Het Red?

Simple as that. Need to know if this looks like a het red. Im not very familiar with the morph. Sorry but these are the best pictures I have. Thanks for your help.

http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/...0/DSC_7636.jpg
http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/...0/DSC_7636.jpg
http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/...0/DSC_7637.jpg

Hets are not morphs they carry (maybe) the genetic code for a morph but in them selves they are normal looking.

idk about that.. het reds always have a very unique look if you ask me.. that looks like a lot of them that i have seen no doubt.. but personally i dont particulary like the het red stuff i think if you were going to get into a nice recessive project id get something a little more exciting.

Actually...I believe "Het Red Axanthic" is a co dom. Why they want to confuse us...no idea. http://www.worldofballpythons.com/mo...-red-axanthic/
If you look at the cinnimon het red it is completely different than a cinni. It's a gargoyle :D http://www.worldofballpythons.com/mo...-red-axanthic/

Correct me if I'm wrong. I base my response solely on the interwebz...and they have done me wrong in the past :P

RoseyReps you are right about the Het Red.

I am not familiar with the reds but regardless she looks great.

Looks like a het red axanthic...

I never looked up het red axanthic. heterozygous is usually used to describe a un aspected allele.

John Berry writes," The het Red Axanthic is a proven line of genetic-black backs. The dominant homozygous form is the red-axanthic, a reddish coloured morph."

I don't see much red and maybe a black back but it looks too light to me, no red I can see. To me it looks like a normal with a darkish back and some wishful thinking.

Het red axanthics aren't reddish in color...

Like rob said. Het red axanthics are not red in color. The red axanthic (or super het red axanthic, if that's easier) start out like all axanthics, black and white. As they grow up the black turns a rusty red and the white turns a creamy yellow. Very awesome and under rated morph. This is my pastel het red axanthic and look what it does to pastels.
http://img.tapatalk.com/cfdb45e6-708a-c894.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/cfdb45e6-70b9-063e.jpg

Lots of sweet blushing and the grey eye stripes are stellar.

To answer the OP, yes that looks like a het red but if you want a sure fire way to tell, look up a Canadian breeder named Corey Woods. He is where her red axanthics come from. Hope this helps.


Sent from my poo fone using Tapatalk

Just going by the morph book the example is very red and dark. (fig 226 pp 116 designer-morphs J Berry) and looks very much like a black back with red undertones. I don't know it is all from J berrys book the example looks very very not normal. this is part of the issue with morphs there are so many that people say are one thing but they just look like a variation on normal. Then there is another from else where that look really different from normal and they are supposed to be the same morph. The example I have seen would never be mistaken for a normal.

mine...


http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...hicmale546.jpg

To me the op photo is either a very poor example of het red or a nice regular black back.

All the het reds I've seen in person look almost identical to blushed back cinnys. Alien heads included.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

Hets are not morphs they carry (maybe) the genetic code for a morph but in them selves they are normal looking.

---

If a het is a het is "does" carry the genetic code in them...not might.
Visual hets, pastels, etc... are most certainly morphs as are recessive trait het's imo.

I have yet to produce a het clown that looked like a normal, why do people keep claiming that recessive traits look like normals.
"Maybe" some recessive traits do look normal, but most do not...

Quote:

---

satomi325
To me the op photo is either a very poor example of het red or a nice regular black back.

---

I agree :gj:

What is the other allele for pastel? There is a super form but no other form I know of. Is a super considered a different trait? I thought it was just an expression of the same trait, one of two dominate traits give a pastel and a super from both parents to my understanding is not a heterozygous just a regular dom.

Am I not remembering my genetics class correctly? (it was 26 years ago)

I thought that a heterozygous was an individual containing two different alleles for a given trait or having dissimilar alleles that code the same gene/trait. I can't remember exactly now I didn't believe a pastel could be referred to as a het. A regular pastel has only one allele for pastel and one normal or so I thought.??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

A regular pastel has only one allele for pastel and one normal or so I thought.??

---

Correct, and a het clown has one copy of the clown gene and one of a norm, making it no different genetically than a pastel, both are heterozygous traits, one "supposedly" hidden, the other obviously visual.
The het gene almost always influences the look of the normal, making them not look completely normal.
It's even more obvious when you make morph hets, not always, but most of the time.

Thanks for the responses guys, I am going to pass on the het red. And I am familiar with Corey Woods, He is the one that proved it out. The het red was created from breeding to brown backs together. The super form being the red ax. Still confused why they call a visual morph a "het" that should be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat160

Still confused why they call a visual morph a "het" that should be changed.

---

Because that's exactly what it is...the heterozygous form of the red axanthic is the het red axanthic. Same applies to mojave(het) to super mojave(homo), het albino to albino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobNJ

Because that's exactly what it is...the heterozygous form of the red axanthic is the het red axanthic. Same applies to mojave(het) to super mojave(homo), het albino to albino.

