Missing morphs 1: Enchi + any 8 ball gene, Albino Fire

Hi there :)


I did some research on different morphs and on gene complexes, basically i searched for morphs on WOBP that prove that two genes are NOT part of the same gene complex. Its an ongoing project, for many morphs and morph combinations this is quite easy. And sometimes you hit brick walls that make you wonder. Anyway i wont go into much detail, its just that for two combinations i need your help, im not drawing conclusions yet, just keeping my eyes open for some missing morphs. a while ago i had 3 morphs on my list, pinstripe clown was also missing, but has now been produced.


the first morph im looking for: A super enchi, that in addition also has cinnamon or het red axanthic or black pastel in it. OR a morph that contains just regular enchi, and two genes from the gene complex (cinnamon + het red axanthic + black pastel). like an enchi onyx or something, or enchi super black pastel. Basically any BP with 3 genes from this selection: enchi, cinnamon, het red axanthic, black pastel.

the second morph im looking for: Albino, with any gene from the black eye lucy complex added. Basically albino fire, or albino disco, or albino sulfur, or albino vanilla.

im just checking if anyone has seen something like that or has produced it, i couldnt find them. Thanks in advance for your help. (Next step, if these morphs stay absent, would be to look for people that might have done the appropriate pairings to produce them).

If BlkEL and Albino were in the same complex then Fire x Albino should generate a visual morph and I have seen Fire het Albinos available so that would kind of prove that those two morphs are not allelic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

If BlkEL and Albino were in the same complex then Fire x Albino should generate a visual morph and I have seen Fire het Albinos available so that would kind of prove that those two morphs are not allelic.

---

albino is recessive, so, no, doesnt prove anything. a super fire het albino would prove something, an albino fire would prove something. Breedings of albino to fire het albino, or fire het albino to fire het albino, could prove or disprove it, but for now im just looking for the morph.

Super cinny would probably wash out the enchi gene. So would a cinny, black pastel, enchi.

Super fire would washout the albino gene.

I assure you, they are compatible and aren't in the same complex. They just aren't really morphs that go well together so not many people are trying to produce them. Cinny enchis have been made and are pretty plain looking imo. Im sure there are other breeders out there who have the same opinion/taste as me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

albino is recessive, so, no, doesnt prove anything. a super fire het albino would prove something, an albino fire would prove something. Breedings of albino to fire het albino, or fire het albino to fire het albino, could prove or disprove it, but for now im just looking for the morph.

---

Yeah, actually is does prove something. With a firm grasp of what recessive and incomplete-dominant mean we know that a recessive allele could not partially repress an incomplete-dominant allele at a given locus and so there would indeed be a visual phenotype if you were dealing with an allelic pair. And the fact that the Fire het Albino looks like nothing more than a Fire tells you that the WT allele at the Fire locus is partially repressing the Fire allele at said locus and theretofore, Albino and Fire cannot be allelic.


And Mike, I disagree with you slightly on the SuperFire Albino. SuperFire would not fully mask the Albino presence; the eyes would be red.

This thread is blowing my simple human mind! One day ill be able to keep up with the genetic jargon of BP's used by you all!!! Until then<---- once again humbled by the realization that I will always be learning. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

And Mike, I disagree with you slightly on the SuperFire Albino. SuperFire would not fully mask the Albino presence; the eyes would be red.

---

You know what I meant :p

But yea. It'd look similar to a cherry bomb id imagine.

In order to get the red eyes you would need two copies of the same gene since the albino is recessive.
I may be off as my 1st coffee isn't into me yet but, as I understood it there was discussion about Super Fire+Heterzygous Albino. Which would show very little if anything other than Super Fire traits.
It would be interesting to see the results of allelic recessive gene combination if any are discovered.
The likelihood of even an allelic recessive not being completely washed out by a co-dom or dominant gene the same way "normal" genes completely cover (or very nearly so) them is so slim it would be inconclusive at best trying to prove this out without using the homozygous form of any recessive.

OP, I swear you are intentionally confusing.

Are you trying to ask for proof that Enchi and any Cinny/BP complex are not allelic? Or the BlkEL and Albino are not allelic?

