What are Pieds? (Jinx)

Jinx brought this up in another thread and mentioned he doesn't believe pieds are recessive, and are instead codom, with the super form being a pied. (He informed me he didn't come up with the idea nor does he claim it as his own original thought).

Anyways, jinx, please explain in full detail what you meant, because i wanna make sure i understand. I think you have an excellent point. Another thing that I've heard being discussed is that leopards are allelic to pieds and all leaopards are het pied. I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Does that mean that maybe leopards are the "het pied" morph that produces the super form pied...?

I'd love to here peoples thoughts on these topics! :)

Also, just to note, i'm not calling jinx out with this thread or anything haha. I just used him because hes the one that brought it up in another thread. Also, i put his name in the title because he's in a different time zone than 99% of us so i wanted to make sure he saw it. :gj:

Very interesting, time to follow this :)

- - - Updated - - -

Very interesting, time to follow this :)

I'm in the same boat with the Clown gene. I don't think its recessive at all. It changes a lot of morph hets. Cleans them up and/or makes them brighter. Not to mention the pattern changer in some.


Anyway, I think pied certainly has some codom traits. They do interesting things to morphs. Take the pewter Het pied for example. The Het pied gives the pewter a washed out look. Even your Cinny PH pied is really crazy looking Mike. She's not like any regular cinny.

And according to NERD, all leopards are Het pied. A super leopard is pied. With that mind set, perhaps normal Het pieds are just a lower expression version?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Just because a het of a morph might make a change or "markers" does not mean it is NOT recesive. These markers are also not 100%. You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring. Same is true hor pieds. Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.



Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Just because a het of a morph might make a change or "markers" does not mean it is NOT recesive. These markers are also not 100%. You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring. Same is true hor pieds. Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.



Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

---

My thought on this is if there is ANY phenotypical difference from a 'normal' to a heterozygous recessive then by definition it cannot be recessive, which is only visible in the homozygous form. I keep seeing pictures pop up of people with het pied animals that look obviously different than a normal, which from my understanding means it cannot be a recessive gene. Maybe the majority you see out there are just low quality animals, and with line breeding there have been higher quality coming out. How often do you see a yellowbellies and other morphs that are difficult to differentiate from normals.

its mostly semantics i think.

the russo leucistic was first considered recessive, now its called codominant, but the name for that codominant gene is still "het russo".

Names often change over the years, and how we categorize a morph changes just as often. Also in nature there is a gradual scale that goes all the way from codominant/ incomplete dominant to recessive. We just arbitrarily draw a line somewhere in between, but no matter where exactly we draw the line, some morphs will be right on the line so that its arbitrary into what category we put them. Its like trying to divide the human species into tall people and small people.

But then, its all really not a problem as long as we manage to come to an agreement about what we mean when we talk about it.

pied and leopard are two different genes, but they are fully compatible. You could say leopard is a line of pied, where the heterozygous form is very VERY visible on its own. And in oldschool pied the heterozygous form is very subtle. so if you breed a leopard to a 100% het pied, you will get 25% pieds. And these pieds would have one copy of the leopard gene and one copy of the oldschool pied gene, and look just like homozygous pied or homozygous leopard. If you breed one of these pieds to a normal, you get 50% leopards and 50% het pieds.

by the way, in cases where there can be confusion, "homozygous" and "heterozygous" are very useful terms. Here its really black and white without grey areas, either the snake has one copy of a certain gene, or two, or none.

Huh? Any and all Hets have the possibility to do weird things to other mutations, but that is all...

Leopards are IN FACT allelic with Piebalds. Therefore, all Leopards are basically Het Pied.

Pieds and Clowns are recessive... Period. I don't know why people are misinterpreting and over thinking proven information that has been around for decades now. Just because they may have the ability to have 'markers' and 'clean things up a bit' DOES NOT make them "codom" (btw... the proper term is Incomplete-Dominant, not codom)

I second the below text...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Just because a het of a morph might make a change or "markers" does not mean it is NOT recesive. These markers are also not 100%. You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring. Same is true hor pieds. Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.

Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

---

Similar thread here - http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forum...d-markers.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

Huh? Any and all Hets have the possibility to do weird things to other mutations, but that is all...

Leopards are IN FACT allelic with Piebalds. Therefore, all Leopards are basically Het Pied.

