Questionable Advertising or Misunderstanding of genetics?

My girlfriend and I are keeping an eye out for a few snakes we are looking to add to start our small breeding project. We are looking at local breeders due to the heat here in Texas and the ability that gives us to see the snakes in person.

One breeder I have found seems to be trying to advertise his snakes as more than what they are. He currently has ads up for pastel het pied in which the pairing was a Pied male and Pastel female. He never mentions poss het pied and his pricing is in line with 100% het pied snakes.

From my understanding the only way to have a 100% het pied (or any recessive gene) is if both parents are visual for that trait or for the snake to have been proven out. With hatchlings it is obviously not possible for the snake to be proven.

Am I right in being suspicious of this breeder by the way they are advertising and selling their snakes? Or is my understanding of the genetics off?

The breeder has a good rep on Fauna's BOI and I don't wish to mention names or accuse them of anything with out making sure that my understanding of genetics is right. Even then I don't want a witch hunt I just want to be informed and able to speak with the breeder as an informed and educated potential buyer.

Any feed back on this is greatly appreciated.

A Visual Recessive produces 100% Hets...

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

A pastel x pied pairing would result in pastels het pied and normals het pied. Not poss hets bc one of the parents is a visual recessive.

Check out World of Ball Pythons.com's genetic calculator.

They are listed correctly. All offspring of a visual parent will be 100% het. If both parents were visual, then there would be no hets since all of the offspring would be visible (homozygous).

When in doubt, plug the parents in the genetics wizard:

http://www.worldofballpythons.com/wizard/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coldbloodaddict

A Visual Recessive produces 100% Hets...

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

---

Damn, you beat me lol

Pied x pastel will produce 100% hets

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

Pied x Pastel = het pieds, and pastel het pieds

And for good measure . . . pied to pastel = het pieds and pastel het pieds! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andybill

And for good measure . . . pied to pastel = het pieds and pastel het pieds! :)

---

:rofl: Thanks for the backup :gj:!

just in the very slight chance you mighta missed it pied x pastel = pastels 100% het pied an Normal 100% het pied

Thanks for the feed back , I was pretty sure my understanding had to be wrong.

Always better to ask a question and become informed than wallow in ignorance.

Quote:

---

if both parents are visual for that trait

---

If both parents are Pied than all you would produce would be Pieds, no Hets.

Here are a few link you might want to study

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...Basic-Genetics

http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics.html

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/genetics_intro.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aizkora

Thanks for the feed back , I was pretty sure my understanding had to be wrong.

Always better to ask a question and become informed than wallow in ignorance.

---

Yeah I hate when I do this! Lol... No such thing as a stupid question! . . . well there are some exceptions but BP genetics especially understanding recessives can be a bit confusing!

I am pretty sure my exhaustion was getting the better of me. More I look at it the more I realize how dumb of a question it was. Especially as I am a biology major :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aizkora

I am pretty sure my exhaustion was getting the better of me. More I look at it the more I realize how dumb of a question it was. Especially as I am a biology major :oops:

---

I wasnt saying your question was stupid or anything. What I was getting at was that no question is stupid unless its blatantly stupid you know. With BPs and genetics and stuff it can get confusing theres a lot to know.... But you were a biology major . . . ;) LOL!

Oh I understood lol. More I look at it more I realize I just wasn't thinking when I asked the question.