The codominance myth

I believe many reptil keepers make a mistake when they say a certain morph is codominant. I'll try to explain why i believe this.

What is a gene?
A gene is a portion of DNA that encodes a protein. In reptiles and many other animals, each gene (with some exception) consists of 2 halves, the mother's half and the father's half.

It is the relation between the 2 halves of a gene that we classify as recessive or dominant.

The morph we call albinism originates from a recessive mutation. The wild type gene responsible for producing melanin (dark pigment) suffered a mutation and thus was created a copy of this gene that does not work (does not produce melanin). A snake that is het for albinism has 1 copy of the functional normal or wild type and 1 copy of the mutation. Since the wild type is functional in the animal, it can produce melanin and we see a normal looking snake. We say the mutation is recessive because, when it is paired with its wild type counterpart is has no effect on the animal. On the other hand, we can say the wild type half of the gene is dominant in regards to its mutant counterpart. The dominant half expresses itself fully in the snake's body (we see a normal animal) while the recessive mutant half does not.

Another example would be the spider mutation. The spider mutation is dominant in regards to its normal or wild type counterpart. A snake het for spider will show the typical spider pattern. There is no visual diference between a het spider and a snake that has 2 copies of the mutation. There is no super morph of spider. We can also say the wild type version of the spider gene is recessive to the spider mutation. In a snake het for spider, the dominant half of the gene expresses itself fully in the snake's body (we see the spider pattern) while the mutant half does not.

What is a codominant gene? A codominant gene is one were both halves express their full potential even when paired together. The human ABO blood system is a good example of codominance. A person with AB blood type produces A type proteins and B type proteins. A is not recessive nor dominant over B and, at the same time, B is not recessive nor dominant over A. Both halves of the gene express themselfs fully, when paired together in the human body.

Now, lets examine the case of the pastel mutation. We can see the pastel effect when the mutation is paired with it's normal or wild type counterpart. A pastel snake is a animal that has 1 copy of the pastel mutation and 1 copy of the normal or wild type.
However, the pastel is not the full expression of the mutation. We only get to see the full expression of the pastel mutation in the super form, when the gene is formed by 2 copies of the pastel mutation. The super pastel is the full expression of the pastel mutation.
In a pastel snake we can say the mutation does not express it's full effect has would be expected if it was codominant.

In a het animal, when the mutation does express itself but not in it's full effect, we cannot call it codominance.

OK, so pastel is not recessive, nor dominant, nor codominant. What is it?

The pastel mutation, like so many other mutations in BP's is incomplete dominant. Somehow snake keeprs forgot this is the correct description for so many beautiful mutations in ball pythons.

I think that for the most part most people realize that the term codom is not exactly correct. Its more or less a schema that allows them to easily organize and describe the way certain genes act along with their visual traits without getting into the technicalities of genetics. Alot of people use the term incomplete dominant as opposed to co dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

The pastel mutation, like so many other mutations in BP's is incomplete dominant. Somehow snake keeprs forgot this is the correct description for so many beautiful mutations in ball pythons.

---

Well put...though a lot of people do actually know that a "co-dom" in the ball world is actually an incompete dominant gene.

My opinion is that since by far, most keepers/breeders have a very limited scope on genetics, myself included...that incorrect or not, things tend to stick once said over and over. Look at morphs that express hypomelanism as one of their defining traits, yet only ghosts are referred to as hypos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Domepiece

I think that for the most part most people realize that the term codom is not exactly correct. Its more or less a schema that allows them to easily organize and describe the way certain genes act along with their visual traits without getting into the technicalities of genetics.

---

I'm not sure most people realize the term is incorrect. Anyone can use the correct term even if they don't want to go into the technicalities of genetics. I'm convinced many reptile keepers don't know there is a thing called "incomplete dominance", even among those who dare to go into the technicalities.

I believe the problem existes because (as far as i know) BP's don't have any codominant morphs. Snake keepers never had to make the distinction between codominant and incomplete dominant. When someone first used the term codominant it got stuck in people's minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobNJ

things tend to stick once said over and over. Look at morphs that express hypomelanism as one of their defining traits, yet only ghosts are referred to as hypos.

---

I agree. As the genetics junky that i am, i believe forums like this are the perfect oportunity to shine a light on these issues.

This has been brought up before.

ABO blood typing is multiple allele series similar to say the BEL or YB complexes, meaning there is more than one allele at work, and only 2 can be present at a given time. So, if you have A & B you are then AB, but if you get say A & O you are A (but can pass a O) and if you are A & A you are A (and can only pass A). And, as you stated, this is considered co-dominance.

The argument becomes does the "super" of a BP color mutation form act as a blend (incomplete dominance) of the genes OR as a expression of both equally (co-dominance). I am not sure if that is really clear in this case. And, with multi allele series and different apparent strengths of the genes, it complicates the issue even further.