OR

Do you just want to see if someone has made a Super Enchi Cinny or a Fire Albino?

allelic or not, what if two morphs just sit on the same chromosome pair? But otherwise they dont affect each other, nothing really visible, its just that you hit a wall when you try to combine them, because you can only have two of these genes maximum. One gene per chromosome, chromosomes are in the same pair, so a snake can only have two of these, one from mom one from dad... you get the idea. If two true recessives would have that issue, and you try to combine them, the first thing you notice is that when breeding double hets to double hets, the odd gods just seem to hate you very very much and you just fail to hit the double recessive visual.

the complete genome of the ball python only has 18 chromosomes. and how many base morphs do we have?

we know 6 gene complexes so far. i just for fun tried to find morphs that prove that all these complexes are, in fact, seperate. Basically going at the problem backwards: no assumptions, i just see how far i can go simply by proving that two genes are NOT on the same chromosome and fully compatible.

a sample of my findings so far, just for the known gene complexes, and yes i use my own abbreviations and terms:

Code:

---

known 6 complexes set:
BEL, albino, pied, Cin/BlkPa/RedAx, Ivory/Superstripe, Disco/F/Sulfur/V

BEL albino:      albino lesser, albino mojave, albino super mojave , ?                <<<<done 
BEL pied:            lesser pied, enchi lesser pied, mystic pied, mojave pied          <<<<<done
BEL Cin/BlkPa/RedAx: super cin mojave, lesser super cin, lesser red ax, red ax mystic  <<<<<done
BEL Ivory/Superstripe:  ivory mojo phantom, butter superstripe, phantom SS, mojo SS, ...<<<<<done
BEL Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  sulfur mystic mojave, sulfur super mojave, super mojave vanilla  <<<<done
albino pied:              clear visible albino pied                                    <<<<<done
albino Cin/BlkPa/RedAx:  albino super cinny, albino super black pastel                  <<<<<done
albino Ivory/Superstripe:  albino (+pastel) yellow belly, albino ivory          <<not much
albino Disco/F/Sulfur/V:                !!!!!!!  !!!completely missing!!!
pied Cin/BlkPa/RedAx:  super cinnamon pied, lots of cinnamon pied, super blkpa pied.  <<<<<done
pied Ivory/Superstripe: pumpkin pied, ivory pied,          <<not much
pied Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  fire pied                                          < just 1 morph
Cin/BlkPa/RedAx Ivory/Superstripe:  cinnamon superstripe, black pastel superstripe  <<not much
Cin/BlkPa/RedAx Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  mercury ball (fire supercinny), ..?                  < just 1 morph
Ivory/Superstripe Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  fire ivory, ivory vanilla, fire pastel superstripe,
                              lots of vanilla superstripe                                <<<<<done

---

so, im almost done proving that the 6 known BP gene complexes do sit on different chromosome pairs by compiling morphs that contain 3 or 4 copies of just the right genes. i have already proven that the 6 known gene complexes sit on at least 5 different chromosomes. (ive also already proven that clown does not sit on any of the chromosomes inhabited by the 6 known gene complexes, i found all morphs required to do so. with enchi i ran into an issue.)

you know that feeling when you are 90% done with something, and then hit a wall. about visible or not.... just an albino fire, should be visible, at least if you have a clutch containing albino and albino fire. i mean, someone bred an albino pied blue eye lucy and proved it out, people go to crazy lengths for a world first, or so you would think. low-hanging fruit for a world first morph i think.

or, the enchi issue.... enchi red axanthic, super enchi cinnamon, super enchi het red axanthic, super enchi black pastel, enchi cinnamon het red axanthic, enchi black pastel het red axanthic. <----- From what we know, only super cinnamon, super black pastel, and cinnamon black pastel destroy the pattern and lead to patternless snakes. All the other enchi combos i listed could, as far as we know, have a pattern, at least they dont contain something that would definitively ruin the pattern. All of these would be world firsts that noone seems to have done yet, all are either a super + one more gene, or a 3-gene combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

allelic or not, what if two morphs just sit on the same chromosome pair? But otherwise they dont affect each other, nothing really visible, its just that you hit a wall when you try to combine them, because you can only have two of these genes maximum. One gene per chromosome, chromosomes are in the same pair, so a snake can only have two of these, one from mom one from dad... you get the idea. If two true recessives would have that issue, and you try to combine them, the first thing you notice is that when breeding double hets to double hets, the odd gods just seem to hate you very very much and you just fail to hit the double recessive visual.

