Lets see if I got this right.

OK, Pinstripe is codom, so if you bred a pin to a normal, theoretically, 50% of the offspring should be pinstripe. With this knowledge of codoms, I have read where pastel is codom as well, If I breed a pastel with a normal, again theoretically, 50% of the offspring should be pastel. Or is the pastel gene a dominant gene?

Pastel is codominant, Pinstripe is dominant

Pastel is a codom morph.... If you breed a pastel to a pastel you can get a super pastel. As for the chance of getting pinstripes in the breeding that you mentioned you are correct.....:gj:

OK, with pastel being codominant, if bred with a normal should , theoretically, 25% of the offspring be Pastel or would they all be normal?

I'd just save yourself the headache and waiting for responses and go here:
http://www.worldofballpythons.com/wizard/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reesy

OK, with pastel being codominant, if bred with a normal should , theoretically, 25% of the offspring be Pastel or would they all be normal?

---

Pastel to Normal = 50% Pastel + 50% Normal those are chances per egg

To know what your odds are I would suggest the genetic wizard on http://www.worldofballpythons.com/

Okay, there's a lot of genetic 'splanations on the stickies on the Morphs & Genetics forum plus that link that everybody gave you pretty much tells you what possible offspring you're gonna get for any bp pair. You can get a better idea of genetics by reading this one.

But, just to give you the very basics of your question, here goes:

Prerequisite - each snake carries genes from its father AND genes from its mother.

1.) Dominant - a morph gene is dominant if you only need one parent to pass on the gene and there is no super form of the morph. So, pinstripe is dominant because you only need either the mother or the father to be pinstripe to get pinstripe babies AND if both mother and father are pinstripes you don't get a different morph - you get pinstripes, where a possibility exists that some of the pinstripe offsprings have double pinstripe genes (you won't be able to tell which pinstripe is just a single gene pinstripe, or a double-gene pinstripe just by looking at it because they would look exactly the same).

2.) Codominant - a morph gene is codominant if you only need one parent to pass on the gene and there is a super form of the morph. So, pastel is codominant because you only need either the mother or the father to be pastel to get pastel babies AND if both mother and father are pastels, you could possibly get a completely different morph - a super pastel.

Simple enough?

Okay, as far as offspring... saying "50% of the offspring should be pinstripes" is not quite the right idea. The 50% number is the statistical chance of getting that morph per egg.

So:

3.) Pinstripe to normal - because you only need one parent to be pinstripe, you'll get a chance of having pinstripe babies. Now, if that pinstripe's parents (grandparents of the eggs) are both pinstripes, then the pinstripe is double-gene - so every single egg produced in this pairing will be a pinstripe. But, if one of the grandparents is not a pinstripe, then each egg produced by this pairing will have a 50% chance of being a pinstripe.

4.) Pastel to normal - because you only need one parent to be pastel, you'll get a chance of having pastel babies. Every single egg in that pairing will have a 50% chance of being a pastel.

Bonus:

5.) Super Pastel to normal - that is, you got a double-gene pastel. All your eggs are guaranteed pastel.

Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

Okay, there's a lot of genetic 'splanations on the stickies on the Morphs & Genetics forum plus that link that everybody gave you pretty much tells you what possible offspring you're gonna get for any bp pair. You can get a better idea of genetics by reading this one.

But, just to give you the very basics of your question, here goes:

Prerequisite - each snake carries genes from its father AND genes from its mother.

1.) Dominant - a morph gene is dominant if you only need one parent to pass on the gene and there is no super form of the morph. So, pinstripe is dominant because you only need either the mother or the father to be pinstripe to get pinstripe babies AND if both mother and father are pinstripes you don't get a different morph - you get pinstripes, where a possibility exists that some of the pinstripe offsprings have double pinstripe genes (you won't be able to tell which pinstripe is just a single gene pinstripe, or a double-gene pinstripe just by looking at it because they would look exactly the same).

2.) Codominant - a morph gene is codominant if you only need one parent to pass on the gene and there is a super form of the morph. So, pastel is codominant because you only need either the mother or the father to be pastel to get pastel babies AND if both mother and father are pastels, you could possibly get a completely different morph - a super pastel.

Simple enough?

Okay, as far as offspring... saying "50% of the offspring should be pinstripes" is not quite the right idea. The 50% number is the statistical chance of getting that morph per egg.

So:

3.) Pinstripe to normal - because you only need one parent to be pinstripe, you'll get a chance of having pinstripe babies. Now, if that pinstripe's parents (grandparents of the eggs) are both pinstripes, then the pinstripe is double-gene - so every single egg produced in this pairing will be a pinstripe. But, if one of the grandparents is not a pinstripe, then each egg produced by this pairing will have a 50% chance of being a pinstripe.

