Homozygous doms

Soo my question for the day..
Lets say spiders:
After reading the last few days my curiosity was suddenly sparked regarding "super" doms.

Due to them being homo they should in theory throw no normals correct?
As both alleles would throw the spider gene regardless.

I rarely see homo animals advertised, is there a reason for this?
Is there a price difference??

Het dom to het dom would throw 25pct homos, thus proving would be needed of course.. For the visuals..

Thoughts?? Or am i asking a totally newbie question

Thanks for the time.

Oh an not saying that this would be worth the time in say a spider.. But one of the rarer doms may prove worth the effort

http://www.owalreptiles.com/geneticinfo.php

Quote:

---

.... So what does it take to prove a dominant morph is in fact a dominant morph? I only know of two ways, statistics and complexes.

We will start with breeding a Pinstripe to another Pinstripe. The offspring statistically will be 25% Homozygous Pinstripe, 50% Heterozygous Pinstripe, and 25% Normal. Now since Pinstripe is a dominant morph, the homozygous and heterozygous forms look exactly the same. We are unable to tell them apart, so what we have is all the Pinstripes being 33% possible homozygous. 25% homozygous to 50% heterozygous which is a 1:2 ratio or 33% homozygous:66% heterozygous.

Now unlike possible recessive hets which can be proven out through producing visuals, we need to use statistics to prove homozygous dominant morphs. When the homozygous Pinstripe is bred, it will always produce Pinstripes. Once there have been enough eggs of all Pinstripes to call it something other than luck, you have proven it homozygous. One normal offspring will quickly prove the animal to be heterozygous. How many eggs you need to see is completely up for debate, but to give you the odds of a heterozygous Pinstripe producing all Pinstripes, here is a little chart.

Chance of heterozygous producing all morphs
# of eggs Fraction Percent
5 eggs 1/32 3%
10 eggs 1/1,024 .09%
15 eggs 1/32,768 .003%
20 eggs 1/1,048,576 .00009%
25 eggs 1/33,554,432 .000003%
I'm not sure where the community wants to draw the line, but things are looking good after 15 eggs if you ask me. To sum it up, it takes a lot of time, resources, and good record keeping to prove a single gene to be dominant.

If the unproven dominant gene is part of a complex, it can easily be proven by breeding two of the same complex morphs together. For example Daddy Gene is part of the same complex as Lesser Platinum. A Daddy Gene and Lesser Platinum sitting together makes a Platinum. Breed two Platinums togther and your left with straight forward odds 25% BEL, 50% Platinum, and 25% Homozygous Daddy Gene. Each of them are entirely different looking morphs, BEL being an all white snake with blue eyes, Platinums looking like hypo Lesser Platinum, and homozygous Daddy Gene looking just like the heterozygous Daddy Gene. All you have to do is hit that 25% chance and it makes it easy to say that the Daddy Gene is dominant.

---

however the spider gene is a mystery....

http://www.owalreptiles.com/spider.php

Quote:

---

The Homozygous Spider

If the Spider is a dominant gene and I bred a Spider with another Spider, I should statistically get 25% Homozygous Spider, 50% Heterozygous Spider, 25% Normal. The homozygous Spider should look exactly like a heterozygous Spider. The only difference would be that the homozygous Spider, when bred to any other ball python, would result in offspring that are all Spiders. While the heterozygous Spider would result in offspring that would only have a 50% chance for getting the Spider gene.

Now here's the problem, the Spider was first established at NERD in 1999, and we still have yet to see a proven homozygous Spider. Now before we get into all the theories, Kevin (the owner of NERD), the guy that imported the first, and has dealt with, more Spiders than anyone else, has to say about the issue. Kevin said that he has not produced and does not believe that there is a homozygous Spider nor that Spider is homozygous lethal. From what I understand he is saying it just simply does not exist for an unknown reason and is not a simple dominant gene.

Another theory is that homozygous Spider is lethal, which is based on the fact that we haven't seen one yet. Which is a pretty weak theory in my opinion, but not entirely dismissible. I do think this theory could be put to rest by watching some Spider x Spider pairing and keeping an eye on the follicles of the females, if somewhere around 25% of them die/reabsorb/not hatch, it may strengthen this theory, but I think people would want to see a lot of eggs before we call it fact. This would be a lot of resources to waste for a big breeder to try, so don't expect it any time soon. I think the only chance of proving this, is by us small breeders trying it out and all of us putting our data together.

Another theory, there hasn't been enough Spider x Spider breedings to prove or disprove a homozygous Spider. Well here's the deal with that, you first have a breed a Spider x Spider. Every Spider offspring only has a 33% chance to be homozygous, then you have to raise up the offspring and do multiple breedings to prove it is in fact homozygous, rather than just getting really lucky on a clutch. So, yes very difficult to prove.

