Calico's - Any lethal combos to stay away from?

Since I've decided to start a breeding project I began looking ahead for potential morphs I would like to work with. I looked around the net and could not find anything with respects to lethal combos using calico's / sugar's. I'm familiar with the current lethal combos to date and I'm hoping this one doesn't fall into said category. I really like what I'm seeing with calico's / sugar's. Any input on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time. :)

Not that i know of or have heard of. :gj:

That's positive. Thanks!!! :banana:

We have been looking into them here. Haven't heard or read anything negative.

Just to echo what was already said I haven't heard of any lethal combos where the calico gene was the problem. :)

as far as calico combined with other genes, there is nothing lethal (as far as i know). calico x calico is another issue. same with spider x spider or pinstripe x pinstripe. with no known homozygous form it is accepted that the super form is lethal. since a super form never shows up and they have to have an allele from each parent, the only logical conclusion is it's lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

as far as calico combined with other genes, there is nothing lethal (as far as i know). calico x calico is another issue. same with spider x spider or pinstripe x pinstripe. with no known homozygous form it is accepted that the super form is lethal. since a super form never shows up and they have to have an allele from each parent, the only logical conclusion is it's lethal.

---

^^^^ Uh....

Um, okay. Perhaps it's accepted by YOU that this makes sense, but it does not. It's been proven by countless breeders, (even in Kevin's Lethal Combos video he references it) that a dominant gene does not HAVE a homozygous form. That is the whole point of them being dominant. If there was the possibility of a homozygous form, it would be a co-dominant gene. Breeding a spider to a spider is not lethal. It might not be SMART due to the spider gene's dingy nature (although the rumour of getting super wobbley spiders from breeding two together has been dispelled as well). Of course there are times when things go wrong, it's nature. The super champagne that was hatched and did not survive, that does not mean that dominant genes can have a homozygous form. It means in that one instance, something went wrong on a genetic level and caused an anomaly. If someone were to breed two calicos together, they'd just get a good majority of calico offspring. Same with spiders and pinstripes. I've bred pinstripe combo males to pinstripe females more than once and have never seen an issue come of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toolarmy1

^^^^ Uh....

Um, okay. Perhaps it's accepted by YOU that this makes sense, but it does not. It's been proven by countless breeders, (even in Kevin's Lethal Combos video he references it) that a dominant gene does not HAVE a homozygous form. That is the whole point of them being dominant. If there was the possibility of a homozygous form, it would be a co-dominant gene. Breeding a spider to a spider is not lethal. It might not be SMART due to the spider gene's dingy nature (although the rumour of getting super wobbley spiders from breeding two together has been dispelled as well). Of course there are times when things go wrong, it's nature. The super champagne that was hatched and did not survive, that does not mean that dominant genes can have a homozygous form. It means in that one instance, something went wrong on a genetic level and caused an anomaly. If someone were to breed two calicos together, they'd just get a good majority of calico offspring. Same with spiders and pinstripes. I've bred pinstripe combo males to pinstripe females more than once and have never seen an issue come of it.

---

Heh, Dominate just signifies that it only takes one gene to express it. All known traits have two copies of the gene, one from mom, one from dad. There are polygenic traits that are sometimes controlled by more than 2 copies (Tiger gene in moreliea spilotes comes to mind). But just because a gene is dominate does not mean it does NOT have to have a homozygos form. It just means that the homozygos form is not phenotypically different. But IS genetically different, where the homozygous offspring of the dominate trait will ONLY produce the trait from any and every breeding because it only has that gene to give.

End very basic genetics rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reptileexperts

But just because a gene is dominate does not mean it does NOT have to have a homozygos form. It just means that the homozygos form is not phenotypically different. But IS genetically different, where the homozygous offspring of the dominate trait will ONLY produce the trait from any and every breeding because it only has that gene to give.

---

Thanks! Given the examples above I fully understand. :gj:

So far I'm liking what I am hearing then. I appreciate everyone's input on the matter. Thanks so much. :D

FYI - It was the Nerd (Kevin) video on lethal combos that prompted the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toolarmy1

^^^^ Uh....

