Why?

I am wondering why most breeders are now starting to put het for .... on almost all their snakes that produce a super form. I understand that technically it is a het, but when I think of a het I think of a recessive gene such as albino, caramel t albino, clown ect..... I don't think they should say het for ivory or het for lucy cause some of your unexpected customers think that they have to spend an extra 100 dollars on the snake cause now it says het. I saw with my own eyes at a reptile swap a breeder with a lesser with an extremely high price on it that said het for lucy. The customer bought him instead of the on 2 tables down cause it was a het. Just my opinion! What do you all think about it?

Just as you said I think it's just to try and get a little extra buck out off it. For the people who dont know genetics seeing that would make them buy it over one just labeled lesser. But I don't do it on my animals. I agree it's not het for BEL or super pastel or super ciny lol.

Well I guess I thought about it and yes a lesser is het for Lucy technically speaking because a BEL is the homozygous form and lesser it the heterozygous . But I see what you sayin.

Funny I was thinking the same thing the other day. I have noticed more and more ppl putting "het for" on more morphs that most enthusiast already know about.

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It should have been done from the beginning. It is what they are heterozygous for a mutated gene whether it be butter, pastel, yb...ect. Heterozygous, homozygous, recessive and dominant are covered in high school biology.

I have a spider het Bananabee het Black Bee het Bumblebee het Butterbee het Calider het Cinnabee het should I go on?

I think it could get quite silly soon in particular the base morphs are het half the designer morphs out there. I think that there needs to be some system for naming new morphs and for what breeders can and can't call het.

Well, I guess I don't agree. Let's say, theoretically I wanted to buy say, a caramel, and I went to a show or looked online for one....I would just buy a caramel, and not a caramel het for albino. Because I have no interest in nor would want to introduce albino into anything I might be producing. However, if I was really looking for a caramel, and was already working with albino, I might rather have the caramel het for albino. So when I look at something I might like to have, I want to know what it might be het for, in case I am already using that particular morph. Then I'd have another animal to throw into the mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellysballs

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It should have been done from the beginning. It is what they are heterozygous for a mutated gene whether it be butter, pastel, yb...ect. Heterozygous, homozygous, recessive and dominant are covered in high school biology.

---

I agree with this ONLY if you are doing to help explain to the new owners the potential of the snake. If it used to MISLEAD a NEW customer, then that is cruddy IMO.

What I don't like is the wording "X" het for "X" can be taken a few different ways. and then people want to argue if its het lucy or het lesser, in reality, its saying the exact same thing since its the same gene, being called heterozygous.

Lesser - Heterozygous
Lucy - Homozygous
boom, end of story, no confussion

I think the problem is actually the people jumping into this hobby and not learning genetics 101, seems like everyone knows what dominant, co-dominant, or recessive means, but doesn't know what heterozygous or homozygous means. het and homo are as basic as it gets, its like learning multiplication before addition, you can do it, but its a lot less confusing if you know the basics.

How many times have you herd someone say their "het pastel" and someone pips up and says "there no such thing as a het pastel, its a co-dom" ...... i would advise you learn the basics, just because our lingo shortens or removes words, still doesn't change the fact that every pastel, is in fact a het pastel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellysballs

Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It should have been done from the beginning. It is what they are heterozygous for a mutated gene whether it be butter, pastel, yb...ect. Heterozygous, homozygous, recessive and dominant are covered in high school biology.

---

yeah but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what it should be sold for is not right.

Just a marketing gimmick. I don't think all of them are out to rip anyone off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

What I don't like is the wording "X" het for "X" can be taken a few different ways. and then people want to argue if its het lucy or het lesser, in reality, its saying the exact same thing since its the same gene, being called heterozygous.

Lesser - Heterozygous
Lucy - Homozygous
boom, end of story, no confussion

I think the problem is actually the people jumping into this hobby and not learning genetics 101, seems like everyone knows what dominant, co-dominant, or recessive means, but doesn't know what heterozygous or homozygous means. het and homo are as basic as it gets, its like learning multiplication before addition, you can do it, but its a lot less confusing if you know the basics.