Either way, In the case of the BP the whether or not is it called CoDom or Incomplete Dom really is moot unless there are some other factors that are found to come in to play. Meaning either provides a useful description of the phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

I'm not sure most people realize the term is incorrect. Anyone can use the correct term even if they don't want to go into the technicalities of genetics. I'm convinced many reptile keepers don't know there is a thing called "incomplete dominance", even among those who dare to go into the technicalities.

I believe the problem existes because (as far as i know) BP's don't have any codominant morphs. Snake keepers never had to make the distinction between codominant and incomplete dominant. When someone first used the term codominant it got stuck in people's minds.

---

I'll rephrase that there are quite a few at least on this forum that understand the difference between the two. Also I agree that old habits are hard to break and people just use co dom out of habit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

This has been brought up before.

ABO blood typing is multiple allele series similar to say the BEL or YB complexes, meaning there is more than one allele at work, and only 2 can be present at a given time. So, if you have A & B you are then AB, but if you get say A & O you are A (but can pass a O) and if you are A & A you are A (and can only pass A). And, as you stated, this is considered co-dominance.

The argument becomes does the "super" of a BP color mutation form act as a blend (incomplete dominance) of the genes OR as a expression of both equally (co-dominance). I am not sure if that is really clear in this case. And, with multi allele series and different apparent strengths of the genes, it complicates the issue even further.

Either way, In the case of the BP the whether or not is it called CoDom or Incomplete Dom really is moot unless there are some other factors that are found to come in to play. Meaning either provides a useful description of the phenomenon.

---

I think it is clear for the color mutations. If it was a codominant mutation, Mojave's, Butter's, etc should have BEL and wild type coloring, not what we see. Pastel's should have patches of super pastel coloring and patches of wild type coloring. Picture something similar to the Pied Albino Paradox pattern. The expression of the gene is being reduced in het form so it must be incomplete dominance.

I agree though that it doesn't really matter. Codominance is being used as an industry/trade term to describe morphs, not as a scientific one. I suspect many people do realize it's really incomplete dominance but choose to say codominant since this is the commonly accepted term.

Seriouslly whats the point? However you want to say it those of us who breed know what snakes to put together to produce what we are going for. This is just gonna turn into one of those 8 page threads about tomato timoto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

ABO blood typing is multiple allele series similar to say the BEL or YB complexes, meaning there is more than one allele at work, and only 2 can be present at a given time. So, if you have A & B you are then AB, but if you get say A & O you are A (but can pass a O) and if you are A & A you are A (and can only pass A). And, as you stated, this is considered co-dominance.

---

I'm not sure you are making this argument but the fact that the ABO system is a multiple allele series does not change anything. Again, i'm not sure you are defending this. Even for a multiple allele series, a given individual will still have 2 and only 2 of the possible alleles in the series. It is the relation between those 2 alleles that we consider to be dominant or recessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

The argument becomes does the "super" of a BP color mutation form act as a blend (incomplete dominance) of the genes OR as a expression of both equally (co-dominance).

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I am not sure if that is really clear in this case.

---

To make it clear we must look into the definition of codominance and incomplete dominance.

Codominance - both alleles in the gene express fully in the phenotype.
Incomplete dominance - the phenotype is a intermediate form of the effect each allele has in the homozigous form.

If you agree with the definitions, you should come to the conclusion that the pastel phenotype is an intermediate phenotype between the normal and the super pastel. Thus, it should be classified has incomplete dominante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

And, with multi allele series and different apparent strengths of the genes, it complicates the issue even further.

---

Again, we must consider the relation of the alleles in pairs. AB = codominance,
AO and BO are domimant/recessive where O is recessive to both A and B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

Either way, In the case of the BP the whether or not is it called CoDom or Incomplete Dom really is moot unless there are some other factors that are found to come in to play.

---

I do not agree. By definition, one gene is either codominant or incomplete dominant. No other external factors, apart from the definition, will ever change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

Meaning either provides a useful description of the phenomenon.

---

Again i do not agree. Codominance and incomplete dominance are two very distinct and different phenomena. What happens is that people became accustomed to describing one phenomenon using the term that describes another phenomenon.

Fair enough. I imagine the terms in use currently with the BPs are not likely to change. But you will be able to sleep at night being technically correct. ;)

I will go back to playing with snakes.

Quote:

---

Seriouslly whats the point? However you want to say it those of us who breed know what snakes to put together to produce what we are going for. This is just gonna turn into one of those 8 page threads about tomato timoto.

---

Would you agree that there are genetics questions about snakes that are still unanswered?

