Genetics confusion

Thank you for the clarification, Judy. Let's keep things headed in a good direction - I love a good genetics discussion as much as anyone! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Post 43 in this thread gives some of the problems naming a gene when it is a codominant.

---

Could you please explain what you mean by this? I'd like more classification of the point you're making with this statement, in case I am not understanding something correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amanda528

And I get all my information from BIG breeders.

---

I know the user is already banned but out of all things said, this one made me laugh the most. Are you going to get your information about genetics from the big breeder or the guy who actually went to school and works in the field of genetics?

In case you were wondering, paulh works in the genetics field.

I think the anger might stem from these big breeders being put up to god status in some peoples heads. Tell them their god is wrong and they get mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizzy_troy

Could you please explain what you mean by this? I'd like more classification of the point you're making with this statement, in case I am not understanding something correctly.

---

I think what he is saying is, we have given two names to the same gene. het yellowbelly is the same as het ivory, just as homo yellow belly is the same as homo ivory. When comes down to it there really isn't clarification on what we name the gene.

However something like cinny/super cinny, and most people don't have an issue calling het cinny and homo cinny, but then there are people who would say it is het super cinny. so again we might have two names for the same gene.

When we wrote the first version of the genetic calc, we just use the heterozygous trade names and added het/homo to them and disregarded the super names. Recessives we did the opposite to keep with standard naming.

When the paired alleles that make up a gene are different from each other, they are 'heterozygous' (hetero = different) When the paired alleles that make up a gene are the same as each other they are 'homozygous' (homo = the same) and that's pretty much all it means. All mutations that are labeled as co-dominant or incomplete dominant have a visible heterozygous form and a differently visible homozygous form.

My God, some of you sure like to find silly things to get upset about.

I am outraged by the fact you people call python regius "ball" pythons, because when they roll up, they are not perfectly spherical, which means they are not "balls".

Also, while the British derived the name "royal python" from the scientific name python regius, it is not technically correct because they are not related to the british royal family. Please argue about all this for 5 years.

I am upset that people call snakes homozygous for the lesser gene "blue eyed lucy" because they should technically be called "HOMO LESSERS". I'm taking you all to court!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulieInNJ

Okay, I'm a bit confused. I'm looking (in a year or two) to breed my normal girl with a lesser male I'm acquiring this weekend. What's confusing me is the co-dom lesser gene. I can't figure out what their offspring has the potential to be.

I used the OWAL genetic calculator and it said a normal x lesser would give me 100% normal het lesser offspring. Then I used the Genetics Wizard, and it gave me 50% normal, 50% lesser offspring. Which one is right? I re-read the forum on genetics here, and I'm thinking it's the 50/50. Can someone please confirm?

---

I've started a series on my YouTube channel over the genetics of ball pythons. Hopefully they can help clear some things up.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P5vSOPLub_c