How many times have you herd someone say their "het pastel" and someone pips up and says "there no such thing as a het pastel, its a co-dom" ...... i would advise you learn the basics, just because our lingo shortens or removes words, still doesn't change the fact that every pastel, is in fact a het pastel.

---

I am not arguing the point of that I understand the genetics and know what het and homo means, the thing that urcs me is that some of these breeders are selling them more cause they are calling them a het. I know that lesser is the heterzygouse form and lucy is the homo, but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what is worth is not right. That is my problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

I am not arguing the point of that I understand the genetics and know what het and homo means, the thing that urcs me is that some of these breeders are selling them more cause they are calling them a het. I know that lesser is the heterzygouse form and lucy is the homo, but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what is worth is not right. That is my problem with it.

---

How do you know that they're selling it for "more"? More than what? Other breeders? When I start selling snakes I will list them for whatever I feel that they're worth, and they'll either sell or they won't. Other peoples' prices don't necessarily dictate what snakes sell for, as some people actually shop for quality snakes and professional breeders.

FYI, I just paid nearly 2X "market value" for a girl earlier this month because she was drop dead gorgeous and exactly what I was looking for, as well as coming from a breeder I trusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitzu

How do you know that they're selling it for "more"? More than what? Other breeders? When I start selling snakes I will list them for whatever I feel that they're worth, and they'll either sell or they won't. Other peoples' prices don't necessarily dictate what snakes sell for, as some people actually shop for quality snakes and professional breeders.

---

I went go to the local reptile show out by me 2 times a month. The average price for a lesser there was 350 the one gentleman " I am not going to say the company name cause I am not into bashing people" sold his lesser het for lucy for 500 to a customer who does not know much about ball pythons.

Maybe the lesser was an exceptional example to the buyer, or the breeder seemed a bit more reputable, or he/she had more weight, or was promised to be a good eater, etc, etc, etc.

AKA, an item/animal is worth what someone will pay for it and always will be. And if the seller was just a smooth talker and the buyer really was ignorant... well, to be honest, "a fool and his money are soon parted". I never buy anything without researching...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

when I think of a het I think of a recessive gene

---

Uhh.... why?

In the definition of "heterozygous" or "heterozygote" has absolutely nothing to do with "recessive-ness".

Frankly I really hate the whole "super" terminology. It immediately indoctrinates people into using incorrect terminology.

Aye yai yai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

yeah but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what it should be sold for is not right.

---

First of all, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay, not some random "market number" that you happen to see often in online classifieds.

$100 is a minimal fluctuation in price for any BP morph.. have you considered that the seller you are talking about thought his snake is worth "100 dollars more" simply because it was prettier?

When I set prices, I don't do much "shopping" around for a "market price", I set my prices to whatever I feel my animals are worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Uhh.... why?

In the definition of "heterozygous" or "heterozygote" has absolutely nothing to do with "recessive-ness".

Frankly I really hate the whole "super" terminology. It immediately indoctrinates people into using incorrect terminology.

---

The reason why is when the breeders first started introducing the co-doms they never mentioned anything about hets. As of recently everyone is now starting to call them hets. All your recessive gene snakes have always been called het. I have talked to a few breeders out by me such as evan stahl who also disagrees with calling the co-doms het for something since they were not called "hets" when first introduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

First of all, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay, not some random "market number" that you happen to see often in online classifieds.

$100 is a minimal fluctuation in price for any BP morph.. have you considered that the seller you are talking about thought his snake is worth "100 dollars more" simply because it was prettier?

When I set prices, I don't do much "shopping" around for a "market price", I set my prices to whatever I feel my animals are worth.

---

Yes I agree with you if someone is willing to pay more then "market price" then it is their own fault. I just don't agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

Yes I agree with you if someone is willing to pay more then "market price" then it is their own fault. I just don't agree with it.

---

Not to sound harsh, but who are you to say what is "market price"? How is $100 so exorbitant? Personaly I have seen market prices differ by more than $100. I have seen them differ by as much as $300-500. It all depends on the quality and by the breeder. Obviously the said snake was worth the extra $100 that was spent on it.