I for one am curious about female Deserts reproduction and homozygous spiders. There's a long list of lethal snake morph combos NERD put together and is available on youtube. NERD learned the hard way. It would be nice to identify why certain gene combinations are lethal so breeders don't have to learn the hard way and waste entire clutches as well produce sickly snakes. The first step is learning how the different genes interact which is dominant, recessive, codominant, incomplete, etc.

Plus, some of us enjoy discussing genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

Fair enough. I imagine the terms in use currently with the BPs are not likely to change.

---

You are probably right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

But you will be able to sleep at night being technically correct. ;)

---

Nothing wrong with being correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I will go back to playing with snakes.

---

Don't play too much with your snake. It will make your palms hairy. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky Dragons

Plus, some of us enjoy discussing genetics.

---

I certainly do :gj:

Well you guys wont be unlocking the desert female issue. They have been worked with for many many years and same result. Good luck figurin that out. Yes genetics is always a fun topic. I just see where this thread is going lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

Well you guys wont be unlocking the desert female issue. They have been worked with for many many years and same result. Good luck figurin that out.

---

I wasn't trying to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

I just see where this thread is going lol

---

Will you share with the rest of us?

Your explanation of incomplete dominant is the best one I've seen so far (I'm just assuming it's correct). The ones before talking about red, white, and pink flowers I never got. Seems like if you had small enough dots a white and red dotted flower might look pink. Maybe pastels have alternating dots of super pastel and normal if we were to just look close enough? I'm all for being correct though so will try to remember to use incomplete dominant like I'm trying to switch from "ghost" to "hypo".

BTW, the homozygous spider might have been the subject a previous poster thought this post was heading to. No one has yet come forward with a proven homozygous spider to support the claims that it is a dominant mutation and some of us suspect that it might be homozygous lethal. Pinstripe is proven dominant so would be a better example.

I've read this thread and I can say I'm a bit confused but I think I grasp a bit. I'm wondering if multi gene morphs are considered co-dominant? For example killer bee. It's the super pastel and spider. Both genes are expressed in full together. Or does it have to be the same allele? Like paradox. If paradox was genetic would it be an example of co-dominance? This thread is interesting Btws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

I'm wondering if multi gene morphs are considered co-dominant? For example killer bee. It's the super pastel and spider. Both genes are expressed in full together. Or does it have to be the same allele? Like paradox. If paradox was genetic would it be an example of co-dominance? This thread is interesting Btws.

---

When you have 2 or more genes in the same animal (combo) you get a "blend" of the individual effects of each gene. But you cannot say one gene is dominant or recessive over the other. These terms apply only to the alleles of a single gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Your explanation of incomplete dominant is the best one I've seen so far (I'm just assuming it's correct).

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

The ones before talking about red, white, and pink flowers I never got. Seems like if you had small enough dots a white and red dotted flower might look pink. Maybe pastels have alternating dots of super pastel and normal if we were to just look close enough?

---

That reminds me of pixels in a computer screen. But that is not how it works in living organisms. I'll try to explain. Somewhere in the genome of BP's there is a gene responsible for making a protein. That protein makes the brown parts of the normal snake's pattern. This gene suffered a mutation originating a copy that does not work. We call it the pastel mutation. The pastel mutation is not very good at making the "brown protein" so the snakes pattern becomes lighter. When the snake is het, it still has 1 normal functional allele. That is why we can see some light brown (yellow) in the pattern. When the snake has 2 copies of the pastel mutation no "brown protein" is produced and we get a "white" pattern.

This is a hypotesis based on the general way genes function. Further studies of BP's biochemistry are necessary to prove/disprove this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

BTW, the homozygous spider might have been the subject a previous poster thought this post was heading to. No one has yet come forward with a proven homozygous spider to support the claims that it is a dominant mutation and some of us suspect that it might be homozygous lethal. Pinstripe is proven dominant so would be a better example.

---

Maybe spider is lethal in homozigous form, but even if that is the case, unless it would produce a superform should the snake survive, it would still be dominant. Maybe we will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Pinstripe is proven dominant so would be a better example.

---

I agree.

I like Ball Pythons with cool paint jobs!

All this gene talk makes my little cranium hurt :imslow:

Didn't read the thread fully, but just wanted to reply to the OP:

Others (including myself) have brought this up before, and thank you for bringing it up again. I think that most people these days could do with a refresher of 9th grade biology, or at least a read through a half dozen wikipedia articles on genetics.

Every time I hear someone use co-dominant incorrectly, its hard to not imagine that they dropped out of school in 8th grade.

This is a pretty good read, and concise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Didn't read the thread fully, but just wanted to reply to the OP:

Others (including myself) have brought this up before, and thank you for bringing it up again. I think that most people these days could do with a refresher of 9th grade biology, or at least a read through a half dozen wikipedia articles on genetics.

Every time I hear someone use co-dominant incorrectly, its hard to not imagine that they dropped out of school in 8th grade.

