Genetics confusion

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?

The second answer is closer to correct. The clutch itself may or may not be 50/50. Each egg has a 50% chance of hatching out a lesser.

its definitely the 50/50 one. only recessive traits will give hets and lesser is not a recessive as you already posted lol.

That's what I thought! I think the first genetics calculator messed me up.

...no laughing, I was a criminal justice/psychology/sociology major in college...

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbjtime8908

its definitely the 50/50 one. only recessive traits will give hets and lesser is not a recessive as you already posted lol.

---

I agree that it's the 50:50 answer. But you hit one of my pet peeves with the "only recessive traits will give hets". There are lots of het lessers. A het lesser has a gene pair made up of a lesser gene and a normal gene. They are known as lessers in the trade and do not look normal. The belief that a heterozygous snake looks normal is a holdover from the days when the only mutant genes in reptiles were recessive mutants. The lesser mutant gene is not a recessive mutant because the heterozygous snakes do not look normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

I agree that it's the 50:50 answer. But you hit one of my pet peeves with the "only recessive traits will give hets". There are lots of het lessers. A het lesser has a gene pair made up of a lesser gene and a normal gene. They are known as lessers in the trade and do not look normal. The belief that a heterozygous snake looks normal is a holdover from the days when the only mutant genes in reptiles were recessive mutants. The lesser mutant gene is not a recessive mutant because the heterozygous snakes do not look normal.

---

Okay, I may be confused, but I may not. So you're saying that there are true lessers, but there are also het lessers that look like lessers. So how do you know which one you've gotten, other than years of breeding or genetic testing?

Ignore the Paulh post... Unless your a genetics wizard yourself, you won't get it.. This is why we have people advertising things like het pastels on craigslist when there is no such thing. It gives the hobby a bad name.
Lesser IS co dom. Just leave it at that.

When bred to a normal, you will only get normal babies and lessers. Period. No hets at all.

To make things simple, we prefer to reserve the term "het" for recessive genes. Such as pied and albino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulieInNJ

...genetic calculator and it said a normal x lesser would give me 100% normal het lesser offspring. ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

I agree that it's the 50:50 answer. But you hit one of my pet peeves with the "only recessive traits will give hets". There are lots of het lessers. A het lesser has a gene pair made up of a lesser gene and a normal gene. They are known as lessers in the trade and do not look normal. The belief that a heterozygous snake looks normal is a holdover from the days when the only mutant genes in reptiles were recessive mutants. The lesser mutant gene is not a recessive mutant because the heterozygous snakes do not look normal.

---

While I understand what you're saying about the slightly inaccurate use of the term "het"....the first genetic calculator was still wrong because it gave an answer assuming the "lesser" was a homozygous mutation.

I DON'T think it's inaccurate, actually, to reserve the term "het" for recessive morphs and not use it for co-dom morphs because it gets WAY too confusing and makes it that much easier for scammers to pull the wool over a newbies eyes when they try to sell their "het spiders" or what-not.

Yes, a "lesser" could also be accurately referred to as a "het for blue-eyed-lucy"...but that doesn't mean the term het MUST be applied to the lesser morph. Not to mention the confusing fact that mojos and several other DIFFERENT morphs are also "het for bel". How to differentiate them if they have to be referred to as hets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulieInNJ

Okay, I may be confused, but I may not. So you're saying that there are true lessers, but there are also het lessers that look like lessers. So how do you know which one you've gotten, other than years of breeding or genetic testing?

---

He's saying that lessers should be referred to as "het" because they only have one mutated gene of an alelle pair. That condition is known as "heterozygous" or "het" for short.

When the two genes at an alelle are the same, it's referred to as "homozygous".

When both genes at that alelle are lesser genes, you get a blue-eyed-leucistic. So, the BEL could be referred to as a "homozygous lesser."

In recessive animals, the alelle must have both mutated genes to express itself. All albinos are homozygous for albino. An animal that carries one albino gene will look normal and will be called "het albino."

I HOPE that makes sense! I need more coffee..... :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foschi Exotic Serpents

Ignore the Paulh post... Unless your a genetics wizard yourself, you won't get it.. This is why we have people advertising things like het pastels on craigslist when there is no such thing. It gives the hobby a bad name.
Lesser IS co dom. Just leave it at that.