Um, okay. Perhaps it's accepted by YOU that this makes sense, but it does not. It's been proven by countless breeders, (even in Kevin's Lethal Combos video he references it) that a dominant gene does not HAVE a homozygous form. That is the whole point of them being dominant. If there was the possibility of a homozygous form, it would be a co-dominant gene. Breeding a spider to a spider is not lethal. It might not be SMART due to the spider gene's dingy nature (although the rumour of getting super wobbley spiders from breeding two together has been dispelled as well). Of course there are times when things go wrong, it's nature. The super champagne that was hatched and did not survive, that does not mean that dominant genes can have a homozygous form. It means in that one instance, something went wrong on a genetic level and caused an anomaly. If someone were to breed two calicos together, they'd just get a good majority of calico offspring. Same with spiders and pinstripes. I've bred pinstripe combo males to pinstripe females more than once and have never seen an issue come of it.

---

a dominant gene does not have a homozygous form? really? did you not pay attention in your high school biology class at all? do you believe snakes don't have to follow the same genetic rules that everything else on earth has to follow? the problem here is the whole genetic slang or "laziness" the reptile breeding hobby has come to use. you cannot take the words of the big breeders as God's. what if i told you that with all the genetic mutations we breed for in ball pythons right now, there is not a single known co-dominant gene? what you call co-dominant is actually incomplete dominant. and by definition, a true DOMINANT gene appears the same in homozygous form as it does heterozygous form. this is the case with every living thing on the planet. now, if there is no such thing as a homozygous dominant, how do you even define dominant? everything on this planet inherits 2 alleles at each locus, one from mom and one from dad (except in the rare case of parthenogenesis, but that's irrelevant here).

to put it in simple terms, calico mommy is perfectly capable of passing on the calico allele right? she can throw calico babies, so that must be the case. calico daddy can throw calico babies too because he can pass on the calico allele as well. each parent has a 50% chance of passing on their calico allele. a 25% chance that both of them will (as a simple punnett square will show you). now what if calico mommy is bred to calico daddy and they both pass on their calico allele? do you think daddy's calico allele just runs away and says "no! i'm not going"? if you do, i'm going to have to politely disagree with you. that's just not how genetics work.

now with how long the calico mutation (or spider or pin) has been around, there has never been a homozygous form produced. so what happens when mom passes on the calico allele and dad passes on the calico allele? the baby never develops: it's nowhere to be seen. the only logical conclusion is that the homozygous form is lethal.

when i say spider x spider, or calico x calico, or pin x pin is lethal, i don't mean that in the sense that you'll have to deal with dead or deformed babies. the babies just simply never develop. you'll never see them.

To your point - TheSnakeGeek - This is probably the reason for Nerd releasing the video I recently watched. To educate hobbyist / breeders of the known potential dangers from his experiences. Is it the end all be all of tragic breeding combinations? I doubt that. I don't think I'll ever take anyone's word as bible but I surely will take it under advisement. This hobby in my opinion is still in its early stages leaving many unknown variables yet to be discovered (good and bad). Genetics, at its most basic level states "1 from mommy and 1 from daddy". I can wrap my head around that and agree that it applies everywhere. Regarding the morphs in question, to date, I'm pleased to hear that I don't have to worry about non producing females, wobble heads, etc. Seems like we are still scratching the surface with multi-gene morphs (3, 4, 5 genes) which is what makes all of this exciting. Hence why I post the question, because I want to experience those good moments with some sound knowledge from those who are veterans in the hobby (collectively). :) Thanks all for the tidal wave of information. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

as far as calico combined with other genes, there is nothing lethal (as far as i know). calico x calico is another issue. same with spider x spider or pinstripe x pinstripe. with no known homozygous form it is accepted that the super form is lethal. since a super form never shows up and they have to have an allele from each parent, the only logical conclusion is it's lethal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

when i say spider x spider, or calico x calico, or pin x pin is lethal, i don't mean that in the sense that you'll have to deal with dead or deformed babies. the babies just simply never develop. you'll never see them.

---

First I don't know why you are lumping Pinstripe into this conversation. Brain @ BHB has talked about having a Pinstripe that has only ever produced Pinstripes in multiple breedings. Which means there is a Homozygous Pinstripe.