Pieds and Clowns are recessive... Period. I don't know why people are misinterpreting and over thinking proven information that has been around for decades now. Just because they may have the ability to have 'markers' and 'clean things up a bit' DOES NOT make them "codom" (btw... the proper term is Incomplete-Dominant, not codom)

I second the below text...

---

Just because something has been around for decades doesn't mean that it's true. Think about the idea that the Earth was flat. That idea was around for centuries. Was it correct? No. Better information came alone with further testing and proved that in fact, the Earth is round.

Now, are all leopards het pied or are pieds and leopards allelic? I don't know. Because of the way the two genes interact with one another, I want to think they are allelic. Think about the genes in the BEl complex or the phantom/mystic/mojave group that makes the potion combos. Those have been proven to be allelic (or accepted to be allelic) and they are acting the same way as as leopard x pied.

What I think needs to happen is that we (as a community) need to do some experimenting to see what all this combo can produce. Right now, it's not understood fully which is why it opens up speculation. With a little time and investigation, I'm sure we can figure out if it's truly recessive, allelic, or if all leopards are het pied.

For at least a decade there have been discussions on the nature of the pied mutation. My 2 bits is that ball pythons don't read text book definitions of cut and dry fully recessive and fully co-dominant mutations and the piebald mutation is somewhere in the middle. I used to call it "recessive with co-dominant tendencies" but now with the leopards being a fully co-dominant pied mutation maybe the older pied allele is co-domain with recessive tendencies; or a subtle co-dominant if you prefer.

I've proven three 25% chance het pied females after following the belly markers through multiple generations. Not a surprise as if you extend the white belly of the best of the classic pied markerd hets up the sides and push the thick black edges onto the back you have a classic pied look so I can easily see the het pied belly as part way to pied.

Genome mapping. I'd gladly contribute to help fund that research project! Hands on experience is great but without specific parameters, test/control groups, a significant enough population to account for statistical anomalies, it's all just anecdotal "evidence" in the end. More likely than not doesn't meet the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Interesting points to the discussion but at the end of the day it's just that, a discussion.

Take 5 super pastel females. Breed a het clown to them. Tell me if you can pick out the pastel het clowns.

Do the same with super lessers BEL.. Tell me if you can pick out the lesser het clowns...

Do the same with a het pied to a super cinnamons. Or maybe to super Mojaves.

Anyone ever seen a lot of het tristripe combos? TSK actually started to remove poss hets bc it was too obvious to identify them. Made selling them for cheaper than hets not a brilliant idea.

Picking out the hets in these clutches, would be a piece or cake for me, you or anyone with BP experience.

As for breeding them to a normal, I noticed you don't see the same heterozygous affect on a normal versus with another mutation. That's why I gave examples using supers

Lately, I've actually been hatching colorless het albinos that color with age.

Is this confusing to some, probably. Has it been this way for years? Yes. But I personally think our eyes are becoming much more advanced when identifying these mutations.

I'm not saying lets go and rename these to inc dominant morphs, but I'm definitely more open minded... How do you think a lot of advanced breeders shorten double recessive projects? I know I can in my own collection.

Remember, analyzing possible hets are easier when comparing multiple siblings, that are identical. Hence why I mentioned supers above. Having the comparison makes identifying quite simple. If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you try it first because you would surprise yourself.

Interesting topic, thanks for posting.

Brant, excellent write up there! Maybe you can verify something I'm going to say here because I'm not 100% sure if this is true.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't THINK that leopards are in fact another gene at all. I don't think they are ALLELIC with pieds. I thought I heard somewhere that the first leopards came out of a clutch containing pieds. So it's not like saying that a new leopard came out of Africa and pieds came from that. No. An existing captive snake was bred and leopards came out. Correct me if this is wrong info.

If what I say is correct then pieds would be considered co-Dom in my books. I have 2 het pieds with Leopard like characteristics but are surely no leopards. I know some people think there is no true recessives I'm ball pythons because they can pick hets out very easily in Clutches. Much like brant said.

Me, I don't really care about the morph labels in balls. After all, all the co-doms are incorrectly named. They should be incomplete dominants. So there are inaccuracies built in to this whole industry anyways. Whatever the case, Leo's and pieds are always awesome!