This is a pretty good read, and concise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

---

That is a bit harsh. Some of us have one or more degrees in a science field and use CoDom out of convenience, as it is the word used by the community. So insinuating 99% of the BP community did not graduate high school is a bit wonky. Furthermore, if any word conveys to the other person in the conversation the point you are trying to get across, then is it functioning in the intended manner.

Also, I still do not think it is as obvious on a patterned animal. If snake A was white and Snake B was Black and the mix was grey (or peppered black and white), then we could say one way or the other with certainty. I will concede, after reading more on it myself, that Incomplete Dominance it likely the case for the most part, but I do not think it is that simple. As was stated before there can be other traits associated with these genes that we may or may not immediately see. I also am not fully convinced that what is happening with a Super Pastel which is just a amped up version of the heterozygous form, is the same thing happening with the BEL and YB complexes which show a completely different "super" form.

Either way, people use the term CoDom to describe the phenomenon in BP, right or wrong, but I am sure a few of the geniuses around here (or the only ones, obviously, with a high school diploma) can change the wording used by the community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

That is a bit harsh. Some of us have one or more degrees in a science field and use CoDom out of convenience, as it is the word used by the community. So insinuating 99% of the BP community did not graduate high school is a bit wonky. Furthermore, if any word conveys to the other person in the conversation the point you are trying to get across, then is it functioning in the intended manner.

Also, I still do not think it is as obvious on a patterned animal. If snake A was white and Snake B was Black and the mix was grey (or peppered black and white), then we could say one way or the other with certainty. I will concede, after reading more on it myself, that Incomplete Dominance it likely the case for the most part, but I do not think it is that simple. As was stated before there can be other traits associated with these genes that we may or may not immediately see. I also am not fully convinced that what is happening with a Super Pastel which is just a amped up version of the heterozygous form, is the same thing happening with the BEL and YB complexes which show a completely different "super" form.

Either way, people use the term CoDom to describe the phenomenon in BP, right or wrong, but I am sure a few of the geniuses around here (or the only ones, obviously, with a high school diploma) can change the wording used by the community.

---

Id have to agree with this. I graduated high school with honors, took every science class available to me minus physics because my schedule could not allow it and I still don't know that much about genetics when seeing it on paper. I gradually learned breeding this to that makes this, but of you told me to make punnitt square (apologies on spelling) I wouldn't be able to. Not because I'm stupid or ignorant, but because high school doesn't teach to much about genetics. To much confusion in my opinion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Didn't read the thread fully, but just wanted to reply to the OP:

Others (including myself) have brought this up before, and thank you for bringing it up again. I think that most people these days could do with a refresher of 9th grade biology, or at least a read through a half dozen wikipedia articles on genetics.

Every time I hear someone use co-dominant incorrectly, its hard to not imagine that they dropped out of school in 8th grade.

This is a pretty good read, and concise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

---

When your insulting others for doing something incorrectly and give them a link, you might want to make sure it is linked correctly... just saying.

I'm in the "I don't care" group, people know what you mean, I'm aware of it being incorrect but ill go with the community standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

That is a bit harsh. Some of us have one or more degrees in a science field and use CoDom out of convenience, as it is the word used by the community. So insinuating 99% of the BP community did not graduate high school is a bit wonky. Furthermore, if any word conveys to the other person in the conversation the point you are trying to get across, then is it functioning in the intended manner.

Also, I still do not think it is as obvious on a patterned animal. If snake A was white and Snake B was Black and the mix was grey (or peppered black and white), then we could say one way or the other with certainty. I will concede, after reading more on it myself, that Incomplete Dominance it likely the case for the most part, but I do not think it is that simple. As was stated before there can be other traits associated with these genes that we may or may not immediately see. I also am not fully convinced that what is happening with a Super Pastel which is just a amped up version of the heterozygous form, is the same thing happening with the BEL and YB complexes which show a completely different "super" form.

Either way, people use the term CoDom to describe the phenomenon in BP, right or wrong, but I am sure a few of the geniuses around here (or the only ones, obviously, with a high school diploma) can change the wording used by the community.

---

I understand what your saying about BEL and YB's. The definition of incomplete dominance is a reduction in the expressiveness of the gene in a heterozygote.

The reduction in expression can be a great deal or very little. I suspect the expression is only reduced a little for Pastels which is why they look very similar to the super form. I also suspect the expression is greatly reduced for BEL's and YB which is why the het form is so much different than the homozygous form. The perfect blend of white flowers plus red flowers equals pink flowers does not happen all that often... it's more of a sliding scale of expression.

It is possible that the YB and BEL follow polygenic or pleiotropic inheritance but they fit the textbook definition of incomplete dominance so without identifying the genes involved, it seems easiest at this point to label them incomplete. I agree though there could be more behind the scenes that is not apparent yet.