Second the part I bolded doesn't make any sense to me. Follicles are fertilized and become eggs when a female ovulates so if the homozygous forms of these morphs were lethal you would see something. Whether it be deformed hatchlings or eggs going bad and not making it, but no one has reported that happening.

We really don't know exactly what is going on because no one has truly done the breeding and research to see.
I mean in all honestly who wants to produce the numbers of these morphs and keep all of them, raise them up and then breed them out multiple times to prove it out either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

First I don't know why you are lumping Pinstripe into this conversation. Brain @ BHB has talked about having a Pinstripe that has only ever produced Pinstripes in multiple breedings. Which means there is a Homozygous Pinstripe.

---

i've heard this too, but it's always been hearsay on the forums. i've also heard people say they've asked brian about this and he's denied it. do you have any links of it coming straight from the horses mouth?

i highly doubt that if super pinstripes were possible there would only be one in the world. you say not enough research has been done because people don't want to raise the babies all the way to adulthood and breed them to find out. whether they raise them theirselves or sell them, that doesnt change the fact that they could still be supers, and there would've been at least one other person come forward and notice they had a pinstripe that was throwing nothing but pins. but even if brian does has a super pin, why doesn't a single other person out of the thousands of breeders? it could be a "fluke" of sorts. there have been "lethal" combos that have survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

i've heard this too, but it's always been hearsay on the forums. i've also heard people say they've asked brian about this and he's denied it. do you have any links of it coming straight from the horses mouth?

i highly doubt that if super pinstripes were possible there would only be one in the world. you say not enough research has been done because people don't want to raise the babies all the way to adulthood and breed them to find out. whether they raise them theirselves or sell them, that doesnt change the fact that they could still be supers, and there would've been at least one other person come forward and notice they had a pinstripe that was throwing nothing but pins. but even if brian does has a super pin, why doesn't a single other person out of the thousands of breeders? it could be a "fluke" of sorts. there have been "lethal" combos that have survived.

---

He has supposedly talked about it on an old episode of reptile radio, but I haven't been able to locate it. Never really made much of an effort to though either.
And you are right it could be some type of fluke who really knows.

I guess my big thing is calling them lethal combos when they really aren't.
There is no evidence that any one of the pairings being discussed is a lethal pairing where messed up hatchlings are produced that don't survive or you end up with eggs going bad or hatchlings dying in the egg.
That to me is what a "lethal" combo really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

He has supposedly talked about it on an old episode of reptile radio, but I haven't been able to locate it. Never really made much of an effort to though either.
And you are right it could be some type of fluke who really knows.

I guess my big thing is calling them lethal combos when they really aren't.
There is no evidence that any one of the pairings being discussed is a lethal pairing where messed up hatchlings are produced that don't survive or you end up with eggs going bad or hatchlings dying in the egg.
That to me is what a "lethal" combo really is.

---

i can agree to disagree. :) as i said earlier, i didnt mean lethal as in you would have to deal with dead or deformed babies, but i consider a "lethal" combo any combination of genes or alleles that is incapable of producing living offspring, in which case spider x spider, calico x calico, and (maybe?) pin x pin is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

i can agree to disagree. :) as i said earlier, i didnt mean lethal as in you would have to deal with dead or deformed babies, but i consider a "lethal" combo any combination of genes or alleles that is incapable of producing living offspring, in which case spider x spider, calico x calico, and (maybe?) pin x pin is.

---

And this is the issue.
All 3 of those pairings produce living offspring.
You don't end up with a greater number of eggs going bad during incubation, hatchlings dying in the egg, or deformed babies.
So how exactly are they incapable of producing living offspring?:confusd:

Eggs can't be reabsorbed or become slugs after a female Ovys. And the males sperm doesn't met the follicle until a female Ovys. So if these pairings were "lethal" you would have some visual issue with either the eggs or hatchlings right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

And this is the issue.
All 3 of those pairings produce living offspring.
You don't end up with a greater number of eggs going bad during incubation, hatchlings dying in the egg, or deformed babies.
So how exactly are they incapable of producing living offspring?:confusd:

Eggs can't be reabsorbed or become slugs after a female Ovys. And the males sperm doesn't met the follicle until a female Ovys. So if these pairings were "lethal" you would have some visual issue with either the eggs or hatchlings right?

