What are Pieds? (Jinx)

Mike, solid example! It's exactly what some of us have been preaching. Those who fail to see the difference are shooting themselves in the foot. This industry is about training your eye. People would be surprised what you can acquire having a good eye for ball python morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foobar

I really like that thread, despite the negative temper that has come up. Maybe that just appertains to such a discussion. However, coming from the 01 industry (IT), I'm not that happy with the actual naming. Since it leads to misunderstanding. I know, one might say that doesn't matter if I'm happy or not, definitely true, but I think there is the crux of the matter.

Dominant -> Rules over something
Recessive -> Stands back for something

Considering this two words, I can't see how the gene(s) responsible for piebald can be incomplete dominant. I actually see the point and agree that genes showing up in heterozygous form can't be simple recessive, at least not in a manner as we used to use the term. So, to not make the chaos bigger as it already is, we probably should let simple recessive be what it is. Simple.

So, what would fit then? Making a virtual example. Considering every het. pied would show a small ringer (again, virtually), then the term incomplete dominance would fit perfect for my understanding. It shows up in the phenotype but doesn't affect the appearance as the homozygous form does. So incomplete then.

But that isn't the case on all those genes that we're talking about here. As long as a few are able to pick those heterozygous animals, meaning, as long as there is something in the phenotype to distinguish those from wildtype animals, there is a need for another word in my opinion. They're too subtle to be any sort of dominant. I rather would see the term incomplete/partial recessive, since it is closer to be recessive than dominant. But better something new. Maybe it is time for something new?

---

If their there to begin with then it makes it incomplete dominant. Trying to add some new term that is genetically incorrect will do nothing but confuse and perpetuate the false naming of genes.

Im on the other side of the fence... i dont agree but hey... its all good. I think certain lines of recessive have been line bred to better looking snakes in the long run that throw better looking markers. But i don't feel as if it can be generalized for the whole gene. My opinion

Well I guess by your definition and understanding of genetics is law. My bad. So ok everyone pied is incomplete dominant. Because it is then that makes NO recessive ball python morphs exist. I am able to pick out lavender albino hets from my clutches. I am also able to pick out het hypos from our clutches. I have also picked out het albinos. I am not the only one either. So by this reasoning they can not be recessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishanaconda

Im on the other side of the fence... i dont agree but hey... its all good. I think certain lines of recessive have been line bred to better looking snakes in the long run that throw better looking markers. But i don't feel as if it can be generalized for the whole gene. My opinion

---

Line breeding or not, if there are 'markers' then it is phenotypically different than a wild type. Just because only 10 out of 100 people can identify the hets does not mean that the other 90 must be right. It just means the 90 are not as trained at picking out the gene. Heck how often do you see people on this forum asking if their normal is a yellow belly or if their yellow belly really is one? Does that make it recessive? Some people cant see subtle differences, or they are not as trained to do so, even if those subtle differences are not so subtle.

What a great thread, except for the drama (sorry). Looking forward to more educational threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Well I guess by your definition and understanding of genetics is law. My bad. So ok everyone pied is incomplete dominant. Because it is then that makes NO recessive ball python morphs exist. I am able to pick out lavender albino hets from my clutches. I am also able to pick out het hypos from our clutches. I have also picked out het albinos. I am not the only one either. So by this reasoning they can not be recessive.

---

If you are referring to me, then no I dont think its FACT, but law, some of it, none the less, if the proof points in one direction I am more willing to believe it. You have yet to show any proof to back why you think its recessive. I am not trying to argue with you, I just want to see why you are so adamant that its recessive. Give me a compelling case, like your opposition so aptly has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royal Hijinx

I believe he in fact has a PhD in genetics... so you may want to re-assess your "comfort" with your "knowledge".

---

I am aware that Travis has a Phd. He says so in his signature. He may think I do not understand genetics beyond wiki yet he is incorrect.

Great thread, lots of information here :D. Keep it up please :).

Can someone of the experienced guys point out what to look for if I want to pick a het clown out of a pile of babies? I mean I think there is a change in colors as we can see on the pictures and also a slight change in pattern. Anything else apart from those two signs? I know it's hard to describe and it's easier to show an example, that's why it's easier to pick a het from a group, then tell by looking at an individual animal :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eatgoodfood

If their there to begin with then it makes it incomplete dominant. Trying to add some new term that is genetically incorrect will do nothing but confuse and perpetuate the false naming of genes.

---

Alright, I see your point. But anyway, I still think incomplete dominant is a washy term and would rather stick to intermediate inheritance.