the complete genome of the ball python only has 18 chromosomes. and how many base morphs do we have?

we know 6 gene complexes so far. i just for fun tried to find morphs that prove that all these complexes are, in fact, seperate. Basically going at the problem backwards: no assumptions, i just see how far i can go simply by proving that two genes are NOT on the same chromosome and fully compatible.

a sample of my findings so far, just for the known gene complexes, and yes i use my own abbreviations and terms:

Code:

---

known 6 complexes set:
BEL, albino, pied, Cin/BlkPa/RedAx, Ivory/Superstripe, Disco/F/Sulfur/V

BEL albino:      albino lesser, albino mojave, albino super mojave , ?                <<<<done 
BEL pied:            lesser pied, enchi lesser pied, mystic pied, mojave pied          <<<<<done
BEL Cin/BlkPa/RedAx: super cin mojave, lesser super cin, lesser red ax, red ax mystic  <<<<<done
BEL Ivory/Superstripe:  ivory mojo phantom, butter superstripe, phantom SS, mojo SS, ...<<<<<done
BEL Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  sulfur mystic mojave, sulfur super mojave, super mojave vanilla  <<<<done
albino pied:              clear visible albino pied                                    <<<<<done
albino Cin/BlkPa/RedAx:  albino super cinny, albino super black pastel                  <<<<<done
albino Ivory/Superstripe:  albino (+pastel) yellow belly, albino ivory          <<not much
albino Disco/F/Sulfur/V:                !!!!!!!  !!!completely missing!!!
pied Cin/BlkPa/RedAx:  super cinnamon pied, lots of cinnamon pied, super blkpa pied.  <<<<<done
pied Ivory/Superstripe: pumpkin pied, ivory pied,          <<not much
pied Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  fire pied                                          < just 1 morph
Cin/BlkPa/RedAx Ivory/Superstripe:  cinnamon superstripe, black pastel superstripe  <<not much
Cin/BlkPa/RedAx Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  mercury ball (fire supercinny), ..?                  < just 1 morph
Ivory/Superstripe Disco/F/Sulfur/V:  fire ivory, ivory vanilla, fire pastel superstripe,
                              lots of vanilla superstripe                                <<<<<done

---

so, im almost done proving that the 6 known BP gene complexes do sit on different chromosome pairs by compiling morphs that contain 3 or 4 copies of just the right genes. i have already proven that the 6 known gene complexes sit on at least 5 different chromosomes. (ive also already proven that clown does not sit on any of the chromosomes inhabited by the 6 known gene complexes, i found all morphs required to do so. with enchi i ran into an issue.)

you know that feeling when you are 90% done with something, and then hit a wall. about visible or not.... just an albino fire, should be visible, at least if you have a clutch containing albino and albino fire. i mean, someone bred an albino pied blue eye lucy and proved it out, people go to crazy lengths for a world first, or so you would think. low-hanging fruit for a world first morph i think.

or, the enchi issue.... enchi red axanthic, super enchi cinnamon, super enchi het red axanthic, super enchi black pastel, enchi cinnamon het red axanthic, enchi black pastel het red axanthic. <----- From what we know, only super cinnamon, super black pastel, and cinnamon black pastel destroy the pattern and lead to patternless snakes. All the other enchi combos i listed could, as far as we know, have a pattern, at least they dont contain something that would definitively ruin the pattern. All of these would be world firsts that noone seems to have done yet, all are either a super + one more gene, or a 3-gene combo.

---

Clearly you don't know who aspilundii is( sorry cant spell). Basically he knows a redonk amount about genetics and if he says something is the way it is, there is a great chance that's what it is.

Also. Ever think that maybe others know more about genetics than you and they haven't made those combos because they wouldn't be that cool? Or maybe they were made and not posted? Or maybe they were not made and are some people's projects? Not everything is on WOBP. It's fun to mess around with but it isn't the final say in balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

Clearly you don't know who aspilundii is( sorry cant spell). Basically he knows a redonk amount about genetics and if he says something is the way it is, there is a great chance that's what it is.

Also. Ever think that maybe others know more about genetics than you and they haven't made those combos because they wouldn't be that cool? Or maybe they were made and not posted? Or maybe they were not made and are some people's projects? Not everything is on WOBP. It's fun to mess around with but it isn't the final say in balls.

---

All of this^.