---

Maybe this is a noob question, but why can't the females reabsorb a lethal egg? I seem to remember discussing lethal genes way back when in a genetics class, and I think they used an example in a breed of cat where there was a prenatal lethal combo and the homozygous fetuses were absorbed. Granted, this was in regards to mammals, so I'm not sure how the process would go with snakes...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

And this is the issue.
All 3 of those pairings produce living offspring.
You don't end up with a greater number of eggs going bad during incubation, hatchlings dying in the egg, or deformed babies.
So how exactly are they incapable of producing living offspring?:confusd:

Eggs can't be reabsorbed or become slugs after a female Ovys. And the males sperm doesn't met the follicle until a female Ovys. So if these pairings were "lethal" you would have some visual issue with either the eggs or hatchlings right?

---

have you ever seen a baby carrying 2 calico genes or 2 spider genes? you haven't because they don't live. they usually don't make it far enough into the incubation to even be seen. eggs go bad in clutches all the time even if there isn't a super. when it does happen because a super spider or calico is in them early on in incubation it's chalked up to be "just another bad egg." theres been discussions on it before with people that are much more knowledgable in genetics than i'll ever be.. let me see what i can find.

the only example i could find on short notice from my phone at work. post #22 specifically, but the rest of the thread is very interesting too.
http://www.reptileradio.net/ball-pyt...r-results.html

Isn't it also the case that we know them to be incomplete dominants a thing too?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

and i never meant breeding calico to calico resulted in all lethal babies. i meant the super calico was lethal. as well as the super spider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kodieh

Isn't it also the case that we know them to be incomplete dominants a thing too?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

---

the spider is actually incomplete dominant. the super form is a solid white snake. it just never survives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

Maybe this is a noob question, but why can't the females reabsorb a lethal egg? I seem to remember discussing lethal genes way back when in a genetics class, and I think they used an example in a breed of cat where there was a prenatal lethal combo and the homozygous fetuses were absorbed. Granted, this was in regards to mammals, so I'm not sure how the process would go with snakes...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

---

Once a female Ovys you are getting something ie a fertile egg, an infertile egg or a slug.
With regards to what you are referring to with mammals the fetus is still in contact with the mother and its not in BP's the embryo/fetus is incased in the egg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

Once a female Ovys you are getting something ie a fertile egg, an infertile egg or a slug.
With regards to what you are referring to with mammals the fetus is still in contact with the mother and its not in BP's the embryo/fetus is incased in the egg.

---

Awesome thanks for clearing that up!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

have you ever seen a baby carrying 2 calico genes or 2 spider genes? you haven't because they don't live. they usually don't make it far enough into the incubation to even be seen. eggs go bad in clutches all the time even if there isn't a super. when it does happen because a super spider or calico is in them early on in incubation it's chalked up to be "just another bad egg." theres been discussions on it before with people that are much more knowledgable in genetics than i'll ever be.. let me see what i can find.

---

Yes eggs do go bad at times and in any pairing possible.
But if it were the case in these situations don't you think it would be more often and more regular?
Statistically speaking over the long haul 25% of the eggs should go bad from these pairings and it would become more obvious than just a random egg going bad here or there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

the only example i could find on short notice from my phone at work. post #22 specifically, but the rest of the thread is very interesting too.
http://www.reptileradio.net/ball-pyt...r-results.html

---

So 1 example and you are set? That's all the evidence you need?
Not very scientific in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

and i never meant breeding calico to calico resulted in all lethal babies. i meant the super calico was lethal. as well as the super spider.

---

Until you posted about Calico x Calico supposedly being lethal I have never heard it before. As far as I can remember I have never heard of the Calico gene being brought up in any lethal combo situation.


Here's the lethal gene video from NERD where he briefly talks about Spider x Spider not being lethal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fhnR5YdGdI


We know very little about the overall genetic makeup of these animals besides the phenotypes. So we can't come to any absolute conclusions on any of this. Just different hypothesis from what we observe.