When bred to a normal, you will only get normal babies and lessers. Period. No hets at all.

To make things simple, we prefer to reserve the term "het" for recessive genes. Such as pied and albino.

---

Oh, thank god. My head was getting ready to explode, lol!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulieInNJ

Okay, I may be confused, but I may not. So you're saying that there are true lessers, but there are also het lessers that look like lessers. So how do you know which one you've gotten, other than years of breeding or genetic testing?

---

All lessers are heterozygous (aka het). Homozygous lesser is a BEL. Being recessive codom or dom has nothing to do with being heterozygous or homozygous. Btw on my calc you can click to use trade names box to change it to how people talk. You made you lesser homozygous using my calc to get that outcome. Which is a BEL

But to say there is no het lesser is wrong. ALL lessers are het. But since they are we just dont say it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

He's saying that lessers should be referred to as "het" because they only have one mutated gene of an alelle pair. That condition is known as "heterozygous" or "het" for short.

When the two genes at an alelle are the same, it's referred to as "homozygous".

When both genes at that alelle are lesser genes, you get a blue-eyed-leucistic. So, the BEL could be referred to as a "homozygous lesser."

In recessive animals, the alelle must have both mutated genes to express itself. All albinos are homozygous for albino. An animal that carries one albino gene will look normal and will be called "het albino."

I HOPE that makes sense! I need more coffee..... :oops:

---

It does, thanks! I understand the basics of genetics, but that calculator really threw me for a loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JulieInNJ

Okay, I may be confused, but I may not. So you're saying that there are true lessers, but there are also het lessers that look like lessers. So how do you know which one you've gotten, other than years of breeding or genetic testing?

---

Definitions (paraphrased from King & Stansfield, A dictionary of genetics.):
Homozygous = a gene pair in which the two genes are the same. A snake with a homozygous gene pair.

Heterozygous = a gene pair in which the two genes are NOT the same. A snake with a heterozygous gene pair.

There are homozygous lesser platinum ball pythons and heterozygous lesser platinum ball pythons. I'm not sure what is meant by a "true lesser", but it has to be one of these two.

Homozygous lessers have two lesser mutant genes. They are known in the trade as blue eyed leucistics or super lessers. These snakes do not look normal.

Het lessers have a lesser mutant gene paired with a normal gene. They are known in the trade as lessers. Every lesser is a het lesser. These snakes do not look normal.

You can look at homozygous lessers and heterozygous lessers and tell the difference between them. That makes the lesser platinum mutant gene codominant to the normal gene and not recessive to the normal gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

But to say there is no het lesser is wrong. ALL lessers are het. But since they are we just dont say it

---

I have to disagree with this statement. I thought about getting into it with my previous post, but that post was already all over the map and I didn't want to confuse things any further.

It would NOT be accurate to call a lesser a "het lesser". It would be accurate to call it a "het BEL", though.

As applied to ball python morph names, the term "het" means that the animal is expressing ONE HALF of the morph's genetic pair. A "het albino" means the animals has one half of the pair of genes needed to make up an albino.

A "het ivory" has one half of the genetic pair that makes an ivory. It's also known as a "yellow belly". But if you refer to an animal as "het yellow belly" it implies that the animal is carrying one half of the genetics needed to make a yellow belly.

There IS a difference between "het BEL" and "het lesser"....at least in the very casual genetic language of ball python morphs. There's no such thing as a "het lesser".

"Technically".... BUT.... When explaining something like this to newcomers, like Paulh did, in a terribly confusing way with no mention of leucistics (the super form), that is where the problem lies..

Yes technically co doms are het for their super form, whereas recessives have normals that are het for their visual forms.

Make sense?

But we don't say het when referring to co doms. Is either lesser or super lesser (lesser x lesser -----> blue eyed leucistic) etc etc..

And this was all that needed to be said... Not a long drawn out, agitated, scientific reply that will confuse newcomers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foschi Exotic Serpents

Yes technically co doms are het for their super form, whereas recessives have normals that are het for their visual forms.