I think the simple fact that u can throw a pied male to a normal and have some being normal without markers might kill the convo of them being co dom. Along with what brants saying can be applied to the clown. With that said people do use markers. Its just not like breeding a mojave to a normal and picking out the mojaves

Well, looks like a lot of it got covered while I was sleeping. Brant and I have discussed it before, so I know we are on the same page.

Remember, there are a handful of morphs that we already call inc-dom, that can be hard to distinguish from a Normal. Specter for example.

I fully agree with what Brant said in that we are just getting better at seeing subtle morphs. Larger scale breeders that literally see THOUSANDS of animals per year, develop an eye. But, even those of us that are now seeing thousands of pictures of animals a year, are doing the same.

Putting your foot down and stating that Pied is for a fact recessive is, IMO, not taking a real look at what is going on.

For the purpose of Ball Pythons, recessive has meant that when the animal carries one gene for the trait, it is indistinguishable from a Normal, or simply it carries the Normal phenotype.

I brought up Pied in the previous example, but Clown, Tri-Stripe and some other classically considered recessive seem to not really follow that recessive definition.

As for Leopard, I personally do not think Leopard and "het Pied" are the same gene. I think it is similar to the YB complex where some of the genes are just stronger and fall on a continuum. Making Pied, in essence an extreme Ringer mutation, which would also help explain why they seem to randomly vary in the amount of white, as other Ringers out there are quite unstable and variable.

So I am saying I think there is a Inc-dom Pied complex. We should all actually be VERY excited about this. It means there may be more animals out there in that complex yet to be discovered, and that is AWESOME!

I think more breeding needs to be done to prove this for certain, but I am going with the idea that makes more sense to me.

In the end, just because the Pied mutation has been around for a long time, but NO MEANS indicates the original thinking has to be correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishanaconda

I think the simple fact that u can throw a pied male to a normal and have some being normal without markers might kill the convo of them being co dom. Along with what brants saying can be applied to the clown. With that said people do use markers. Its just not like breeding a mojave to a normal and picking out the mojaves

---

Mojave is too clear cut for that argument. Replace Mojave with Specter, Gravel etc... and you will have much harder time making that argument. Mojave is not a subtle inc-dom.

All Ball Pythons (and every other animal we would breed) are have polygenetic traits that can easily interrupt classic markers.

I see what your saying, and believe me i understand different lines seem to also throw different markers. Some pieds have tracks and some have floaters and ive heard a ton of different markers for pieds and also clowns (another being long alien heads that draw up)..... but the actual pied gene itself i still would consider it being recessive. I think people miss read the pied gene with traits that are line bred with better looking snakes in general. Pieds specifically were looked for in the beginning for belly markers in the hets, it was no hidden secret and i think in the long run the markers took over. Why some with markers prove out and others dont, but when u get a known line of pieds the poss hets with the markers have a better chance of proving out. Im not saying ur point is invalid i just think some people like to hear themselves talk more than try and prove a point

Well, I do like to hear myself talk on occasion, if that is what you are getting at. And if that is the case, there are ways to not read whatever I type. :D

lol, not getting at anything really with u or trying to be specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't THINK that leopards are in fact another gene at all. I don't think they are ALLELIC with pieds. I thought I heard somewhere that the first leopards came out of a clutch containing pieds. So it's not like saying that a new leopard came out of Africa and pieds came from that. No. An existing captive snake was bred and leopards came out. Correct me if this is wrong info.

---

You are correct. Pete started noticing them in his het pied clutches. And mentioned it to Greg Grazing who was seeing the same thing. They started holding those back and working with them.

Justin Kobylka's first leopards was purchased as a het pied from a breeder who didn't recognize it as a leopard (they were still 'new" at the time.


Sent from my Samsung Note II using Tapatalk 2

just my opinion....Im not a geneticist by no means. But by definition of recessive, what makes an actual pied animal a pied animal is the having both the genes and physically expressing it. Not all het pieds have the "markers". Ive seen some that look just like normals! So what about that? And what about albinos? Are there markers for het albinos? None that I know of. And even though leopards react with pieds, doesn't mean they are the same gene, imo. Same is true with toffees and albinos. They will combine with each other, but each morph by itself LOOKS different.

Very interesting...