I agree too that there's nothing wrong with saying codominance and there's no need for anyone to be harsh about it. It's being used mostly as a trade term, not a scientific one.

Yeah, my point is it is not as cut and dry as it may appear. I see how a lot of it falls in to incomplete dominance, but it has not been proven either way if there is more going on.

People coming in basically calling everyone else idiots for not labeling is one way or the other is pointless.

This still does not touch the can of worms around Platty, Toffee, Banana and Desert. Just more evidence that what we think we know is a small portion of what is really going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

This still does not touch the can of worms around Platty, Toffee, Banana and Desert. Just more evidence that what we think we know is a small portion of what is really going on.

---

whats to figure out about the platty or toffee?

I have read how the Platty and Lesser thing works breeding wise, but is there a definite genetic explanation?

Toffee compatibility with Albino thing came as a surprise to what folks thought.

I may just not be read up enough on the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I have read how the Platty and Lesser thing works breeding wise, but is there a definite genetic explanation?

Toffee compatibility with Albino thing came as a surprise to what folks thought.

I may just not be read up enough on the two.

---

explanation is they sit on the same locus, just like all the other BEL genes.

It's really not that big of a surprise when you think about it, two genes that effect melanin, just one is tyrosinase positive and one is tyrosinase negative, not to much of a stretch.

Look at hypo and motley in boas, completely different looking animals, both genes sit on the same locus, one reduces melanin and the other increases melanin, so not really a big surprise, just crazy how two genes that look so different are so close.

I agree that this incomplete/codominant issue is not such a big deal. The world is not going to end if people dont start saying incomplete dominant insted of codominant. Each person has the right to continue using the wrong terminology if he/she wants to. What i can't understand is WHY someone who knows he/she is using the wrong terminology would want to continue doing so. When i learn that i am doing a mistake i tend do correct it. To continue making the mistake just because other people also do it is not, in my opinion, a reasonable excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

I agree that this incomplete/codominant issue is not such a big deal. The world is not going to end if people dont start saying incomplete dominant insted of codominant. Each person has the right to continue using the wrong terminology if he/she wants to. What i can't understand is WHY someone who knows he/she is using the wrong terminology would want to continue doing so. When i learn that i am doing a mistake i tend do correct it. To continue making the mistake just because other people also do it is not, in my opinion, a reasonable excuse.

---

when talking to another person and you say incomplete dominant and they look at you like they have no idea what your talking about. Then want to argue they were always told co-dom and then you derail what you were originally talking about to have a biology lesson and then your left with someone who most likely does not care that thinks your being ridiculous because as you see most people couldn't care less and everyone says it the other way. On top of that you never had the original conversation you were trying to have.

Now as you see above, people who actually study this stuff will argue that it is not incomplete dominant or is and there other factors, nothing is proven, blah blah blah *insert other reasons I don't understand*, you can't simply say incomplete dominant is correct either. so you really can't win how you use it.

when it comes down to it, people want to talk snakes, not the label mendel put on these classifications.

That's why I have no problem using it incorrectly. I just want to be understood when I talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

when talking to another person and you say incomplete dominant and they look at you like they have no idea what your talking about.

---

I would call that the perfect oportunity to teach something new to that person. You would be surprised how many persons like to lern something new. You wont know untill you try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Then want to argue they were always told co-dom and then you derail what you were originally talking about to have a biology lesson and then your left with someone who most likely does not care that thinks your being ridiculous because as you see most people couldn't care less and everyone says it the other way.

---

Some people will thank you for correcting them. Other people will continue to use the wrong term because they are stubborn. I say it is better to give those people a chance to make their own choise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

On top of that you never had the original conversation you were trying to have.

---

Why not? You teach them the correct term and move on to what you wanted to talk about in the first place. And if those persons still want to talk about incomplete dominance... ermmm... maybe they are interested in the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Now as you see above, people who actually study this stuff will argue that it is not incomplete dominant...

---

Where exactly did you see above anyone that studied biology saying it is not incomplete dominant. I don't see it. Besides if you read, and understand, the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant (look above) you will agree that incomplete dominant is the correct term. I am not making it up. I am using the definition of the terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

...or is and there other factors, nothing is proven, blah blah blah...

---

Did you read my response to that? Please read again, i have already explained it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

*insert other reasons I don't understand*...

---

Yes, you don't understand and that is not the problem. The problem is you are making an effort NOT to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

...you can't simply say incomplete dominant is correct...

---

But i can. Simply using the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant, i can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

so you really can't win how you use it.

---

I am not trying to win. I am trying to make you understand the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant. How you use the knowledge is your own choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

...when it comes down to it, people want to talk snakes, not the label mendel put on these classifications.

---

No. YOU seem content to just "talk snakes". Don't presume to judge what other people want without asking their opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

That's why I have no problem using it incorrectly. I just want to be understood when I talk.