What is this? As long as they are labeling it correctly then what is the problem? Het ivory is just another way to say Yellowbelly. Het lucy is just another way to say Lesser or any other "het lucy" morph. If somebody pays $100 more for the same thing because it's labeled differently then that's great for the breeder who just sold that snake! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

I am not arguing the point of that I understand the genetics and know what het and homo means, the thing that urcs me is that some of these breeders are selling them more cause they are calling them a het. I know that lesser is the heterzygouse form and lucy is the homo, but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what is worth is not right. That is my problem with it.

---

Why aren't all breeders calling them hets then and informing their customers? maybe it will stop the confussion. why can't they sell them for 930420584032543 dollars more than what "market value is" if they want, if the price isn't right people don't buy it.

Quote:

---

I have talked to a few breeders out by me such as evan stahl who also disagrees with calling the co-doms het for something since they were not called "hets" when first introduced.

---

WHAT?? Co-doms have to be introduced as hets as soon as they are declared co-dom. having different het and homo forms is what proves its a co-dom. by design every co-dom has it het form declared when it's proven. just because they "lingo" doesn't call it that, doesn't mean anything. their problem is with the lingo, not the truth.

To someone thinking of breeding, that is still a bit new to the genetics, using the term "het" for something will get them asking some questions and be more likely to get you a sale.

Vender A has a lesser for $300
Vender B has a lesser (het. for lucy) for $350

Perspective buyer asks vender B, what does "het for lucy" mean. Vender B explains, if you were to breed lesser to lesser, you have a 1 in 4 chance of producing this snake (show them the lucy you have for sale). Vender B also can explain some of the other cool combo morphs that can be made with the lesser.

Essentially, Vender B's display caused the perspective buyer to engage in conversation. It can be the conversation that sells the snake, not necessarily the snake itself in some situations. Now as long as Vender B isn't telling lies, I have no problems with him engaging in conversation to help sell his snake.

9/10 times the perspective buyer isn't going to buy, but when one does, Vender B has spent a lot of time explaining his snakes, breeding, etc, so warrants a bit more on the sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

The reason why is when the breeders first started introducing the co-doms they never mentioned anything about hets. As of recently everyone is now starting to call them hets. All your recessive gene snakes have always been called het. I have talked to a few breeders out by me such as evan stahl who also disagrees with calling the co-doms het for something since they were not called "hets" when first introduced.

---

I just wanted to point out:

I hope you know that "when breeders first started introducing co-doms", they are using the term "co-dominant" incorrectly. Stop listening to "those breeders", practically everyone uses terminology incorrectly. I know that I have been guilty of it as well, but I actively make an effort to correct myself.

Instead of buying into the pseudo-genetics language that has arisen from a lack of proper knowledge about modern genetics, I heartily advise that you pick up a book on genetics, or AT THE VERY LEAST spending a day on wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I just wanted to point out:

I hope you know that "when breeders first started introducing co-doms", they are using the term "co-dominant" incorrectly. Stop listening to "those breeders", practically everyone uses terminology incorrectly. I know that I have been guilty of it as well, but I actively make an effort to correct myself.

Instead of buying into the pseudo-genetics language that has arisen from a lack of proper knowledge about modern genetics, I heartily advise that you pick up a book on genetics, or AT THE VERY LEAST spending a day on wikipedia.

---

I have spent more then a day researching the genetics but not from wikipedia. I have the books that were put out by NERD. I also used the following websites. World of Ball Pythons which explains Genetics very well and the punnet square.Also Markus Janes Ball Pythons which also says pretty much the same stuff. I have done more then enough research on them. I have been breeding reptiles mainly snakes for 12 years. I just started with the ball pythons. Use to breed Burms and Retics till I almost had a fatal accident which pushed me out of the breeding 5 years ago. I just recently got back into it with ball pythons. I did not want this to turn into an argument, I was just wondering why breeders are starting to label them differently then what they were first introduced as.