Kurt, you are confusing your terminology which in turn is confusing you.

Gene complexes have nothing to do with the number of chromosomes. Theoretically it is entirely possible for the mutations that gives rise to every known morph to all be located on a single chromosome (and, no, I do not honestly believe that is the case but that does not change the fact that it is possible.) You point out that there are 18 chromosome pairs in ball pythons as if that means something about the number of morph alleles that are possible and how they have to group. The number of chromosomes means very little when it comes to the number of genes in the animal total and how they are grouped. The genes for BluEL and BlkEL could be on the same chromosome or different chromosomes and you would never know without a molecular level investigation.

Gene complexes are just groups of genes that are all alleles of one another. All alleles have to sit at the same locus on the chromosome but beyond that there is no real affiliation with other genes on the same or other chromosomes, unless you are looking at linkage and linkage only matters when dealing with two very proximal genes



Also, there are more than just six gene groups. I can think of at least a dozen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

Clearly you don't know who aspilundii is( sorry cant spell). Basically he knows a redonk amount about genetics and if he says something is the way it is, there is a great chance that's what it is.

---

Thank you for the props interloc :gj:. To be fair, I do not post on these boards that often and I do not expect everyone to know who I am. And while I may know a "redonk amount about genetics" there are still times I am wrong so I do not mind engaging in a good, well-spirited debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

Not everything is on WOBP. It's fun to mess around with but it isn't the final say in balls.

---

This I think is the best message here. WoBP is not the end all be all. For me, it is a great place to look at pictures but I do not look for much else on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Thank you for the props interloc :gj:. To be fair, I do not post on these boards that often and I do not expect everyone to know who I am. And while I may know a "redonk amount about genetics" there are still times I am wrong so I do not mind engaging in a good, well-spirited debate.



This I think is the best message here. WoBP is not the end all be all. For me, it is a great place to look at pictures but I do not look for much else on it.

---

I see you post on BLBC more than here and I value your knowledge and thank you or giving it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

Clearly you don't know who aspilundii is( sorry cant spell). Basically he knows a redonk amount about genetics and if he says something is the way it is, there is a great chance that's what it is.

Also. Ever think that maybe others know more about genetics than you and they haven't made those combos because they wouldn't be that cool? Or maybe they were made and not posted? Or maybe they were not made and are some people's projects? Not everything is on WOBP. It's fun to mess around with but it isn't the final say in balls.

---

i know that others know more than i do when it comes to genetics. But i also know what i know and keep learning :)

i think there are two options: Either these morphs appear sooner or later, or they dont. And im open to the possibility that maybe these combinations are impossible to obtain within a reasonable amount of breedings. And im not limited to WOBP, im willing to look at anything that could help here.

Quote:

---

asplundii

Kurt, you are confusing your terminology which in turn is confusing you.

Gene complexes have nothing to do with the number of chromosomes. Theoretically it is entirely possible for the mutations that gives rise to every known morph to all be located on a single chromosome (and, no, I do not honestly believe that is the case but that does not change the fact that it is possible.) You point out that there are 18 chromosome pairs in ball pythons as if that means something about the number of morph alleles that are possible and how they have to group. The number of chromosomes means very little when it comes to the number of genes in the animal total and how they are grouped. The genes for BluEL and BlkEL could be on the same chromosome or different chromosomes and you would never know without a molecular level investigation.

Gene complexes are just groups of genes that are all alleles of one another. All alleles have to sit at the same locus on the chromosome but beyond that there is no real affiliation with other genes on the same or other chromosomes, unless you are looking at linkage and linkage only matters when dealing with two very proximal genes

Also, there are more than just six gene groups. I can think of at least a dozen.

---

Now that is a helpful and on-topic response :) Of course i dont agree with everything. Yes, ill admit terminology is not my strength. I am fully aware that animals have tens of thousands of genes or even hundreds of thousands, on a set of chromosomes that is often very limited. Evolutionary it is true that it is significant if different genes sit on the same locus (same location on the same chromosome), and when genes just sit on the same chromosome but far apart from each other, it doesnt matter much because crossovers between chromosomes do happen. But evolution has time, millions of indviduals, millions of years. For us BP breeders, it does make a difference if two genes are on one chromosome or not.