4.) Pastel to normal - because you only need one parent to be pastel, you'll get a chance of having pastel babies. Every single egg in that pairing will have a 50% chance of being a pastel.

Bonus:

5.) Super Pastel to normal - that is, you got a double-gene pastel. All your eggs are guaranteed pastel.

Have fun!

---

This statement has me a little confused. I was unaware of any pins that through only pins (super/Homo), I may have missed them. That being said, even if both parents are pins and there is a homo form, only 50% of the pin babies should be Homo, unless i am missing something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilltop

This statement has me a little confused. I was unaware of any pins that through only pins (super/Homo), I may have missed them. That being said, even if both parents are pins and there is a homo form, only 50% of the pin babies should be Homo, unless i am missing something

---

You didn't miss them ;)

Pinstripe to pinstripe has a 25% chance of producing a homozygous pinstripe that would in turn produce only pinstripes when bred to a normal. BUT, this homozygous pinstripe would not look any different from a heterozygous pinstripe. Because of this I don't know anyone who breeds a pin to a pin. If they look the same there is no benefit unless you are going to keep every offspring and breed it to find out if it is a homozygous pinstripe.

It's all theory till people actually provide proof that they exist, until then they don't exist...:P

Brain proved a homozygous pin a few years ago now. Also vin russo imported a homozygous congo. Those 2 are the only proven dominant morphs I know of.

Its much easier to look at what it het and homo and just calculate your odds, don't worry about if its recessive, co-dom or dom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

It's all theory till people actually provide proof that they exist, until then they don't exist...:P

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Simple Mendelian genetics state that dominant x dominant would give you a chance at a both a heterozygous genotype and a homozygous genotype. The phenotype would be the same yes, (they would look the same, so there's no way you can tell which is which unless you prove it out).

So, if what you're trying to say is that Pinstripe is not a proven dominant gene, then okay. I mean - it's highly unlikely, because, c'mon, the pinstripes have been discovered what, 2002, 2003? I'm fairly certain you'd know of a super-form by now if it was indeed co-dom instead of dominant.

But, if what you're saying is - there's no homozygous form because nobody produced one... well, I don't know how you can say that when all other ball pythons follow simple Mendelian genetics. Unless you want to claim pinstripes are abnormal in that regard?

So, not sure how to take your post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Its much easier to look at what it het and homo and just calculate your odds, don't worry about if its recessive, co-dom or dom.

---

Right.

I was attempting to lead the OP to the water instead of giving her a bottle of it or something to that effect. Because, the way I learned all this stuff is by understanding what a co-dom or dom or recessive means. So that, I can take any morph, figure out if it's recessive, co-dom, or dom and calculate the odds myself. I mean, yeah, I go to the wizard most of the time. But it's like learning how to multiply instead of just memorizing the times table. I memorized the times table, yes, but I learned how to multiply before I did that. Know what I mean?

Anyway, I gave it a shot.

Hi,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Simple Mendelian genetics state that dominant x dominant would give you a chance at a both a heterozygous genotype and a homozygous genotype. The phenotype would be the same yes, (they would look the same, so there's no way you can tell which is which unless you prove it out).

So, if what you're trying to say is that Pinstripe is not a proven dominant gene, then okay. I mean - it's highly unlikely, because, c'mon, the pinstripes have been discovered what, 2002, 2003? I'm fairly certain you'd know of a super-form by now if it was indeed co-dom instead of dominant.

But, if what you're saying is - there's no homozygous form because nobody produced one... well, I don't know how you can say that when all other ball pythons follow simple Mendelian genetics. Unless you want to claim pinstripes are abnormal in that regard?

So, not sure how to take your post...

---

Well the rumour is BHB have a pinstripe they think might be homozygous but want to do more breeding to confim one way or another ( as well as you can ).

There aren't really any other people saying they have one though - and at 25% of a pinstripe to pinstripe clutch they really shouldn't be that rare.

Nobody seems to have a homozygous spider at all - or if they are they aren't sharing the information with us.

So simple Mendelian genetics might not be holding true or there could be some other factor at work. It's not like anyone is reporting 25% dead in egg or slugs in every clutch.

And BHB got the first pinstripe in 2001 I think?

Spider was 1999 by NERD.

It's not really all that long.


dr del

Yes, while simple genetics will tell you there should be a homozygous animal that looks identical to the heterozygous animal, so far we have not seen it. Does that mean it doesn't exist, no. But as of right now, very very very few people claim to have a homozygous pin or spider, and even then, they are not blaring the news across the internet for all to see. It could be they just hit amazing odds (all pins in a clutch). I have a clutch of 4 eggs sitting in the incubator from a spider to a normal. If I hit all spiders in those 4 eggs, it could be that I have a homozygous spider.....or it means I hit good odds. That is why anyone that does hit those odds, must then breed that animal for several more seasons to prove out if they are indeed a homozygous animal. And in the 10+ years these animals have been in the industry, you'd think more people would have homozygous animals, especially if the chances are a whopping 25%! The chances of hatching out an axanthic killerbee are less, and there is proof (pictures) of those existing.