---

Yes but the mojave isnt called het BEL. Just saying they could have came up with a better name. Het to me and I think most in this industry refers to a recessive snake. Its just misleading thats all im saying.

Looks like one to me from that picture, but you need a full body shot for 100% verification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat160

Yes but the mojave isnt called het BEL. Just saying they could have came up with a better name. Het to me and I think most in this industry refers to a recessive snake. Its just misleading thats all im saying.

---

Some people call Yellowbellies, het Ivory.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Thanks Jerry. I usually figure the markers that are often spoke of (like het pied markers) are actually dominate traits of the normal parent and I figured all hets were non visual with no distinct markings. I never thought that one might effect the other. thanks for the clarity.

Here is a little write up by the originator of the morph.

http://www.coreywoods.com/het.shtml

I have a woods line het red at home myself and it looks very much like the picture that the OP posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

Thanks Jerry. I usually figure the markers that are often spoke of (like het pied markers) are actually dominate traits of the normal parent and I figured all hets were non visual with no distinct markings. I never thought that one might effect the other. thanks for the clarity.

---

To expand on that a little, for everyone's sake, when a yellowbelly and a specter land on the same allele sparks happen(not the morph, lol).
When vanilla and fire land on the same allele same thing, something quite unexpected happens, same with the crystals.
Genes that land on the same allele coming together to make a completely different looking snake altogether.
The same thing happens with the super forms, super pastel, BEL complex, Ivory's, etc, the gene's interact with each other and make magic.
So in that same light I believe het traits mess with the normal gene being that they are on the same allele, and present themselves in very discrete ways, visual ways, aka markers.

Technically, if the animal shows outward signs of carrying a gene, then it is NOT a recessive gene...it would just be a subtle incomplete dominant gene.

If it's truly a recessive gene, the animal will not be distinguishable from a normal. Albino is an example of a recessive gene. There are no 'markers' for het albino. You simply can't tell them apart from normals.

Now, don't confuse 'het' with 'single copy of a recessive gene', because a lesser platinum is a heterozygous animal. Heterozygous simply means it carries one copy of a mutant gene, instead of 2 copies.

So, a het red axanthic is Heterozygous for red axanthic. It could have been called a 'strawberry ball', or whatever, but alas, the discoverer opted for a less creative name. ;)
Red Axanthic is not a recessive gene, it's incomplete dominant--just like Lesser Platinum/BEL. Lesser Platinum could have been called 'Het Blue-Eyed Leucistic', if that had been what Ralph Davis wanted, and it would be just as accurate as 'Het Red Axanthic'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Technically, if the animal shows outward signs of carrying a gene, then it is NOT a recessive gene...it would just be a subtle incomplete dominant gene.

If it's truly a recessive gene, the animal will not be distinguishable from a normal. Albino is an example of a recessive gene. There are no 'markers' for het albino. You simply can't tell them apart from normals.

---

You keep believing that ;)

I think to be more accurate you should have typed you yourself simply cannot tell them apart, but that doesn't mean others can't

I'd say its a wanna be het red. Only time and breeding will tell. I'd say a nice looking normal.

That is not a Het Red Axanthic, just a nice looking black back.

Here are some photos of some het Red Axanthics.

Large Female Het Red Axanthic (on eggs)

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1347023676.jpg

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1346343104.jpg

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1346344424.jpg

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1346348283.jpg

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1346606887.jpg

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1347030466.jpg

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1347030139.jpg

Some Baby Pics.

Het Red Axanthic on the left

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1346344429.jpg

Het Red Axanthic (Left), Red Axanthic Genetic Stripe (Right)

http://www.coreywoods.com/ball_birth...1346348293.jpg

More pictures can be seen on my birthing record Corey Woods Reptile 2012 Birthing Record

Regards,
Corey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

You keep believing that ;)

I think to be more accurate you should have typed you yourself simply cannot tell them apart, but that doesn't mean others can't

---

Name one marker for het albino.

Here is our Het Red
His blushing's are my favorite part!
Any ideas what to pair him to?

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/27/qu4y6ute.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/27/nu8u6yma.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/27/zepyqa3u.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/27/mymytyby.jpg

Some recessive traits do have markers, like pieds. There´s none for albino, not that i know...
I also agree that the name is confusing even when is accurate, it´s been used since ever the name het, for carriers of some recessive gene.

Het means heterozygous, it doesn't mean 'carrier of a recessive gene'. It just means 'carrier of a single mutant gene, and a single normal gene'. It doesn't matter whether that gene is recessive, incomplete dominant, or dominant.

I Know that...but, it´s been used to name any morph/normal with a recessive gene on it for all 100% of the others morph until HRA. You dont say I have a het pastel, or a het YB, you do say normal het albino, and you also dont call albino an homozygous albino, just albino.
That´s why a pointed out that even when it´s accurate, it´s not a normal use of the ball language...