Although, if you threw a bunch of het pieds without markers and a bunch of normals in a bucket could you actually pick them out? It seems that if they were a codom gene you should be able to pick them out from normals, like ybs and spotnoses. As for mixing het pieds and codom genes and being able to pick them out... Could that be because those morphs are already susceptible to pattern changes? I feel the codom het pied morphs listed could easily be altered by the pied gene. I'm not arguing that you can't pick out a pewter het pied, I know you can, but I don't think that alone would make pieds codoms. To me that shows that the pewter pattern is weak and highly susceptible to change via het genes.

If we were to go with this logic every single recessive out there would be a codom morph. Het ghosts tend to be lighter, het clowns tend to be lighter, etc etc. You see what you want to see in a normal looking snake that is het for something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

You are correct. Pete started noticing them in his het pied clutches. And mentioned it to Greg Grazing who was seeing the same thing. They started holding those back and working with them.

Justin Kobylka's first leopards was purchased as a het pied from a breeder who didn't recognize it as a leopard (they were still 'new" at the time.


Sent from my Samsung Note II using Tapatalk 2

---

This become a chicken or the egg argument. Was the original Pieds that started throwing Leopards truly a full Pied? Was it a Leopard X "het Pied"? Was it a Super Leopard?

Leopard may well turn out to be a extreme version of het Pied, but does not change my stance at all on the recessive thing.

Quote:

---

You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring.

---

says who, and even if not with 100% accuracy, prettydang close. Start adding up the markers they have and it becomes fairly obvious.

Quote:

---

My thought on this is if there is ANY phenotypical difference from a 'normal' to a heterozygous recessive then by definition it cannot be recessive

---

That's my thought too.

Quote:

---

Take 5 super pastel females. Breed a het clown to them. Tell me if you can pick out the pastel het clowns.

Do the same with super lessers BEL.. Tell me if you can pick out the lesser het clowns...

---

After producing both, I'd take that challenge any day, and I'm sure you could too

Quote:

---

In the end, just because the Pied mutation has been around for a long time, but NO MEANS indicates the original thinking has to be correct.

---

Completely agree, I don't see any recessives in ball pythons, just because most people can't see the markers doesn't mean those of us that produce them can't see them.

Quote:

---

Are there markers for het albinos?

---

Absolutely, and they are no different than the markers for lav albino.

A marker for het albino????n what is that???

Sent from my H866C using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4theSNAKElady

A marker for het albino????n what is that???

Sent from my H866C using Tapatalk 2

---

Albinism would be IMO a different story bc it's not really a pattern changer IMO. But I do find it interesting with myself hatching axanthic looking het albinos that color after a few sheds. Also interesting to see het ghosts sometimes actually look like mild ghosts. Pretty neat if you ask me. But I do agree that albinism hets would probably not fit the mold to see visual hets and throughout the animal kingdom albinism is considered recessive and I believe that's 100% factual.

You can not change genetics. Pieds are recessive. Albinos are recessive. Laves are. Carmels are. Axanthics are.
The genetic terms used in the ball python world are already wrong. So why try to make things worse?

By definition.
In genetics, a:recessive gene or allele is one in which the effect is not tangible, or is masked by the effects of the dominant gene. The recessivetrait may be expressed when the recessive genes are in homozygous condition or when the dominant gene is not present. That happens when anorganism inherits a pair of recessive genes from its parents.

I just want everyone to know that i'm not ignoring you all. I'm spectating and enjoying the discussion, keep it up! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

You can not change genetics. Pieds are recessive.

---

Because they where first marketed that way? It was actually a pretty big stink when the markers came out because people had been selling possible hets for years and some may have been picking out the markered ones first.

To me the definitions of recessive vs. codominant is very cut and dry and wouldn't surprise me at all that the real world is more messy.

Quote:

---

RandyRemington

I used to call it "recessive with co-dominant tendencies" but now with the leopards being a fully co-dominant pied mutation maybe the older pied allele is co-domain with recessive tendencies; or a subtle co-dominant if you prefer.

---

A subtle incomplete dominant trait, I wholeheartedly agree.


Genetically a het is a het is a het, I do not believe any of the traits we play with are truly recessive.
Saying a heterozygous clown doesn't interact with the wild type gene is like saying a pastel doesn't interact with the wild type gene,
it just isn't so.
Both are heterozygous traits, one more visual than the other, but no different otherwise.