---

What a peculiar way you choose to be understood, when you consistently choose to use the incorrect terminology. No, you are just stubborn. You are standing in front of the trees but refuse to see the forest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

No, you are just stubborn. You are standing in front of the trees but refuse to see the forest.

---

Wow! 13 whole posts into your BP.net career...might be an all time new record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim

Wow! 13 whole posts into your BP.net career...might be an all time new record.

---

I was thinking that myself. I think the overall message may be valid, but the condescending "I am right" tone really kills the delivery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I was thinking that myself. I think the overall message may be valid, but the condescending "I am right" tone really kills the delivery.

---

Insted of insulting each other i believe it would be better if we stick to the topic of the thread. If my argument is wrong, please show me how. If the argument is corrrect say "Thanks i learned something new".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim

Wow! 13 whole posts into your BP.net career...might be an all time new record.

---

Insted of debating the argument of the thread, you choose to belittle me based on my number of posts. I'll take it as a complitent since clearly you could not find a flaw in my argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

Insted of insulting each other i believe it would be better if we stick to the topic of the thread. If my argument is wrong, please show me how. If the argument is corrrect say "Thanks i learned something new".

---

I have not insulted anyone. I have even said that I believe the argument is for the most part correct. But, an attitude that you should be thanked comes off as condescending.

I could care less about your post count, everyone is new to a board at some point. But when one of your first set of posts is that we are all wrong, and should thank you for gracing us with your knowledge (information that has been posted before BTW), it just does not come off well. IMO.

This board seems to me to be a community of folks that like to help and offer knowledge without an attitude. Just my thought on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I have not insulted anyone. I have even said that I believe the argument is for the most part correct.

---

What is the part of the argument you don't believe is correct? If there are faults i'd like to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

But, an attitude that you should be thanked comes off as condescending.

---

I dont think i should be thanked. That was your interpertation. However, i am thankful when someone teaches me something and i often express it. You are free to do the same, or not. But i do not require it of you. If you think i'm being condescending, that is your interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

I could care less about your post count...

---

I never said you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

... everyone is new to a board at some point. But when one of your first set of posts is that we are all wrong...

---

Please be honest and dont exagerate my words. I never said everybody was wrong. What i did say is it is wrong to use the term codominant insted of incomplete dominant. And i believe you already said you agree with me. So i dont understand why you are upset when i say something that you believe to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

... and should thank you for gracing us with your knowledge

---

Again, please don't exagerate my words. That is not fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

...(information that has been posted before BTW)

---

I never said i was the first person who thought about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

it just does not come off well. IMO. )

---

Why not? It seems it is you who is making a big deal of this. All i said is the term codominant is incorrect and you seem to agree. Why are you still fighting with me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinx667

This board seems to me to be a community of folks that like to help and offer knowledge without an attitude. Just my thought on the matter.

---

I agree. All i wanted with this thread was to offer a bit of knowledge. The attitude is your interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

Insted of insulting each other i believe it would be better if we stick to the topic of the thread. If my argument is wrong, please show me how. If the argument is corrrect say "Thanks i learned something new".

---

Who was the guy who said one of our respected, long-time members here couldn't see some forest or other due to his view being obstructed by trees? Hmmm, who was that guy?...Oh yeah! It was you. You may feel free to say "Thanks, I learned something."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

Insted of debating the argument of the thread, you choose to belittle me based on my number of posts. I'll take it as a complitent since clearly you could not find a flaw in my argument.

---

Never said there was a flaw in your argument, but you certainly strike me as "that guy" who enters a new social group and initally seems to be interesting but quickly alienates everyone in the room....Don't be that guy :)

I'm just not gonna play this game anymore. I'll be happy to discuss the topic of the thread. But i wont sit here anymore and continue useless fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

I would call that the perfect oportunity to teach something new to that person. You would be surprised how many people like to learn something new. You wont know untill you try it.

Some people will thank you for correcting them. Other people will continue to use the wrong term because they are stubborn. I say it is better to give those people a chance to make their own choice.

Why not? You teach them the correct term and move on to what you wanted to talk about in the first place and if that person still want to talk about incomplete dominance... ermmm... maybe they are interested in the issue?

Where exactly did you see above anyone that studied biology saying it is not incomplete dominant. I don't see it. Besides if you read and understand, the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant (look above) you will agree that incomplete dominant is the correct term. I am not making it up. I am using the definition of the terms.

Did you read my response to that? Please read again, i have already explained it.

Yes, you don't understand and that is not the problem. The problem is you are making an effort NOT to understand.

But I can. Simply using the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant, I can.

I am not trying to win. I am trying to make you understand the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant. How you use the knowledge is your own choice.

No. YOU seem content to just "talk snakes". Don't presume to judge what other people want without asking their opinion.