---

This is the clearest explanation! I guess the OWAL calculator was a little too advanced for my purposes, lol. So sorry to OhhWatALoser! I never meant to cast any doubt. ;)

...again, I was a criminal justice major in college... :D

best advice I can give would be to research the differences between dominant, co-dominant, and recessive. dominant genes (alelles) will look the same whether an animal is homozygous or heterozygous, and there is no super form, e.g. spiders. co-dom traits like pastel, lesser, mojo, etc. will look different from the wild type and different from the super form. that's why it's not technically inaccurate to refer to a lesser as a 'het' because it is heterozygous, with the lesser mutated allele paired with a normal. however, it's more confusing to use the term hets with co-dominant mutations because, as Judy mentioned, there are several mutations that yield a leucistic in the super form, e.g. yellowbellies, russo, fire, lesser, mojo, etc.

having said that, it is helpful to think of co-dom snakes as 'heterozygous' for _____ because there is a difference between the heterozygous and homozygous forms. it will help you understand the differences between a pastel and super pastel, a lesser and a lucy, etc. because the super form is the result of a homozygous mutation on each allele.

my apologies if I've only further muddled things, but hope that helped a little. as mentioned previously, for your own purposes, if you pair a lesser with a normal, each egg has a 50/50 chance of being a lesser.

You all are absolutely amazing with all this knowledge. I should be so lucky to get to that point eventually!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

I have to disagree with this statement. I thought about getting into it with my previous post, but that post was already all over the map and I didn't want to confuse things any further.

It would NOT be accurate to call a lesser a "het lesser". It would be accurate to call it a "het BEL", though.

As applied to ball python morph names, the term "het" means that the animal is expressing ONE HALF of the morph's genetic pair. A "het albino" means the animals has one half of the pair of genes needed to make up an albino.

A "het ivory" has one half of the genetic pair that makes an ivory. It's also known as a "yellow belly". But if you refer to an animal as "het yellow belly" it implies that the animal is carrying one half of the genetics needed to make a yellow belly.

There IS a difference between "het BEL" and "het lesser". ...at least in the very casual genetic language of ball python morphs. There's no such thing as a "het lesser".

---

Het just means a pair of mismatched genes, not half a morph. Het bel and het lesser are the same thing. You basically have two names for the same gene in that sense. Your dealing with the heterozygous form of the gene. But if im looking at a at the alleles sitting there i call them lesser genes not het bel. While there technically nothing incorrect about besides we have many ways to make a bel, so i see it as less accurate.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygosity

And feel free to move on to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics

It works best when you recursively read all the links, but that takes time.

I don't really understand what's so confusing about a 9th grade bio topic.. but for the record, it would be great if people stopped confusing "incomplete dominant" and "co-dominant". Also it would be great if we could separate our phenotype and genotype descriptions of animals.

The phenotype of the animal in question is referred to as a "lesser".
The genotype is heterozygous for the allele that causes the above phenotype.

Wikipedia may not be the best source if you're trying to write a 10-page analysis of something read in a masters-level english course, but if you're trying to learn something in the maths and sciences, you can't really go wrong.

that's a good point too. the difference between phenotype and genotype is criminally overlooked. it's very helpful to someone just starting out in understanding the differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Het just means a pair of mismatched genes, not half a morph. Het bel and het lesser are the same thing. You basically have two names for the same gene in that sense. Your dealing with the heterozygous form of the gene. But if im looking at a at the alleles sitting there i call them lesser genes not het bel. While there technically nothing incorrect about besides we have many ways to make a bel, so i see it as less accurate.

---

Yes, I understand what it technically means. But please refer to the part of my post that I bolded. "As applied to ball python morph names"...the term "het" IMPLIES one half of a matched set. So if you say, "het lesser" you're implying that the animal has one half of the set needed to make a lesser.

I'm not disputing that a lesser is a heterozygous mutation. I'm just saying that I don't believe it is accurate to refer to the animal as "het lesser."

Just when I think I'm getting a grip on this genetic thing... lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I don't really understand what's so confusing about a 9th grade bio topic.

---

My 2 cents, I was in 9th grade biology 20 years ago. Since I haven't used or needed my genetics lessons until I got interested in BP's, I've forgotten most of what I've learned.