Here's a simple picture, amir line yellowbelly mom with amir line yellowbelly 100% het clown.
If het clown is "recessive" why does it act so visual?
http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/PICT9430.jpg

So explaine then what is a recessive trait? What is a "codominant", and what is a dominant?
I beg to differ. I am more of a mind that most of what we breed are simple recessive.

revisit my last picture ...

If het clown is recessive why does it alter everything it touches in pattern and in color?

We do not have co-dominant traits in ball pythons "that I know of", they are incomplete dominant(heterozygous) and dominant(homozygous)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

revisit my last picture ...

If het clown is recessive why does it alter everything it touches in pattern and in color?

---

Bc it's not recessive. Good for you to see that. That is what a great breeder does and what I preach in this ball python industry. Don't let standards hold you back. I don't, and I'm very successful doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

revisit my last picture ...

If het clown is recessive why does it alter everything it touches in pattern and in color?

---

Exactly. Wholly agree. I've been saying this for a while as well.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

So explaine then what is a recessive trait? What is a "codominant", and what is a dominant?
I beg to differ. I am more of a mind that most of what we breed are simple recessive.

---

I think you should turn the heat down on your comments. You seem to be getting agitated for some reason. We are all friends here.

Another example, Virgin sRk line yellowbelly female bred to clown male and produced the sRk line yellowbelly 100% het clown male in the picture with her.


Clown in het form is a color and pattern changer.
http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps991c0254.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

You can not change genetics. Pieds are recessive. Albinos are recessive. Laves are. Carmels are. Axanthics are.
The genetic terms used in the ball python world are already wrong. So why try to make things worse?

By definition.
In genetics, a:recessive gene or allele is one in which the effect is not tangible, or is masked by the effects of the dominant gene. The recessivetrait may be expressed when the recessive genes are in homozygous condition or when the dominant gene is not present. That happens when anorganism inherits a pair of recessive genes from its parents.

---

No, we might not can change genetics, but we certainly can do a little more research to UNDERSTAND the genetics better. Your view in this post makes you sound very narrow minded since you aren't open to the possibility that saying pied/clown/whathaveyou COULD be something other than recessive. In order for science to progress, we have to question the paradigms that exist. Currently, the paradigm is exactly what you're staying. However, most of us are arguing that pieds/cowns/etc are not in fact recessive but some kind of incomplete dominant gene. This is our way of questioning the paradigm in the hopes to further science. Think about it, if we can use genetics and genome mapping to prove that these genes are not actually recessive, can you imagine all the other questions we can answer in this hobby? I think it's a great topic for Genetic students in colleges to study. I was almost a biology major and if I had continued that path, I probably would have done a thesis on this kind of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

So explaine then what is a recessive trait? What is a "codominant", and what is a dominant?
I beg to differ. I am more of a mind that most of what we breed are simple recessive.

---

I think you know what those traits are...I just don't think you're matching the ball python morphs to the correct type of trait. Like I said above, this theory needs a lot of testing and if it's correct, it would open a world of new questions for this hobby!

It kinda makes me giddy inside just thinking about it!

Lol!
Look you guys are not looking at genetics and truely understanding what they are. Just because you "might" be able to see "markers" in some snakes that are het does not make it an incomplete dominant and not a simple recessive. Is the clown gene expressed in a het? Is hypo expressed in a het hypo? Is pied expressed in a het ? Absolutely not. Those genes are NOT expressed. There may be hints as to the animal carrying the one gene for that trait, but it IS NOT expressed. It is pretty simple, cut and dry. The clown gene being "expressed" means that the simple recessive clown gene is paired and it looks like a clown. If it does not have BOTH copies of that gene, it is not expressed.

Also like I said. Do a little research on genetics. Learn what incomplete dominance does. Learn what dominance does. And apparently what a simple recessive is.
Discussions like this in an open forum is horrible to our hobby. We already use enough wrong terms. Why give other people wrong or missguided information to make it worse? Most people think that ball python males are "breedable" because they are producing "sperm pluggs". Ball pythons DO NOT produce sperm pluggs. Those hemipene sheds are not pluggs. If ball pythons produced sperm pluggs you could NOT have multiple fathered clutches.