What a peculiar way you choose to be understood, when you consistently choose to use the incorrect terminology. No, you are just stubborn. You are standing in front of the trees but refuse to see the forest.

---

There were grammar and spelling mistakes in your post, which I bolded and corrected. I'm sure you passed high school English so you must know how to write a simple response, yet you choose to still post it incorrectly. You must be stubborn and standing in front of trees and stuff. :rolleyes:

Was the message still communicated without any confusion? Yes it was

You assume everything I said comes without experience of the exact situation and many other situation like it. Should we also be correcting people every time they say there no such thing as het pastel? I tired in the past. Found out it's all about how the community uses the word, not the actual definition. The flaw in your argument is you seem to think it matters what mendel called something. The logic behind the word is understood. No one is debating the definitions are correct, we are telling you welcome to how things really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

There were grammar and spelling mistakes in your post, which I bolded and corrected. I'm sure you passed high school English so you must know how to write a simple response, yet you choose to still post it incorrectly. You must be stubborn and standing in front of trees and stuff. :rolleyes:

Was the message still communicated without any confusion? Yes it was

You assume everything I said comes without experience of the exact situation and many other situation like it. Should we also be correcting people every time they say there no such thing as het pastel? I tired in the past. Found out it's all about how the community uses the word, not the actual definition. The flaw in your argument is you seem to think it matters what mendel called something. The logic behind the word is understood. No one is debating the definitions are correct, we are telling you welcome to how things really are.

---

:gj:


To the OP...

I don't think anybody is trying to argue that incomplete dominance is incorrect, or that it isn't the best possible definition for what we know at the time. People will however fight back if you, whether intentionally or completely implied by accident, insult their intelligence concerning a subject area they are passionate about. Don't ignorantly assume because lots of people use a term incorrectly that they don't know the correct term, or even that it was a mistake to have used codom where it doesn't belong. It is used because it gets the message across... and I am adding this part because you very strongly replied not to "talk for everyone else" when somebody said people "just want to talk snakes"....

People just want to talk snakes. Nobody is arguing the correct terminology. Don't call us idiots because you misunderstand the culture, despite your perfect efforts at approaching us. We can be very helpful and very open minded, maybe take a step back and ask questions as to WHY and get to know us before you start a thread that comes across as a bit preachy. Again take note.... you may not have intended to come across this way! But look at all the responses you got, and tell me that it didn't in some way at least come across as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

There were grammar and spelling mistakes in your post, which I bolded and corrected. I'm sure you passed high school English so you must know how to write a simple response, yet you choose to still post it incorrectly. You must be stubborn and standing in front of trees and stuff. :rolleyes:

Was the message still communicated without any confusion? Yes it was

---

Yes, i did pass high school english. However, english is not my native language. I also speak spanish, french, portuguese and italian. I'm afraid english is not the language i understand best. I did not choose to post mistakes, i just cant help making them. Thank you for the time you spent correcting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

You assume everything I said comes without experience of the exact situation and many other situation like it. Should we also be correcting people every time they say there no such thing as het pastel?

---

Yes. If the person in question does not agree, we move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I tired in the past. Found out it's all about how the community uses the word, not the actual definition. The flaw in your argument is you seem to think it matters what mendel called something. The logic behind the word is understood.

---

So you rather continue using the terminology you know is wrong. It is your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

No one is debating the definitions are correct, we are telling you welcome to how things really are.

---

Things only are a certain way when people want them to be. If enough people want, things change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anatopism

:gj:


To the OP...

I don't think anybody is trying to argue that incomplete dominance is incorrect, or that it isn't the best possible definition for what we know at the time. People will however fight back if you, whether intentionally or completely implied by accident, insult their intelligence concerning a subject area they are passionate about. Don't ignorantly assume because lots of people use a term incorrectly that they don't know the correct term, or even that it was a mistake to have used codom where it doesn't belong. It is used because it gets the message across... and I am adding this part because you very strongly replied not to "talk for everyone else" when somebody said people "just want to talk snakes"....

People just want to talk snakes. Nobody is arguing the correct terminology. Don't call us idiots because you misunderstand the culture, despite your perfect efforts at approaching us. We can be very helpful and very open minded, maybe take a step back and ask questions as to WHY and get to know us before you start a thread that comes across as a bit preachy. Again take note.... you may not have intended to come across this way! But look at all the responses you got, and tell me that it didn't in some way at least come across as such.

---

So many people claim to know the correct term is incomplet dominance but choose to use codominant because everybody else only understands codominant. I'm starting to believe everybody knows the correct terminology but thinks everybody else doesn't. Actually, i think everybody already knows it is really incomplete dominance but uses the excuse of everybody else not knowing so they dont have to use the correct term.