Not many people have the resources to do this, NERD has tired to prove it but as far as I know, they don't have any public statement about what they did to try to prove the homozygous Spider. That leaves this theory open ended. More info would sway my opinion one way or another. Though if Kevin said he did enough breedings, he most likely did enough breedings.

Now the question, "If I bred a Spider x Spider, statistically what % of Spider should I get?" Well If homozygous Spider does exist and is dodging us all these years, 25% homozygous,50% heterozygous, and 25% normal. If it's homozygous lethal then 66% heterozygous and 33% normal. If it doesn't exist for some reason, depending on how you look at it, it could either be 66% heterozygous and 33% normal or 75% heterozygous and 25% normal. So go ahead, pick one.

---

since I wrote that, someone has released this information... http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...98#post1847606

still waiting on a follow up to those results, but it is very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simplex

Soo my question for the day..
Lets say spiders:
After reading the last few days my curiosity was suddenly sparked regarding "super" doms.

Due to them being homo they should in theory throw no normals correct? Yes
As both alleles would throw the spider gene regardless.

I rarely see homo animals advertised, is there a reason for this? Extremely difficult and time consuming to prove out for an animal that looks exactly the same as the heterozygous version, the only advantage would obviously be for breeding.
Is there a price difference?? Never seen one for sale

Het dom to het dom would throw 25pct homos, thus proving would be needed of course.. For the visuals.. yup

Thoughts?? Or am i asking a totally newbie question

Thanks for the time.

---

The snakes you refer to as "super doms" are actually incomplete dominants.

An incomplete dominant is a ball python that, when bred to another ball of the same morph, creates the "super" form. It is called an "incomplete" dominant because it takes two copies of the same gene to have the true form present itself. Ball pythons like spiders are known as dominants, because it takes only one copy of the gene for the true form (homozygous form) to show up.

The pastel gene is an incomplete dominant. Just one pastel gene will overpower the normal gene, but two pastel genes are needed for the "complete" morph.

The spider gene is a dominant gene. Just one spider gene is required to show the complete morph, and there is no "super" form when two spider genes are present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

The snakes you refer to as "super doms" are actually incomplete dominants.

An incomplete dominant is a ball python that, when bred to another ball of the same morph, creates the "super" form. It is called an "incomplete" dominant because it takes two copies of the same gene to have the true form present itself. Ball pythons like spiders are known as dominants, because it takes only one copy of the gene for the true form (homozygous form) to show up.

The pastel gene is an incomplete dominant. Just one pastel gene will overpower the normal gene, but two pastel genes are needed for the "complete" morph.

The spider gene is a dominant gene. Just one spider gene is required to show the complete morph, and there is no "super" form when two spider genes are present.

---

You missed the purpose of my post. I am referring to homozygous doms, not super codoms.

I think the reason you don't see homozygous doms advertised is because there's no way to prove a dom is homo without extensive breeding. So it would have to be an established breeder animal having thrown gods only knows how many clutches before they could be advertised as homozygous dom.

And by that point, why not just keep be animal that is successfully breeding for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pinstripe has been proven dominant by BHB. If anyone ever had a pair of proven homozygous pinstripes they could sell all the babies as homozygous pinstripes.

You used to occasionally see 33% chance homozygous spiders for sale back when there was more hope that there could be such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Pinstripe has been proven dominant by BHB. If anyone ever had a pair of proven homozygous pinstripes they could sell all the babies as homozygous pinstripes.

---

I hadn't considered that possibility. That is true.

I would love to get my hands on a homozygous pin female. Mmm yes!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smh at the lack of proof still on any super dominate trait that's been claimed.

Let's hope to heck there is never a dominate trait proven to have a super form.
There is already enough spiders and pinstripes being produced :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

smh at the lack of proof still on any super dominate trait that's been claimed.

Let's hope to heck there is never a dominate trait proven to have a super form.
There is already enough spiders and pinstripes being produced :O

---

Agreed... But what if u could throw
Nothing but daddys, bananas, or corals ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

smh at the lack of proof still on any super dominate trait that's been claimed.

Let's hope to heck there is never a dominate trait proven to have a super form.
There is already enough spiders and pinstripes being produced :O

---

daddy gene.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

smh at the lack of proof still on any super dominate trait that's been claimed.