Quote:

---

Is the clown gene expressed in a het? Is hypo expressed in a het hypo? Is pied expressed in a het ? Absolutely not.

---

Absolutely they are in every single example, including the photo's I've already shared.
The photo's do not lie, believe what you want, some of us have open minds and will continue to fuel progress in this hobby.
Is it not completely obvious in those pictures what adding het clown does to the yellowbelly's?

How many recessive snakes have you produced, or are you just reading books?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Also like I said. Do a little research on genetics. Learn what incomplete dominance does. Learn what dominance does. And apparently what a simple recessive is.
Discussions like this in an open forum is horrible to our hobby. We already use enough wrong terms. Why give other people wrong or missguided information to make it worse? Most people think that ball python males are "breedable" because they are producing "sperm pluggs". Ball pythons DO NOT produce sperm pluggs. Those hemipene sheds are not pluggs. If ball pythons produced sperm pluggs you could NOT have multiple fathered clutches.

---

Incomplete dominance occurs when the phenotype of the heterozygous genotype is distinct from and often intermediate to the phenotypes of the homozygous genotypes. (took that from good ol' wikipedia)

How does what is going on in het Pieds, het Clowns etc... NOT meet this definition?

How on earth is a discussion about ANYTHING where we examine our thought process "horrible to our hobby" that is possibly the most closed-minded statement I have heard in some time, I am currently in a land full of religious extremists.

If YOU choose not to entertain other thought processes on how the genetics of the Ball Python may actually be behaving, that is fine. But to come here and say we are damaging the hobby with our discussion is ridiculous.

Also, I will agree we use technically incorrect terms a lot, but this thread is not talking about that. You are trying to lump in all of that to this conversation, and I fail to see how it applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Lol!
Look you guys are not looking at genetics and truely understanding what they are.

---

The only person not looking at genetics and truly understanding it is you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

By definition.
In genetics, a:recessive gene or allele is one in which the effect is not tangible, or is masked by the effects of the dominant gene. The recessivetrait may be expressed when the recessive genes are in homozygous condition or when the dominant gene is not present. That happens when anorganism inherits a pair of recessive genes from its parents.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I beg to differ. I am more of a mind that most of what we breed are simple recessive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Just because you "might" be able to see "markers" in some snakes that are het does not make it an incomplete dominant and not a simple recessive. Is the clown gene expressed in a het? Is hypo expressed in a het hypo? Is pied expressed in a het ? Absolutely not. Those genes are NOT expressed. There may be hints as to the animal carrying the one gene for that trait, but it IS NOT expressed. It is pretty simple, cut and dry. The clown gene being "expressed" means that the simple recessive clown gene is paired and it looks like a clown. If it does not have BOTH copies of that gene, it is not expressed.

---

All of these statements prove that you do not really understand genetics. And relying on Wiki to give you answers when you already do not understand you are talking about is just adding to your misunderstanding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.

---

No. Most of the morphs we work with are incomplete-dominant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

The genetic terms used in the ball python world are already wrong. So why try to make things worse?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Also like I said. Do a little research on genetics. Learn what incomplete dominance does. Learn what dominance does. And apparently what a simple recessive is.
Discussions like this in an open forum is horrible to our hobby. We already use enough wrong terms. Why give other people wrong or missguided information to make it worse?

---

Mayhaps you ought to take your own advice and not proclaim incorrect information as if it were fact?? You do not know what you are talking about so kindly quit telling all of us that we are the problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

---

That does not make any of these recessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

You can not change genetics. Pieds are recessive. Albinos are recessive. Laves are. Carmels are. Axanthics are.

---

The only thing "changing" is peoples view/understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

So explaine then what is a recessive trait? What is a "codominant", and what is a dominant?

---

Simple

Recessive: A gene where the phenotype is only visible when heteroallelic
---Example: Albino at tyr locus. Only when two copies of the Albino gene are present is there a phenotype

And I will use the exact same locus to explain/define Dominant

Dominant: A gene where the phenotype is the same when it is heteroallelic and homoallelic
---Example: WT at the tyr locus. A snake that is genetically heterozygous for Albino (WT/Alb) looks no different than a snake that is genetically homozygous WT (WT/WT)

Incomplete-Dominant: A gene that expresses a phenotype in the heteroallelic form that is different than the homoallelic form
---Example: BluEL allele group. When one copy of the mutant gene is present you have a distinct phenotype and when two copies of the mutant gene are present you have a second, wholly different phenotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

Huh? Any and all Hets have the possibility to do weird things to other mutations, but that is all...