I guess it just drives me crazy because that terminology has only recently been used for co doms. I've always understood the fact that co doms ate technically het for a super form but for years almost no one referred to them that way.

People get use to a certain thing and it can cause confusion. Like the people that have tried advertising a snake that's het for pastel. There is no het for pastel buy technically pastel is het for super pastel. See? It messes new people up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayCee

To someone thinking of breeding, that is still a bit new to the genetics, using the term "het" for something will get them asking some questions and be more likely to get you a sale.

Vender A has a lesser for $300
Vender B has a lesser (het. for lucy) for $350

Perspective buyer asks vender B, what does "het for lucy" mean. Vender B explains, if you were to breed lesser to lesser, you have a 1 in 4 chance of producing this snake (show them the lucy you have for sale). Vender B also can explain some of the other cool combo morphs that can be made with the lesser.

Essentially, Vender B's display caused the perspective buyer to engage in conversation. It can be the conversation that sells the snake, not necessarily the snake itself in some situations. Now as long as Vender B isn't telling lies, I have no problems with him engaging in conversation to help sell his snake.

9/10 times the perspective buyer isn't going to buy, but when one does, Vender B has spent a lot of time explaining his snakes, breeding, etc, so warrants a bit more on the sale.

---

I agree with this. It's a good learning tool to use with new people.

When I'm showing off my mojo's I tell people all the time he is heterozygous, and the homozygous form is a lucy (an almost all white snake, baby blue eyes, and a purple tented head). A Lucy is such an amazing animal to talk about, how can you not tell people if something is het for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

I have a spider het Bananabee het Black Bee het Bumblebee het Butterbee het Calider het Cinnabee het should I go on?

I think it could get quite silly soon in particular the base morphs are het half the designer morphs out there. I think that there needs to be some system for naming new morphs and for what breeders can and can't call het.

---

This makes zero sense to me. So far, a spider has no proven homozygous form. And, none of the animals listed above are homozygous at all. Maybe you should visiti wiki.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I just wanted to point out:

I hope you know that "when breeders first started introducing co-doms", they are using the term "co-dominant" incorrectly. Stop listening to "those breeders", practically everyone uses terminology incorrectly. I know that I have been guilty of it as well, but I actively make an effort to correct myself.

Instead of buying into the pseudo-genetics language that has arisen from a lack of proper knowledge about modern genetics, I heartily advise that you pick up a book on genetics, or AT THE VERY LEAST spending a day on wikipedia.

---

Modern genetics calls the Mendelian system obsolete

The pseudo-genetics system in the snake world works and its already established, who cares about terminology anyways, Mendelian made it up how long ago, why can't we change it?

I find it interesting how the terminology differs from industry to industry.

In chinchillas, there is only one real "co-dominant" (incomplete dom) mutation. The homozygous and heterozygous forms are differentiated by putting "homo" and "hetero" in front of the mutation name (homo beige vs. hetero beige).

An animal that is heterozygous for a recessive mutation is called a "carrier" of that mutation (sapphire carrier, violet carrier). I'm sure that's common to many different heterozygous recessive animals, not just chinchillas ...

Evidently in birds, a heterozygous recessive animal is said to be "split to" that mutation ... :confused:

I don't have a real problem with the term "super" -- it may be made up, but it does seem to have a consistently agreed upon meaning. When I think of "super," I assume it to mean the visually distinct homozygous form of a visual heterozygous mutation (the homozygous form of a co-dominant or incomplete dominant mutation). I think what gets confusing is when folks use it to mean any homozygous animal.

Regarding the OP's complaint, I guess I will say that it bugs me a tiny bit as well (though I have no good reason for that; just one of those meaningless things that irritate you). However, I don't think that it's at all deceitful or unethical unless the seller is somehow trying to imply an untruth: that the animal is (for example) het for leucistic in addition to being a mojave (ie, that there are two different genes there), or that his mojaves are het for leucistic while everybody else's aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

yeah but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what it should be sold for is not right.

---

But there is no "Should be sold for" price. Value is in the eye of the consumer. What if that lesser just popped more than the other and so an extra $100 could have been worth it.