Quote:

---

Theoretically it is entirely possible for the mutations that gives rise to every known morph to all be located on a single chromosome (and, no, I do not honestly believe that is the case but that does not change the fact that it is possible.)

---

That is statistically impossible, because while gene transfer within a chromosome pair does happen, it is much more rare than simple recombination of chromosomes. Recombination of chromosomes happens every generation, gene exchange within a chromosome happens maybe once in 1000, or once in 10000. I dont dispute that it is a difference if two genes just sit on the same chromosome, OR if they sit on the same chromosome but also on the same location within that chromosome. Like for example albino, toffee, candy, it must be the same chromosome and the same location on the same chromosome. But if you can breed a super pastel super enchi without any problems, and you breed it to a normal and get 100% pastel enchis, that proves without any doubt that these two genes MUST be on different chromosomes. Or think about morphs with 4, 5 or more genes in them.

Quote:

---

You point out that there are 18 chromosome pairs in ball pythons as if that means something about the number of morph alleles that are possible and how they have to group.

---

i think it means we have a chance to organize the morphs we know onto chromosomes without requiring genetic sequencing, using logic and statistics and breeding alone.

Quote:

---

The genes for BluEL and BlkEL could be on the same chromosome or different chromosomes and you would never know without a molecular level investigation.

---

we know for a fact that these two gene complexes must reside on different chromosomes, because there are some morphs we can produce with good chances, like 12,5% or 25% or 6,25%, depending on the pairing. And to produce these if they would be on the same chromosome would be close to impossible, i mean, not in STRICTLY EVOLUTIONARY terms, but the odds would be like 0.01% because you need a crossover. the morphs: sulfur mystic mojave, sulfur super mojave, super mojave vanilla. Ok, not highly visible morphs, but still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

Evolutionary it is true that it is significant if different genes sit on the same locus (same location on the same chromosome), and when genes just sit on the same chromosome but far apart from each other, it doesnt matter much because crossovers between chromosomes do happen. But evolution has time, millions of indviduals, millions of years. For us BP breeders, it does make a difference if two genes are on one chromosome or not.

---

It does make a difference and then again it does not make a difference.

As this thread is progressing it is becoming more obvious to me that you are basically driving at linkage. Once upon a time I had a slide deck worked out for this, I will see if I can 1) find it, 2) upload it and 3) post it, but that will probably not be until Monday at the earliest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

That is statistically impossible, because while gene transfer within a chromosome pair does happen, it is much more rare than simple recombination of chromosomes. Recombination of chromosomes happens every generation, gene exchange within a chromosome happens maybe once in 1000, or once in 10000. I dont dispute that it is a difference if two genes just sit on the same chromosome, OR if they sit on the same chromosome but also on the same location within that chromosome. Like for example albino, toffee, candy, it must be the same chromosome and the same location on the same chromosome. But if you can breed a super pastel super enchi without any problems, and you breed it to a normal and get 100% pastel enchis, that proves without any doubt that these two genes MUST be on different chromosomes. Or think about morphs with 4, 5 or more genes in them.

---

It is not statistically impossible, always remember Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong" :gj:

I granted that it is totally unlikely but it is certainly possible.

Rough math here: Humane genome is ~25,000 genes on 23 chromosomes which works out to ~1000 genes per chromosome. Assume this as standard unit of measure (yes, an assumption but like I said, rough math here). So any one Ball python chromosome has ~1000 genes, for good measure we call half of them essential which leaves up ~500 genes that are possible to mutate and give a viable phenotype. There are how many base morphs?? Does not really matter because it is theoretically possible for all of them to be on a single chromosome when there are ~500 possible genes you can mutate.

And you can certainly have Enchi and Pastel on the same chromosome and get 100% Pastel Enchi from a SuperPastel SuperEnchi x normal breeding. The how and why will have to wait for my slide deck though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

i think it means we have a chance to organize the morphs we know onto chromosomes without requiring genetic sequencing, using logic and statistics and breeding alone.

---

To a point yes, but again, this is going in to the realm of linkage. In a nutshell though, there comes a point where the greater the linkage distance between any two genes the harder it is to determine if they are on the same chromosome or different chromosomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

we know for a fact that these two gene complexes must reside on different chromosomes, because there are some morphs we can produce with good chances, like 12,5% or 25% or 6,25%, depending on the pairing. And to produce these if they would be on the same chromosome would be close to impossible, i mean, not in STRICTLY EVOLUTIONARY terms, but the odds would be like 0.01% because you need a crossover. the morphs: sulfur mystic mojave, sulfur super mojave, super mojave vanilla. Ok, not highly visible morphs, but still.