Let's hope to heck there is never a dominate trait proven to have a super form.
There is already enough spiders and pinstripes being produced :O

---

Seems more and more people have been questioning BHB's report of a proven homozygous pinstripe over the years. It's sort of the moon landing of the ball python morph world, lol. I do think it's interesting that it didn't seem to change anything and no one apparently bothers to produce and market homozygous pins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Seems more and more people have been questioning BHB's report of a proven homozygous pinstripe over the years. It's sort of the moon landing of the ball python morph world, lol. I do think it's interesting that it didn't seem to change anything and no one apparently bothers to produce and market homozygous pins.

---

I have no problem believing it, and I still have no plans to ever breed pin x pin (or spider x spider, any other "probably/maybe dom x probably/maybe dom"), at least not for a long long while.

The way I look at it, in the ball world, each gene that an animal carries makes it more valuable and probably cost you more money (at least, that's still the way things are at the moment). If I breed, say, a lemonblast to a pinstripe, the best I can hope to produce are lemonblasts (granted, yes, it's a theoretical 25% more pinstripe gene animals -- but we all know how odds go). I'll have to market the blasts and pins as "33% chance possible homozygous," or, as has already been stated a few times, breed them a whooooole bunch in order to demonstrate homozygosity.

If I breed a bumblebee (same price as a blast) to my pinstripe, I have a shot at spinner blasts ... Those are really neat. :P

I guess you could try putting aside a few groups of pinstripes to try and get a bloodline of homozygous pins going -- that might be kinda cool -- but it seems kinda more like a "gee whiz" sorta thing to me than much of a viable investment ...

here is an interesting read i found the other day while looking into candinos and toffinos. Now its for recessives but the way its explained and laid out, shows how the genetics work rather well.

http://www.captivebredreptileforums....-brains-4.html

as pointed out, the issues that are faced in this example, spiders/pins, is the amount of breeding needed to prove it when there is no notable visual difference as we suspect with homo gene traits of spiders/pins and that is assuming that one as been produced and the homo version is not lethal, which i dont really think it is, but thats just an opinion. All the theory is there to support the idea of a homo spider/pin, proving it is an entirely different ball game.

The only real way to prove it is to keep back every visual from a spider to spider or a pin to pin, and breed it to a normal over and over again. And thats assuming one of the visuals hit on that 25%

The thing is, there is little to no money in it, and who out there is gonna spend the better part of 10+ years trying to prove it? if someone were to try, i say they use the same Dame/sir that are spider or pin, breed them to only each other year in year out, and keep all visuals and breed them to normals year in, year out.

I cant think of anyone that would waste that much space, time, money just to prove the unidentifiable existence of homo spider or pin.

- - - Updated - - -

also read page 5 for additional info that helps outline co-doms and doms

http://www.captivebredreptileforums.co.uk/ball-royal-pythons/55857-toffino-pick-your-brains-5.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

daddy gene.....

---

Makes a platty daddy that is like a superstripe and throws het daddy and lessers/butters etc. no normals, correct?

How is that the same thing as a super spider or a super pinstripe?

Quote:

---

I do think it's interesting that it didn't seem to change anything and no one apparently bothers to produce and market homozygous pins.

---

There's just no money in it.
Why produce nothing but $80 males and $150 female?
That's the price of those now, if a super is proven and they are out there mass producing more spiders and pinstripes, $20 male and $50 female.
I believe facts and proof and evidence, show me the clutches while the pinstripes are all in their eggs still.
Multiple clutches from the same sire, all pinstripes.
I know if I did that feat I would show that off, much to my displeasure.
Has Brian ever offered proof like that?
I'd like to see, call me a skeptic until I do see such a feat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

Makes a platty daddy that is like a superstripe and throws het daddy and lessers/butters etc. no normals, correct?

How is that the same thing as a super spider or a super pinstripe?

---

Wow that confused me for a sec ... I thought you were saying that the homozygous Daddy Gene looked like a super stripe. :rofl: (I'm thinking, "Wow, I want to see a picture of THAT!!")

I think that OWAL was getting at is that the homozygous Daddy gene looks exactly the same as the heterozygous Daddy gene -- eg, it looks Normal.

I have read somewhere that RDR bred Platinum x Platinum and got Platinums, BELs and Normals, and the normals can only be homozygous Platty gene animals. (I'd love to see the original source of that if anyone has a link, though, I since I couldn't find it ... :please: ) I don't know if breeding trials confirmed the homozygous Platty ...

http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/bi...thons_8_07.asp clutch 76, I heard a rumor he made some more this year.

and in a the one het daddy x normal clutch i saw, you could tell the het daddy from normals, coloring and dorsal stripe. subtle tho and no doubt i've even produced normals that look like them. but still, clutch mate sitting next to each other, you could see there was something special about a few of them.