I just think calling any of that "Lethal" is irresponsible. People seem to hear that and start spreading the crap that if you breed spider x spider the babies will die, or some variation there of, when we really do not know whats going on. Lethal is a bad and likely incorrect term. Has anyone proven that circa 25% of the time eggs die? I dont think anyone has proven anything, because not only enough pairings, but whose keeping track? Maybe im wrong? But I dont think anyone is going to do the necessary breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

We really don't know exactly what is going on because no one has truly done the breeding and research to see.
I mean in all honestly who wants to produce the numbers of these morphs and keep all of them, raise them up and then breed them out multiple times to prove it out either way.

---

This is exactly what I was thinking.
Everyone will have their opinions and they could be right or not, trying to prove it is something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

Yes eggs do go bad at times and in any pairing possible.
But if it were the case in these situations don't you think it would be more often and more regular?
Statistically speaking over the long haul 25% of the eggs should go bad from these pairings and it would become more obvious than just a random egg going bad here or there.

---

who's to say they aren't? how often do people shoot for supers and miss or only hit one? now how often do people have one or 2 eggs go bad in a normal clutch? and how often really do people breed spider to spider?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

So 1 example and you are set? That's all the evidence you need?
Not very scientific in my opinion.

---

as i said before, i'm at work on my phone in between customers. not exactly easy to do a lot of searching. if you want scientific, then here: for each genetic trait, the offspring inherits one gene from his father and one from the mother. this is true with ALL living things, correct? (null alleles and parthenogenesis aside). so what happens when the offspring inherits both the calico gene from the mother and the calico gene from the father? because genetically and scientifically speaking this WILL statistically happen 25% of the time. according to you, they either magically disappear, or this never happens. THAT is not very scientific in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

Until you posted about Calico x Calico supposedly being lethal I have never heard it before. As far as I can remember I have never heard of the Calico gene being brought up in any lethal combo situation.

---

as with the super spider, if it is impossible to produce a living animal with a homozygous form of the gene, it is lethal. where are your super calicos? if you produce one, i'll gladly eat my foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

Here's the lethal gene video from NERD where he briefly talks about Spider x Spider not being lethal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fhnR5YdGdI

---

i thought you wanted scientific? throughout the whole video he refers to co-dominant genes in ball pythons and spider being a dominant gene. another case of people taking large breeder's words as God's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

We know very little about the overall genetic makeup of these animals besides the phenotypes. So we can't come to any absolute conclusions on any of this. Just different hypothesis from what we observe.

---

no, but we know a decent amount about how genetics work with ALL living creatures. you cannot exclude the ball python from universal genetic rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

who's to say they aren't? how often do people shoot for supers and miss or only hit one? now how often do people have one or 2 eggs go bad in a normal clutch? and how often really do people breed spider to spider?



as i said before, i'm at work on my phone in between customers. not exactly easy to do a lot of searching. if you want scientific, then here: for each genetic trait, the offspring inherits one gene from his father and one from the mother. this is true with ALL living things, correct? (null alleles and parthenogenesis aside). so what happens when the offspring inherits both the calico gene from the mother and the calico gene from the father? because genetically and scientifically speaking this WILL statistically happen 25% of the time. according to you, they either magically disappear, or this never happens. THAT is not very scientific in my opinion.


as with the super spider, if it is impossible to produce a living animal with a homozygous form of the gene, it is lethal. where are your super calicos? if you produce one, i'll gladly eat my foot.


i thought you wanted scientific? throughout the whole video he refers to co-dominant genes in ball pythons and spider being a dominant gene. another case of people taking large breeder's words as God's.



no, but we know a decent amount about how genetics work with ALL living creatures. you cannot exclude the ball python from universal genetic rules.

---

Ok the whole NERD lethal combo video was me being somewhat of a smart:cens0r: in return from your link.
And the whole me taking a big breeders word as gods is pure BS!
I don't take anyone's word as such.

Yes we do have a basic understanding of how genetics work in all living creatures and it is more complicated than what you are trying to say. There could be proteins, modifiers or something else preventing Spider x Spider or Calico x Calico from producing a Homozygous form whether lethal or not.