Leopards are IN FACT allelic with Piebalds. Therefore, all Leopards are basically Het Pied.

---

No "basically" about it, Leopards are het Pied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

Pieds and Clowns are recessive... Period.

---

But no. Pieds are inc-dom. Some of the varied Pied alleles are very subtle to be sure but they are inc-dom just the same. Clowns... I have not looked in to them enough to say for certain but the data I have seen are certainly making me lean toward them also being a very subtle inc-dom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coopers Constrictors

I don't know why people are misinterpreting and over thinking proven information that has been around for decades now. Just because they may have the ability to have 'markers' and 'clean things up a bit' DOES NOT make them "codom" (btw... the proper term is Incomplete-Dominant, not codom)

---

The problem is that the information that has been around for decades has been misinterpreted/misrepresented. What is happening now is that people are trying to set things to right and are meeting with the inertia that those decades of wrong/incorrect information have wrought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majorleaguereptiles

As for breeding them to a normal, I noticed you don't see the same heterozygous affect on a normal versus with another mutation. That's why I gave examples using supers

---

Brant, you make great points but I just want to jump in here for a small clarification (and I am pretty sure you will agree with what I am about to say.) When you said the above, it does not mean that there is no heterozygous effect you breed to a normal, only that the effect in normals is often very very subtle but when bred to a super that effect becomes much more apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majorleaguereptiles

Lately, I've actually been hatching colorless het albinos that color with age.

---

This is something a little different but I am glad you bring it up. This is not an absolute for all het Albinos, it only occurs with some of them. This is a distinct Albino allele and, quite honestly, it could reasonably be argued that it is an inc-dom Albino allele. Because of the transient nature and the period which it is expressed I would guess that it is potentially a TS or O2S allele but that is just a guess.

I've taken plenty of University genetics and animal biology courses. With that said, I still don't believe clown falls into the category of a true recessive.

However, its true that people do use the wrong terms.

Agreed 100% with Jinx,Asplundii, and Jerry.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

i love this thread. i can see both sides of the argument, but i'm kind of on the fence. keep in mind, i'm a "reader" without much first hand experience in hets (yet).. but i do read. a lot. i just don't have the luxury of saying i've been in the game for a few decades. not because i havent wanted to, it's just that i wasn't conceived until the late 80s, so for me, it is a physical impossibility. ;)

for those of you with more first hand experience arguing that these genes are not recessive: i completely understand where you're coming from on your side of the debate.. but one thing i've noticed, especially with clown and hypo "hets," is that the "het" animals are much more apparent when they also carry other incomplete dominant traits. the pastel het clowns or enchi het hypos are easier to pick out from their non-het clutch mates.. in the picture snakesrkewl posted, there seems to be a drastic difference, but those animals carry the yellowbelly gene as well. it is my understanding (granted i am a mere "reader") that the wild type looking hets are just that: of the wild type phenotype.. and for a gene to be considered incomplete dominant (completely eliminating all other variables such as other genes), when it carries only one of the genes, you don't have a wild type phenotype. i understand that many people claim they can pick out pastel het clowns, but i havent seen this claim made with "normal" het clowns, at least not often.. but it's also a good possibility i haven't read enough. can WT phenotype clown or hypo hets be picked out with any sort of accuracy? if so, then we shouldn't consider them a WT phenotype at all, and if not, would they not still be considered recessive since a WT looking snake that is het for the gene still has a normal phenotype, regardless of how that single gene may affect the appearance of a snake that already has a not so normal phenotype?

I've been thoroughly enjoying this. Great thread guys :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creepin

it is my understanding (granted i am a mere "reader") that the wild type looking hets are just that: of the wild type phenotype.. and for a gene to be considered incomplete dominant (completely eliminating all other variables such as other genes), when it carries only one of the genes, you don't have a wild type phenotype. i understand that many people claim they can pick out pastel het clowns, but i havent seen this claim made with "normal" het clowns, at least not often.. but it's also a good possibility i haven't read enough. can WT phenotype clown or hypo hets be picked out with any sort of accuracy? if so, then we shouldn't consider them a WT phenotype at all, and if not, would they not still be considered recessive since a WT looking snake that is het for the gene still has a normal phenotype, regardless of how that single gene may affect the appearance of a snake that already has a not so normal phenotype?