Conversely, most of what people learned in Intro to Law classes in HS, they don't remember. But I can quote you case law and criminal law better than some attorneys because I practice and use it daily.

Plus, the law is my 'thing' and I love it, but it bores many people to tears or just flat out confuses them. Just as the vast biological terminology confuses a lot of people who just aren't into biology.

I think the other problem is popular terminology. I understand it can be technically inaccurate, and just because the population majority uses it doesn't make it right. But it's what the majority uses, so it's what we've got to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Yes, I understand what it technically means. But please refer to the part of my post that I bolded. "As applied to ball python morph names"...the term "het" IMPLIES one half of a matched set. So if you say, "het lesser" you're implying that the animal has one half of the set needed to make a lesser.

I'm not disputing that a lesser is a heterozygous mutation. I'm just saying that I don't be assuminga we areare calling themy allele lesserlieve it is accurate to refer to the animal as "het lesser."

---

Thinking that way causes confusion, why do people assume that het implies anything other than what it actually means? I also find the last part contradicting because your saying you think is inacurate to call it heterozygous lesser, which it is. Assuming we are calling the allele lesser

Or are we going to assume het does not equal heterozygous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Thinking that way causes confusion, why do people assume that het implies anything other than what it actually means? I also find the last part contradicting because your saying you think is inacurate to call it heterozygous lesser, which it is. Assuming we are calling the allele lesser

---

Ok....this is MY understanding of how this terminology is typically used in the ball python morph world.

The term "het albino" is just a shortened version of "heterozygous for albino".

Therefore, the term "het lesser" would have the same connotation, "heterozygous for lesser".

And given the utter confusion on the matter, no matter which side of the argument a person is on, why should "het" be used in reference to lessers (and other dom/co-dom morphs) in the first place? Applying the term "het" in such a redundant fashion IS confusing. You don't call an albino a "super albino" or a "homo albino". It's just an albino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Or are we going to assume het does not equal heterozygous?

---

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think we're stuck in a semantic dance and neither of us is going to be able to get the other stepping on the same beat.

OWAL could solve this occasional confusion of the uninitiated by turning ON trade names as the default on his calculator. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wax32

OWAL could solve this occasional confusion of the uninitiated by turning ON trade names as the default on his calculator. :D

---

It is....

I think it was best stated here as the difference between phenotype and genotype.

What JLC is saying, is that ball python morph naming uses the phenotype naming system, that mainbutter refers to.

What Ohhwataloser and paulh are saying is referring to the genotype.

Everyone is right, yay! :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Ok....this is MY understanding of how this terminology is typically used in the ball python morph world.

The term "het albino" is just a shortened version of "heterozygous for albino".

Therefore, the term "het lesser" would have the same connotation, "heterozygous for lesser".

And given the utter confusion on the matter, no matter which side of the argument a person is on, why should "het" be used in reference to lessers (and other dom/co-dom morphs) in the first place? Applying the term "het" in such a redundant fashion IS confusing. You don't call an albino a "super albino" or a "homo albino". It's just an albino.

---

The terminology we typically use isn't "correct" on many accounts (co-dom vs incomplete dom), but majority of people using it makes it correct now doesn't it? I see this as another case. Technically Het for Albino is not correct at all, it is het albino. Heterozygous is an adjective. Its like saying "My snake is a pretty for albino" vs "My snake is a pretty albino"

We take it as them meaning the same thing (we both agree on that), but why use the funny sounding long version? Popularity I guess. I understand none of us here started using it that way and many people say it but still..... to me it seem we are implying het means something other than heterozygous. I see that as just complicating things for those who want to learn what is actually going on. No i'm not going to go to a show and sell my het lessers, its not the popular terminology but it doesn't make het lesser incorrect.

I'm not on a mission to "be right", I would just like to see this stuff get easier instead of more complicated. Theres hardly a difference between the genotype names and phenotype names we are calling them in this thread.

Heres a translator....
obviously theres a few odds balls like lucys and what not, but that sums up most of them. They don't have to be separate things and we can still keep the short phenotype names, but popular terminology seems to be heading toward them being separate and I see that causing more confusion.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'M the one who is confused. But I don't see these arguments making things simpler. It just seems to muddy the water, to me.