I am far from a geneticist and don't know or claim to know how it all works or even close to.
Without us knowing the entire genome for BPs and the interactions of such who really knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

Ok the whole NERD lethal combo video was me being somewhat of a smart:cens0r: in return from your link.
And the whole me taking a big breeders word as gods is pure BS!
I don't take anyone's word as such.

Yes we do have a basic understanding of how genetics work in all living creatures and it is more complicated than what you are trying to say. There could be proteins, modifiers or something else preventing Spider x Spider or Calico x Calico from producing a Homozygous form whether lethal or not.

I am far from a geneticist and don't know or claim to know how it all works or even close to.
Without us knowing the entire genome for BPs and the interactions of such who really knows?

---

don't get mad. lol if i'm wrong and you're attending daytona i'll gladly buy you a beer. it's not complicated when it comes to what i'm trying to say in regards to allele inheritance. i've never heard of proteins or modifiers restricting an allele from being inherited. do you have any studies or links to theories about this? and even if so, why would you cling to that and be so against the homozygous form being lethal? why would you think that would be more probable than a lethal homozygous, which we've actually seen with other genes? i'm not trying to be rude. i tried to agree to disagree earlier, but when you kept pressing and asking me questions, i answered. i'm not the only one with these views. people with much more knowledge than i will ever have share the same opinions.

again, i can agree to disagree. can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGeek

don't get mad. lol if i'm wrong and you're attending daytona i'll gladly buy you a beer. it's not complicated when it comes to what i'm trying to say in regards to allele inheritance. i've never heard of proteins or modifiers restricting an allele from being inherited. do you have any studies or links to theories about this? and even if so, why would you cling to that and be so against the homozygous form being lethal? why would you think that would be more probable than a lethal homozygous, which we've actually seen with other genes? i'm not trying to be rude. i tried to agree to disagree earlier, but when you kept pressing and asking me questions, i answered. i'm not the only one with these views. people with much more knowledge than i will ever have share the same opinions.

again, i can agree to disagree. can you?

---

I wasn't mad it's all good.
I can definitely agree to disagree.

A couple things I found.
First was eye color in humans and how if 2 people with blue eyes have a baby on occasion they will have a baby with brown eyes. This is because there is other genetic material and genes involved.

Also the whole Banana/Coral Glow sex determination and how/why it works the way it does is more than enough proof that we don't really know much about the genetics of these animals besides the phenotypes that we are playing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C&H Exotic Morphs

I wasn't mad it's all good.
I can definitely agree to disagree.

A couple things I found.
First was eye color in humans and how if 2 people with blue eyes have a baby on occasion they will have a baby with brown eyes. This is because there is other genetic material and genes involved.

Also the whole Banana/Coral Glow sex determination and how/why it works the way it does is more than enough proof that we don't really know much about the genetics of these animals besides the phenotypes that we are playing with.

---

i didn't know that with people and their eye color, which is pretty interesting. the banana sex ratios are very weird, because it still isn't a true "sex linked" mutation since we can sometimes get the other sex to pop up in the banana offspring. we can still get supers though. the human eye thing, no clue, but it sounds like something very interesting to read up on. the whole super spider, pin, calico, or whatever debate has been beatin to death so many times before. different strokes for different folks i guess.

to clear one thing up for sure though, i had messaged brian on facebook a few days back when our discussion was getting heated. didn't expect him to message me back, but i was curious. he just messaged me back this morning. straight from the horses mouth:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/30/utu5u6us.jpg

Brian could've meant no phenotype super or he could've answered the question you were looking for about genotype but we don't know. This is why we need to use heterozygous and homozygous when talking about this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

Brian could've meant no phenotype super or he could've answered the question you were looking for about genotype but we don't know. This is why we need to use heterozygous and homozygous when talking about this stuff.

---

true, but i think if that would've been the case he would have elaborated a little more. people almost always refer to a "super" in ball breeding as an animal that doesn't throw any normals, and the fact "super" was quoted leads me to believe even more he knew what i was talking about, but i have made a fool out of myself for assuming before. lol i may shoot him another message to clear it up further even though i know he's a very busy guy, but the lack of elaboration on his end meets my satisfaction.