---

No, we do not know for a fact that BluEL and BlkEL are on different chromosomes for the reason I stated above. If they are on the same chromosome but have sufficient linkage distance then they will behave in a manner that is basically indistinguishable from two genes on separate chromosomes.



I will hunt down that slide deck and see if I can make things clearer next week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Kurt, you are confusing your terminology which in turn is confusing you.

Gene complexes have nothing to do with the number of chromosomes. Theoretically it is entirely possible for the mutations that gives rise to every known morph to all be located on a single chromosome (and, no, I do not honestly believe that is the case but that does not change the fact that it is possible.) You point out that there are 18 chromosome pairs in ball pythons as if that means something about the number of morph alleles that are possible and how they have to group. The number of chromosomes means very little when it comes to the number of genes in the animal total and how they are grouped. The genes for BluEL and BlkEL could be on the same chromosome or different chromosomes and you would never know without a molecular level investigation.

Gene complexes are just groups of genes that are all alleles of one another. All alleles have to sit at the same locus on the chromosome but beyond that there is no real affiliation with other genes on the same or other chromosomes, unless you are looking at linkage and linkage only matters when dealing with two very proximal genes



Also, there are more than just six gene groups. I can think of at least a dozen.

---

If only everyone else could understand this. There can be many more than 2 alleles at a locus and one locus can affect another locus or even attach to it. There are so many different combinations and possibilities that can occur.

just a quick reply because i need to highlight something

Quote:

---

To a point yes, but again, this is going in to the realm of linkage. In a nutshell though, there comes a point where the greater the linkage distance between any two genes the harder it is to determine if they are on the same chromosome or different chromosomes.

---

Yes, exactly! The distance between two genes on the chromosome determines the chance of them crossing over. Often chromosomes, during reproduction, break and get fixed which can exchange a part of the chromosome. When two genes are close together or at the same spot, and such a break/crossover/linkage occurs, chances are low that they are affected, the genes will only be affected by such an event if the breaking point is between their locations. (im really not good in the terminology....). My point is: EVEN IF two genes are on opposite ends of a chromosome, meaning they will be affected by every one of these chromosome-breaking event, its STILL rare, very rare, can only happen when regular cells split into sperm cells / egg cells, once per generation. ive heared numbers, varying, cannot remember them, but ill just limit it in one direction and say it happens in 1 of 1000 eggs at most, its probarbly more rare than that. ill also read up on this stuff, its been a while since i really studied it.


Im in the learning phase when it comes to BP genetics, but i took it to the extreme and am now datamining the 2000 morphs we have so far to find stuff out, and im now starting to run into new and interesting questions.

And if all else fails then the lists im organizing will at least make it easy to find out with which genes you can quite easily make world 1st morphs, and which gene combinations have already been thoroughly explored ;)

None of the genes have been "thoroughly" explored.

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...24-Albino-Fire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

one locus can affect another locus or even attach to it.

---

A locus cannot “attach” to another locus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

Yes, exactly! The distance between two genes on the chromosome determines the chance of them crossing over. Often chromosomes, during reproduction, break and get fixed which can exchange a part of the chromosome. When two genes are close together or at the same spot, and such a break/crossover/linkage occurs, chances are low that they are affected, the genes will only be affected by such an event if the breaking point is between their locations. (im really not good in the terminology....).

---

Okay, we are on the right track here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtilein

My point is: EVEN IF two genes are on opposite ends of a chromosome, meaning they will be affected by every one of these chromosome-breaking event, its STILL rare, very rare, can only happen when regular cells split into sperm cells / egg cells, once per generation. ive heared numbers, varying, cannot remember them, but ill just limit it in one direction and say it happens in 1 of 1000 eggs at most, its probarbly more rare than that. ill also read up on this stuff, its been a while since i really studied it.