The whole subject of "het lessers" was brought up when someone said they get frustrated at the fact that lessers aren't called hets. ....?? Why is that frustrating? I don't know. I tried to explain why I think it would be MORE confusing to call them "het lessers".

I'm not a scientist. I took honors level science classes in high school, but they were all chemistry and physics...not biology. None since then. I'm just going by the COMMON TERMINOLOGY in the ball python world.

Even you said in your explanation that you won't be calling lessers "het lessers"....because it's confusing. That's all I was wanting to get across....that there's no reason to use such terminology.

I realize the terminology isn't always "correct"...but I'm not trying to help anyone pass a science exam...I just want to help folks understand what is meant when joe-bob-breeder says something.

I do believe that the closer we can ALL get to being accurate in our terminology, the better chance we all have of being on the same page all the time....however, due to the nature of the subject, I believe you quickly get to a point of causing MORE confusion by insisting on scientifically accurate language instead of helping.

And if anything in anything I've posted here comes across as angry or upset...I'm not. Not in the least. I think everyone here is trying their best to communicate what they think is right. But I think maybe each of us has a different target for what is "right".....you're hitting yours...I'm hitting mine...but we each think the other is missing it.

I don't know. I've said all I can say on the matter. The whole thread has become far more confusing than it started out and I don't think anything else I say can fix that at this point.

seeing as im the guy who made the original comment that lesser is not a "het" and inadvertently led to this super long and mostly confusing thread, id like to say that i have actually learned a thing or two in this thread.

before i made my post i was unaware of all of whats been said here and had only ever seen the laymans terms used. i am a newbie and i have made what would probably termed a newbie mistake when talking genetics but im now a little more educated.

no one person here made it super clear to me in one post on how this actually worked, it was a combination of what everyone said that helped me better understand a super confusing topic. i was never very good at science and definitely have forgotten most of it from school so i had no idea most of the things that are generally accepted by the majority are either wrong, shortened, or slightly off from the technical definition of things.

so thank you to everyone who made me a tad smarter and i hope that all the other newbs who read this thread can come away with a better understanding of how things in this hobby actually work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

The terminology we typically use isn't "correct" on many accounts (co-dom vs incomplete dom), but majority of people using it makes it correct now doesn't it? I see this as another case. Technically Het for Albino is not correct at all, it is het albino. Heterozygous is an adjective. Its like saying "My snake is a pretty for albino" vs "My snake is a pretty albino"

We take it as them meaning the same thing (we both agree on that), but why use the funny sounding long version? Popularity I guess. I understand none of us here started using it that way and many people say it but still..... to me it seem we are implying het means something other than heterozygous. I see that as just complicating things for those who want to learn what is actually going on. No i'm not going to go to a show and sell my het lessers, its not the popular terminology but it doesn't make het lesser incorrect.

I'm not on a mission to "be right", I would just like to see this stuff get easier instead of more complicated. Theres hardly a difference between the genotype names and phenotype names we are calling them in this thread.

Heres a translator....
obviously theres a few odds balls like lucys and what not, but that sums up most of them. They don't have to be separate things and we can still keep the short phenotype names, but popular terminology seems to be heading toward them being separate and I see that causing more confusion.

---

exactly what i was getting at, and thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

(snip)The whole subject of "het lessers" was brought up when someone said they get frustrated at the fact that lessers aren't called hets. ....?? Why is that frustrating? (snip)

---

That someone was me.

I am not frustrated that lessers aren't called hets. I am frustrated by the claim that lessers can not be genotypically heterozygous. And that NO creature with a dominant or codominant mutant gene paired with a normal gene can be genotypically heterozygous.

"Het albino" is a genotype that produces a normal phenotype. "Het lesser" is a genotype that produces a lesser or lesser platinum phenotype. Homozygous lesser is a genotype that produces a blue-eyed white phenotype.

This thread is helping me understand genetics in a whole different light.

This whole time, up until now, I believed "Heterozygous" or "Het" could only be used to describe Recessive Genetics.

I am beginning to understand that "technically", my Lesser Platinum is a Heterozygous Lesser Platinum. It would be a Homozygous Lesser Platinum if was in "Super Form" or a "Super Lesser".