---

Creepin'

It is like I said in my post in reference to Brant's comment about breeding to a super form:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

... it does not mean that there is no heterozygous effect you breed to a normal, only that the effect in normals is often very very subtle but when bred to a super that effect becomes much more apparent.

---

If you know what you are looking for you can pick the hets from the non-hets in a WT breeding, the difference is there, it is just that it is very subtle. At least as far as Pied goes. As I noted above, I have not been looking in to Clowns as much so I cannot say the same with any high level of confidence for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

If you know what you are looking for you can pick the hets from the non-hets in a WT breeding, the difference is there, it is just that it is very subtle. At least as far as Pied goes. As I noted above, I have not been looking in to Clowns as much so I cannot say the same with any high level of confidence for them.

---

makes sense. so i guess my question now would be.. if WT phenotype het clowns were indistinguishable from their 100% WT counterparts, yet one was able to pick out pastel or YB het clowns from other pastel, YB, or whatever non-hets, would you then consider the clown mutation incomplete dominant or recessive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

The only person not looking at genetics and truly understanding it is you

Actually I understand genetics quite a bit more than most people here.

All of these statements prove that you do not really understand genetics. And relying on Wiki to give you answers when you already do not understand you are talking about is just adding to your misunderstanding

I do fortunately understand quite a bit about genetics. I also do not rely on wiki for my knowledge.

No. Most of the morphs we work with are incomplete-dominant

You say they are and it is commonly accepted so, but this does not make it so. Again I refer you to look into other animals such as mice, fish or even birds. Maybe what we are really dealing with is transheterozygotes

Mayhaps you ought to take your own advice and not proclaim incorrect information as if it were fact?? You do not know what you are talking about so kindly quit telling all of us that we are the problem

My proclaiming came into this because it IS a discussion on such things. And for the simple reason that it IS fact that Albinos, Clowns, Hypos and even Pieds are recessive.

That does not make any of these recessive.

What makes them recessive is that their het phenotype is the normal wild type appearance and their hom phenotype is the said morph appearance.

The only thing "changing" is peoples view/understanding.


Simple

Recessive: A gene where the phenotype is only visible when heteroallelic Actually it is only visible when it is Homozygous.
---Example: Albino at tyr locus. Only when two copies of the Albino gene are present is there a phenotype

And I will use the exact same locus to explain/define Dominant

Dominant: A gene where the phenotype is the same when it is heteroallelic and homoallelic
---Example: WT at the tyr locus. A snake that is genetically heterozygous for Albino (WT/Alb) looks no different than a snake that is genetically homozygous WT (WT/WT)
This is a poor way to try and describe a dominant phenotype as Albino is a proven recessive trait.

Incomplete-Dominant: A gene that expresses a phenotype in the heteroallelic form that is different than the homoallelic form
---Example: BluEL allele group. When one copy of the mutant gene is present you have a distinct phenotype and when two copies of the mutant gene are present you have a second, wholly different phenotype.

---

I feel that this also is a bad example to use, as I feel that the whole BEL complex is being over simplified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

Absolutely they are in every single example, including the photo's I've already shared.
The photo's do not lie, believe what you want, some of us have open minds and will continue to fuel progress in this hobby.
Is it not completely obvious in those pictures what adding het clown does to the yellowbelly's?

How many recessive snakes have you produced, or are you just reading books?

---

Actually as far as recessives we have been working with Albino, Lavender albino, Hypo, Ultramel and have just finally added clown to our list. Now granted we have not been breeding ball pythons for 10+ years, we have been following the ball python morphs since the late 90's/early 2000's. We have been around long enough to see Capone take out the market.
Just because there can be "markers" (which I might add are not 100%) for a recessive trait does not make it not recessive. They still have the WT phenotype in the het form, which is what makes them recessive. I do have an open mind, but trying to say the earth is flat when it is a known fact to be round is not sound.