If so many people knows the correct term, it should be easy to change. I'm sorry but that does not seem very open minded to me. I dont get why people are not willing to use the correct term when they learn it. I just dont get it.

And i dont think i was preachy. I think people reacted strongly because they dont like the suggestion i made that codominance is incorrect terminology.

You would think this community would stop behaving this way and showing its arse, I mean this thread is only all over Facebook and the Internet since it was reported via The Reptile Report...

Considering the fact that any and all threads that are interesting, contain good facts, or experience that herpers all over may want to know, are being linked all over by The Reptile Report, I would personally be embarrassed for the world to see these replies.

The OP is factually correct. We are all aware of this. Another fact is that it would be nearly impossible to get hundreds of thousands of herpers to suddenly change their terminology. It's similar to the problem we occasionally get with a morph having different names because breeders can not agree who named it first or produced it first.

Good luck getting the reptile community to begin using all the proper genetic terminology..


Factoid: "There are no such things as Hogg Island or Columbian boas"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CH2O2

And i dont think i was preachy. I think people reacted strongly because they dont like the suggestion i made that codominance is incorrect terminology.

---

If that's what you got out of this thread, I don't think there much hope for you understanding this is a sociology issue not a biology one like you keep pretending it is. You're not listening to our experience with this exact issue. I don't think there anything left to say that hasn't already been said, no reason to repeat things again. Good luck changing things and adding more confusion to this already confusing hobby.

Fact: Different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for codominant. Some use a phenotype-based definitions and others a biochemical definition. And different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for incomplete dominant. Again either a phenotype-based definition or a biochemical definition. And there is not a one to one correlation between definitions based on phenotype and definitions based on biochemistry. Two genes that are biochemically codominant can produce a heterozygote with a phenotype that is intermediate between the two homozygotes.

Fact: A and B blood types are codominant because we use a sensitive chemical test. To the naked human eye, both are just red. In other words, sensitivity of the test can affect conclusions.

Fact: Distinguishing between codominant and incomplete dominant requires adding another term -- overdominance. Overdominance = the heterozygous form is not intermediate between the two homozygotes. The heterozygote is superior in performance or has a survival advantage compared to either homozygote.

Fact: Matings of codominant and incomplete dominant and overdominant genes produce the same results. In all three, the two homozygotes and the heterozygote can be distinguished. And the genotype results are the same as the phenotype results for a given mating.

Fact: "Codominant" has fewer characters than either "incomplete dominant" or "overdominant". Therefore, "codominant" is easiest to write.

Fact: Three definitions are easier to teach than five definitions.

Conclusion: Splitting mutant genes into three categories (dominant, codominant, recessive) is simpler for a breeder to use and teach than splitting mutant genes into five categories (dominant, codominant, incomplete dominant, overdominant, recessive).

So we have established that "co-dom" is not technically correct and but has been socially accepted as simple way to describe BP genetics. So now lets get down to the part that matters and let see some pics of the snakes.:gj::banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Fact: Different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for codominant. Some use a phenotype-based definitions and others a biochemical definition. And different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for incomplete dominant. Again either a phenotype-based definition or a biochemical definition. And there is not a one to one correlation between definitions based on phenotype and definitions based on biochemistry. Two genes that are biochemically codominant can produce a heterozygote with a phenotype that is intermediate between the two homozygotes.

---

Can you please show me a biochemical definition of codominant and incomplete dominant? Are you saying that by using such a definition, a pastel snake would be correctly classified codominant insted of incomplete dominant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Fact: A and B blood types are codominant because we use a sensitive chemical test. To the naked human eye, both are just red. In other words, sensitivity of the test can affect conclusions.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Fact: Distinguishing between codominant and incomplete dominant requires adding another term -- overdominance. Overdominance = the heterozygous form is not intermediate between the two homozygotes. The heterozygote is superior in performance or has a survival advantage compared to either homozygote.

---

No problem here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Fact: Matings of codominant and incomplete dominant and overdominant genes produce the same results. In all three, the two homozygotes and the heterozygote can be distinguished. And the genotype results are the same as the phenotype results for a given mating.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Fact: "Codominant" has fewer characters than either "incomplete dominant" or "overdominant". Therefore, "codominant" is easiest to write.

---

Ermmm.... lol? Are you saying people are just lazy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Fact: Three definitions are easier to teach than five definitions.

---

True. But why would you think people are ignorant and cant learn 5 definitions? Maybe it is the people that do know the definitions that refuse to teach them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Conclusion: Splitting mutant genes into three categories (dominant, codominant, recessive) is simpler for a breeder to use and teach than splitting mutant genes into five categories (dominant, codominant, incomplete dominant, overdominant, recessive).

---

So your conclusion is that breeders wont learn 5 definitions because they are either lazy or ignorant. I don't believe that. I believe people that do know and understand the definitions are unwilling to teach them.