In common ball python terminology, we leave the "Het" part off of co-doms like Lesser Platinum so that we can make recessive genes easier to understand or distinguish, especially for beginners.

So, am I on the right track here people? Any thoughts?

I am sure I still have much to learn in the ways of the Jed... er, Breeder Arts. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alkibp

This whole time, up until now, I believed "Heterozygous" or "Het" could only be used to describe Recessive Genetics.

---

This is one of the common misconceptions I would like to see cleared up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alkibp

In common ball python terminology, we leave the "Het" part off of co-doms like Lesser Platinum so that we can make recessive genes easier to understand or distinguish, especially for beginners.

---

I personally think its laziness dropping unneeded words off, I personally don't want to say heterozygous lesser platinum over and over, lesser is easier. At the same time I think it screws new people up more than it helps, but you wanna talk snake lingo you gotta learn. Every hobby I'm into is the same way, different lingos.

And yes your on the right track now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alkibp

This thread is helping me understand genetics in a whole different light.

This whole time, up until now, I believed "Heterozygous" or "Het" could only be used to describe Recessive Genetics.

I am beginning to understand that "technically", my Lesser Platinum is a Heterozygous Lesser Platinum. It would be a Homozygous Lesser Platinum if was in "Super Form" or a "Super Lesser".

In common ball python terminology, we leave the "Het" part off of co-doms like Lesser Platinum so that we can make recessive genes easier to understand or distinguish, especially for beginners.

So, am I on the right track here people? Any thoughts?

I am sure I still have much to learn in the ways of the Jed... er, Breeder Arts. ;)

---

This is exactly the way I was thinking. I, too, have learned a great deal! :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alkibp

This thread is helping me understand genetics in a whole different light.

This whole time, up until now, I believed "Heterozygous" or "Het" could only be used to describe Recessive Genetics.

I am beginning to understand that "technically", my Lesser Platinum is a Heterozygous Lesser Platinum. It would be a Homozygous Lesser Platinum if was in "Super Form" or a "Super Lesser".

In common ball python terminology, we leave the "Het" part off of co-doms like Lesser Platinum so that we can make recessive genes easier to understand or distinguish, especially for beginners.

So, am I on the right track here people? Any thoughts?

I am sure I still have much to learn in the ways of the Jed... er, Breeder Arts. ;)

---

You are on the right track.

If I had a dollar for every herper web site that says "Heterozygous" or "Het" can only be used to describe Recessive Genetics, I could buy a pied ball python and have money left over. :( It's so bad that I tend to say that a snake has a lesser mutant gene paired with a normal gene instead of calling it a het lesser.

IMO, we use "lesser" rather than "het lesser" because it is the phenotype name, and we can get the genotype from the phenotype. That is true for all codominant mutant genes. "Het lesser" is correct useage for the genotype, though.

Super _____ (fill in the blank) is just herper slang for homozygous _____ . Where the _____ mutant is codominant to the normal gene. "Super" has no standing in standard genetics, as taught in high school and university genetics courses.

With dominant mutant genes, you can't tell the homozygous mutant animals from the heterozygous animals. That makes homozygous and heterozygous just as useful with dominant mutants as with recessive mutants. It's just that dominant mutant genes are much less common in reptiles than recessive and codominant mutants are.

The scientific community and the snake community will never agree on this matter.
The snake community re-defined terminology, for genetics, to make things easier to explain and to be understood.
The scientific community is only trying to point out the differences between actual terminology and the colloquial terminology of the snake world.
:O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

It is....

---

Oh, lol

You know how all this gets so messed up when talking about "co-doms"? It's because in lot of cases the "het" is discovered first... and is named something cool, like mojave, cinnamon, pastel, etc.

THEN, a super (or homo) is made and we call that either a super "insert morph here" or sometimes a whole NEW name (no continuity here). Think, yellow belly/ivory and mojave/super mojave.

With recessives we usually get the "super" first and name that: albino, clown, genetic stripe.. etc. Then it's natural to call a het a het!