I was actually thinking of taking some spiders and pinstripes and breeding them for the sole purpose of trying to find a homozygous animal. It would take years and years, and in the end might result in nothing. But it could be fun to try. Who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Bunny

Yes, while simple genetics will tell you there should be a homozygous animal that looks identical to the heterozygous animal, so far we have not seen it. Does that mean it doesn't exist, no. But as of right now, very very very few people claim to have a homozygous pin or spider, and even then, they are not blaring the news across the internet for all to see. It could be they just hit amazing odds (all pins in a clutch). I have a clutch of 4 eggs sitting in the incubator from a spider to a normal. If I hit all spiders in those 4 eggs, it could be that I have a homozygous spider.....or it means I hit good odds. That is why anyone that does hit those odds, must then breed that animal for several more seasons to prove out if they are indeed a homozygous animal. And in the 10+ years these animals have been in the industry, you'd think more people would have homozygous animals, especially if the chances are a whopping 25%! The chances of hatching out an axanthic killerbee are less, and there is proof (pictures) of those existing.

I was actually thinking of taking some spiders and pinstripes and breeding them for the sole purpose of trying to find a homozygous animal. It would take years and years, and in the end might result in nothing. But it could be fun to try. Who knows.

---

And that's the thing. Nobody I know wants to invest the time and expense of proving it out.

But... if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody was there to hear it, does that mean it didn't make any sound?

I don't know. I can't prove it to you. But, it's safe to assume it did.

Physics and genetics are two different things. It could be that homozygous spiders and pins are lethal and either people experience egg death or follicle absorption as a result (which has not been proven either). We won't know until we can prove it out. Is there a homozygous spider or pinstripe out there? Maybe.....but we cannot say for certain that there is. We cannot assume there is just because a punnet square tells us it is so.

Years ago, people devoted to science told us the earth was the center of the solar system because the stars and planets seemed to orbit around us in the night sky. And for the longest time, this was the truth and the only way of thinking about how the universe was oriented. Then science changed and they proved we in fact revolve around the sun. So there is plenty we still do not know about genetics. The spider and pinstripe gene might be one of those things we just have not figured out yet. Maybe you have to combine the spider gene with another color/pattern mutation in order to unlock the homozygous potential. Perhaps the spider gene simply requires a new mutation that has not been discovered yet. One that would allow there to be a homozygous animal. Maybe it is sex-linked. Perhaps the spider gene isn't a dominant gene but in fact in a whole different ball park of genetics and we only say its dominant to make it easier to understand. We won't know until someone proves it out. So far, no one has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Bunny

Physics and genetics are two different things. It could be that homozygous spiders and pins are lethal and either people experience egg death or follicle absorption as a result (which has not been proven either). We won't know until we can prove it out. Is there a homozygous spider or pinstripe out there? Maybe.....but we cannot say for certain that there is. We cannot assume there is just because a punnet square tells us it is so.

Years ago, people devoted to science told us the earth was the center of the solar system because the stars and planets seemed to orbit around us in the night sky. And for the longest time, this was the truth and the only way of thinking about how the universe was oriented. Then science changed and they proved we in fact revolve around the sun. So there is plenty we still do not know about genetics. The spider and pinstripe gene might be one of those things we just have not figured out yet. Maybe you have to combine the spider gene with another color/pattern mutation in order to unlock the homozygous potential. Perhaps the spider gene simply requires a new mutation that has not been discovered yet. One that would allow there to be a homozygous animal. Maybe it is sex-linked. Perhaps the spider gene isn't a dominant gene but in fact in a whole different ball park of genetics and we only say its dominant to make it easier to understand. We won't know until someone proves it out. So far, no one has.

---

Okay, Jay... we are looking to you to get our minds un-confuddled. You got a female spider? I got a male one you can borrow. :)

I'd love to prove it out... but... I had one clutch last year and I found out I don't do very well with the breeding drama. So, you're gonna have to do it for us!

I do have some spiders and I am hatching some out very soon. I was planning on selling any male spiders I hatch out this season, but if anyone would think it would be a good experiment to try working towards a homozygous spider, I am more than up for the challenge. :D

why is there still debate on the homozygous pin?

27 eggs, all pins, odds of a heterozygous pin doing that are 1 in 134,217,728

odds of a homozygous pin doing it 1:1

what more proof do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

why is there still debate on the homozygous pin?

27 eggs, all pins, odds of a heterozygous pin doing that are 1 in 134,217,728

odds of a homozygous pin doing it 1:1

what more proof do you need?

---

Whose pin is this? Brian's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

Whose pin is this? Brian's?

---

yea