the term dominant and homogezyneous, they are not one and the same.

---

I am not trying to start a war here. I understand what you're saying, and I know that Super forms aren't considered Dominant, so believe me when I say I understand genetics...

I guess what I was trying to say is that even though Super's aren't considered Dominant, they should be. Think about it, a dominant means that when paired to a normal you get nothing but the visual het version of that snake. For example a Super Pastel x Normal would give you all Pastels. Pastels being the visual het. to Super Pastel (there being a visual difference between the two). Now consider a Super Spider. Super Spider x Normal would be all Spiders (the het. versions of the Super Spider) so even though the het version looks just like the Super, you dont get normals.

So again, even though that is how the reptile industry has labeled things, I don't think we should separate the terms because the het. version of a Super Pastel looks different where the het. version of the "Super Spider" looks the same as it. You get me? When it comes to trying to explain through words, I suck lol. If you heard me trying to explain it you'd understand.

Heh heh,

The problem is the snake breeding community uses several of the terms incorrectly from a geneticists point of view.


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that_dc5

I am not trying to start a war here. I understand what you're saying, and I know that Super forms aren't considered Dominant, so believe me when I say I understand genetics...

I guess what I was trying to say is that even though Super's aren't considered Dominant, they should be. Think about it, a dominant means that when paired to a normal you get nothing but the visual het version of that snake. For example a Super Pastel x Normal would give you all Pastels. Pastels being the visual het. to Super Pastel (there being a visual difference between the two). Now consider a Super Spider. Super Spider x Normal would be all Spiders (the het. versions of the Super Spider) so even though the het version looks just like the Super, you dont get normals.

So again, even though that is how the reptile industry has labeled things, I don't think we should separate the terms because the het. version of a Super Pastel looks different where the het. version of the "Super Spider" looks the same as it. You get me? When it comes to trying to explain through words, I suck lol. If you heard me trying to explain it you'd understand.

---

But that's what we use the term Co-Dominate for. Dominate means that there isn't a difference between the het and homo, and Co-Dom means that the het looks different than a normal and the homo looks different than the normal or the het. So why do you want to call that dominate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Serpent Merchant

There are homo versions, they just don't look any different. If I bred a snake with dominate gene X to another snake with dominate gene X 25% on average would by homo for gene X.

It works the same way as with Co-Doms, the only difference is that there isn't a visual Difference between the het and the homo versions.

---

I get the odds but I was under the impression that there werent any homo versions of a dominant trait and Ive never heard of a homo dominant snake that thows all dominant babies, it would be sweet though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that_dc5

So you're saying you'd call a Super Black Pastel a co-dominant snake, even though when paired to a normal you'd get nothing but Black Pastels? The same as if there was a homozygous Spider, you put to a normal and get nothing but Spiders. Because I wouldn't.

---

Im pretty sure black pastel is co dominant as well. Just because the super form makes all black pastel babies doesnt make it a dominant trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that_dc5

I am not trying to start a war here. I understand what you're saying, and I know that Super forms aren't considered Dominant, so believe me when I say I understand genetics...

I guess what I was trying to say is that even though Super's aren't considered Dominant, they should be. Think about it, a dominant means that when paired to a normal you get nothing but the visual het version of that snake. For example a Super Pastel x Normal would give you all Pastels. Pastels being the visual het. to Super Pastel (there being a visual difference between the two). Now consider a Super Spider. Super Spider x Normal would be all Spiders (the het. versions of the Super Spider) so even though the het version looks just like the Super, you dont get normals.

So again, even though that is how the reptile industry has labeled things, I don't think we should separate the terms because the het. version of a Super Pastel looks different where the het. version of the "Super Spider" looks the same as it. You get me? When it comes to trying to explain through words, I suck lol. If you heard me trying to explain it you'd understand.

---

Doesnt dominant mean that the offspring have a 50% chance of getting the dominant gene.

No, dominant means the allele is fully expressed in a heterozygous animal. The animal can be either heterozygous or homozygous, it has no bearing on the expression. A heterozygous animal will have a 50% chance of passing a gene on while a homozygous animal has a 100% chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky Dragons

No, dominant means the allele is fully expressed in a heterozygous animal. The animal can be either heterozygous or homozygous, it has no bearing on the expression. A heterozygous animal will have a 50% chance of passing a gene on while a homozygous animal has a 100% chance.

---

I know, thats what I said. I think that people are just looking at this from different points of view. Also if it is a co dom/in dom or dominant I'm pretty sure it does have a bearing on expression with ball pythons, if it passes those genes to its offspring and they are dominant or co dom that snake will be a visual.