It would be nice if we discovered the super co-doms first so that a super mojave would have been just called a mojave, and the snake we know and love as a mojave would be called a het mojave. That is SORT'VE what happened with the Lesser Platinum... the super came first: The Platinum, aka Platty Daddy. If Ralph would have named the lesser "het Platinum" instead of "lesser platinum" we would be GOLDEN! (Yes, I know, 2 lessers do not a Platinum make... just like 2 het pumas don't make a puma!) :D

I know this thread is ANCIENT, but since it is something I was searching for, I'd like to throw in my $0.02, in case others come across this thread in a search.

The way I understand it is that heterozygous Phenotype naming works backwards from the recessive pairing, whereas heterozygous Phenotype naming works forwards for dominant/co-dom. You have Het Albino working towards Albino (homo), and you have, for example, Yellowbelly (het ivory) working towards Super Yellowbelly (Ivory homo).

I hope that's a correct understanding that's not confusing...

Genes are named from the abnormal appearance that they produce. So direction is always appearance (phenotype) first followed by name of gene, identity of the genes in a gene pair (genotype) and classification as a dominant, codominant or recessive. There is no naming problem as long as one gene is dominant to the other (recessive) gene. The problem is twofold: many herpers do not distinguish between the phenotype and the genotype and many ball python mutant genes are codominant to the corresponding normal gene.

For example, albino is the phenotype that named the albino gene. Everyone assumes that everyone else knows that the albino gene is recessive to the corresponding normal gene. Therefore the albino phenotype occurs only when there are two albino genes in the gene pair (homozygous albino genotype). And the normal phenotype occurs when there is a normal gene and an albino gene in the gene pair (heterozygous albino genotype). The normal phenotype also occurs when the genotype is homozygous normal.

In this case, albino is phenotype. Het albino is genotype which is used to distinguish the more valuable normal-looking snakes from the less valuable normal-looking snakes.

The pinstripe gene is dominant to the corresponding normal gene. The same pinstripe phenotype occurs when the genotype is homozygous pinstripe or heterozygous pinstripe. The normal phenotype only occurs when the genotype is homozygous normal.

Pinstripe is only phenotype. It would have to be modified with either homozygous or heterozygous to get the genotype.

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

Paulh lesser is not a het gene. It's coDOMINANT which means it's going to show. Here are your het genes. http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05...e7f51f1c51.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amanda528

Paulh lesser is not a het gene. It's coDOMINANT which means it's going to show. Here are your het genes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Paulh is not wrong. The term "het" doesn't indicate whether or not a morph is going to "show". All "het" means is that one gene within a pair of genes is different from the other. One is normal, and one is altered in some way.

Because albino is a recessive trait....when one gene is albino and the other gene is normal...the animal LOOKS normal, but can be called "het albino."

In the same way, a "lesser" gene is just one of the pair...the other gene is normal. If you have two lesser genes at the same pair, then you get a blue-eyed leucistic. Therefore, it is equally correct to call a lesser ball python "Het blue-eyed leucistic".

Yellowbelly = het ivory

And so on...

Homozygous means "the same"....the pair of genes are the same. Albino, pied, BEL, ivory....they're all homozygous examples of their morph, regardless of whether they are considered recessive or co-dominant.

Heterozygous means "different"...the pair of genes are different. One is normal and one is altered. Het albino, het pied, het BEL (lesser), het ivory (yellowbelly)....all equally correct ways to describe them.

JLC I've NEVER seen a "het" lesser. And I get all my information from BIG breeders. Lesser is dominant. There is a lesser and a super lesser AKA BEL. There is not a "het" lesser. So next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.royalconstrictordesigns.c...ython-genetics


True genetic explanation. NO WHERE IS THERE A THING ABOUT HET LESSER. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eric Allen make sure you put the right words when you edit my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amanda528

JLC I've NEVER seen a "het" lesser. And I get all my information from BIG breeders. Lesser is dominant. There is a lesser and a super lesser AKA BEL. There is not a "het" lesser. So next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I never once said "het lesser". Read it again.

My facts are fine. I'm seriously confused about the obvious anger this topic has brought out in a couple of individuals though. WHY so angry about it?

I also didn't say that it was COMMON PRACTICE to call a lesser a het BEL...just that it COULD BE DONE, and still be an accurate description of the genetics going on.

In the past, it WAS common practice to call a yellowbelly "het ivory"....same type of situation.

"Lesser" is just a NAME of a morph. "Het BEL" is a description of the genetics involved.