---

But here is where you are starting to get a little off track but I can see where/how that happened so let us see if we can go about rectifying it. The biggest hiccup here is because of your odds, the ones you are operating on are way too low. The rate of homologous recombination during meiosis is not 1 cell in 1000. The rate of homologous recombination is between 1% and 10% per homologous region. The final part of that is important; the rate is relative to the number of regions of homology, not the number of gametes that are produced. Now, given the number of chromosomes in the organism (18 in this case) and the amount of homology between said chromosomes it is fair to say that pretty much every gamete produced during meiosis is going to have genomic material that has undergone homologous recombination.


But, even with high rates of homologous recombination you still have the distance matter to deal with. I was able to find my slide deck so let us jump to that. As a caveat here, I made these up a few years back during a similar discussion about the True Ghost (i.e., Axanthic Hypo) and I really did not feel like reworking them in their entirety so that it was specific to the BluEL and BlkEL example I gave above. This is a hypothetical example only. I am not saying that this is how Hypo or Axanthic actually behave. The concept is the message here and it is the same regardless of the specific genes involved.


We will start with a case where the genes are proximal to one another

First, we breed a Hypo to an Axanthic
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps7e865b79.jpg

And we get an animal that is double het for Hypo and Axanthic (blue chromosome from father, red chromosome from mother)
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psc87319f3.jpg

During the first stages of meiosis the chromosomes adopt their X form
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps061b0373.jpg

And when they pair off we have a crossover event
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps26b8a298.jpg

The chromosomes are then segregated
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps217cf0b6.jpg

And our individual gametes are formed
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps7cebc310.jpg

Now we repeat the process in another animal
Crossover
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psdfed5cc6.jpg

Segregation
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psf0f72ac3.jpg

Gametes
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psd2e6b20a.jpg


And then when we try to breed a pair of double hets we see that none of the gametic pairs available allow for us to have generate the double visual animal
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps6f838ed2.jpg

The important lesson here is that, if we are dealing with two genes that are very close to one another on the chromosome, the odds of having the specific crossover event required to generate a gamete that carries both the recessive Hypo allele and the recessive Axanthic allele are very low (this could very well be the 1:1000 odds range). We then need to account that to get the double visual would require that this rare crossover event occur in two separate animals and that those rare gametes then manage to pair off.



Now let us look at a case where the genes are distal to one another

Again, we start by breeding a Hypo to an Axanthic
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps0c18a9cb.jpg

And we get an animal that is double het for Hypo and Axanthic (blue chromosome from father, red chromosome from mother)
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psa3e4af8e.jpg

X-form
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psbf598492.jpg

Crossover
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psff66e0a7.jpg

Segregate
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps5476ac55.jpg

Gametes
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps0cc1474d.jpg

And repeat again in another animal
Crossover
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps5d100dfc.jpg

Segregate
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps58420ffa.jpg

Gametes
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps96939ff0.jpg


Here, when we finally breed our double hets together, we can easily end up with a gametic pair that allows for the double visual to be produced.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...psbdf00cb7.jpg


The important thing to take home here is that, because the two genes are at opposite ends of the chromosome, it is quite easy to generate gametes that carry both the recessive Hypo allele and the recessive Axanthic allele. In addition though, the odds of a crossover event occurring are high enough that they effectively destroy any ability to make a correlation as to whether these genes are on the same chromosome or different chromosomes.


Put all of this together and what you come up with is what I was saying before: It is entirely possible for any pair of morph genes to be on the same chromosome with you not being able to tell. The only way you could know is if you happen to be dealing with a pair of morph genes that are fairly proximal to one another.

I agree with what asplundii wrote.

It was written earlier in this thread that ball pythons have 18 pairs of chromosomes. If there are 19 independent loci, then at least two of those loci are in the same pair of chromosomes. The last time I did a count on WOBP, there were over 50 loci. So many of those loci share a chromosome pair. But most of those are so far apart that the probability of at least one crossover event between two loci is the same as the probability of reshuffling independent chromosomes.

By the way, there is a possible linkage between salmon (AKA hypo) and motley in boa constrictors and another possible linkage Kahl albino and type 2 anerythristic in boa constrictors. I've been told of a possible linkage in leopard geckos, but I can't remember the mutants. But nobody has reported numbers. And a few hundred babies from the right matings are needed.

What I was talking about was linkage. Should have taken the time to express myself better I guess.
Genetic linkage is a direct consequence of the physical linkage of two or more loci within the same pair of DNA molecules that define a particular set of chromosome homologs within the diploid genome.

Great thread.