ALS - Acts Like Super

You guys heard of this?

I was watching some recent NERD videos and Kevin was talking about some 2 gene combos that are incapable of reproducing themselves. So if you breed an animal that is AB to a normal all the babies will either be A or B. You will not see the AB combo in the offspring. So he made up the term "Acts Like Super" to describe it.

I think he used Toffino as an example. If you breed a Toffino to a normal, you won't know what is het for what because they will al either be het Albino or het Toffee. None would be double het.

Anyone else dealt with combos like that?

Mystic potion and the rest of the BEL complex (Mojo/Lesser BEL, etc.)

Vanilla creams as well.

All he did is unnecessarily rename the term "allelic"

each group is allelic with each other: http://www.owalreptiles.com/complexes.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

All he did is unnecessarily rename the term "allelic"

each group is allelic with each other: http://www.owalreptiles.com/complexes.php

---

^That's exactly what I was about to say until I read OWAL beat me to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

All he did is unnecessarily rename the term "allelic"

each group is allelic with each other: http://www.owalreptiles.com/complexes.php

---

That's bc we need to be able to remember what the term is, dumb it down a little ;) I'm all for ALS, the description is in the name :p

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Did anyone else think this thread was going to be about Lou Gehrigs Disease? Come on... I know i'm not the only sports fan hear haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

That's bc we need to be able to remember what the term is, dumb it down a little ;) I'm all for ALS, the description is in the name :p

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

---

Allelic describes it exactly, they are alleles, nothing more to it :)

Super has an unclear definition as some people call allelic combos supers, so Acts Like Itself is a little silly. Also as Mike pointed out, that acronym is pretty well established also lol.

I just see this as adding confusion

So am I the only one that had to Google ALS for the "established" definition? Medical acronyms are not my forte. I know MS = Multiple Sclerosis and that's about it.

Anyways, I personally find "Acts Like Super" easier to grasp than allelic.

Allelic : One member of a pair or series of genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome.

That doesn't really say it to me.

Personally I stick with allelic. I understand the meaning just fine, and learned it / figured it out within a few threads of reading when I was brand new.

I will never use the term "ALS" for anything other than the disease. I lost a very close relative to it in February and I can't say it without getting sad.

Also, I am seriously tired of everyone in the world "dumbing things down" put in a little effort and learn something new. /endrant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoseyReps

Personally I stick with allelic.

---

x2. theres enough pointless slang in the reptile breeding hobby.

Honestly imo, if you want to breed balls you NEED to take the time to understand at least the basic genetic stuff, under which this would fall. It's truly not that complicated.

Sent from microwave using Tapatalk 2

I prefer sticking with allelic.

Kevin has already said that he doesn't want ball python genetics to get too scientific(y)? Which is why he likes to use these other terms.

Personally I prefer sticking to the definitions that are already in place. These terms like (super) instead of homozygous just confuse discussions from my observations. It took me freaking forever to figure out basic mendelian genetics and I struggled up until I learned the difference between genotype, phenotype, heterozygous, and homozygous. Then everything fell into place.

Then explain this to me. When I read the definition of allelic...that pretty much covers ALL genes/mutations. It's generic. It's not specific to this type of behavior. Dominants, Co-Dom, Recessives...they are ALL allelic. At least according to all the genetics web sites I have visited. And so we have these more descriptive terms to use for specific allelic behaviors.

I prefer allelic and find "acts like super" to be needless jargon. I agree that the least we can do as breeders is try and educate ourselves on how the genetics of our animals actually works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K

Then explain this to me. When I read the definition of allelic...that pretty much covers ALL genes/mutations. It's generic. It's not specific to this type of behavior. Dominants, Co-Dom, Recessives...they are ALL allelic. At least according to all the genetics web sites I have visited. And so we have these more descriptive terms to use for specific allelic behaviors.

---

I've seen some pretty bad definitions of allele.

All alleles are genes, but not all genes are alleles.

Alleles are slightly different genes that can make a gene pair. They can make a gene pair because they reside in the same location in the chromosomes.

Albino and the corresponding normal gene can make a gene pair. They are alleles. Pied and the corresponding normal gene can make a gene pair, so they are alleles. One albino gene and one pied gene cannot make a gene pair, so they are not alleles. The normal alternative to the albino gene and the normal alternative to the pied gene reside at different locations in the chromosomes. They cannot make a gene pair, so they are not alleles, either.

The mojave and lesser mutant genes can make a gene pair; they are alleles. The spider and pinstripe mutant genes cannot make a gene pair; they are not alleles.

Clear as mud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

I've seen some pretty bad definitions of allele.

All alleles are genes, but not all genes are alleles.

Alleles are slightly different genes that can make a gene pair. They can make a gene pair because they reside in the same location in the chromosomes.

Albino and the corresponding normal gene can make a gene pair. They are alleles. Pied and the corresponding normal gene can make a gene pair, so they are alleles. One albino gene and one pied gene cannot make a gene pair, so they are not alleles. The normal alternative to the albino gene and the normal alternative to the pied gene reside at different locations in the chromosomes. They cannot make a gene pair, so they are not alleles, either.

The mojave and lesser mutant genes can make a gene pair; they are alleles. The spider and pinstripe mutant genes cannot make a gene pair; they are not alleles.

Clear as mud?

---

It is when you explain it... :P

Hopefully my genetics 101 page on the upcoming website is a good enough and clear enough reference that I can link it into threads like this and have the less educated herpers understand it while still having it be scientifically accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

I've seen some pretty bad definitions of allele.

All alleles are genes, but not all genes are alleles.

Alleles are slightly different genes that can make a gene pair. They can make a gene pair because they reside in the same location in the chromosomes.

Albino and the corresponding normal gene can make a gene pair. They are alleles. Pied and the corresponding normal gene can make a gene pair, so they are alleles. One albino gene and one pied gene cannot make a gene pair, so they are not alleles. The normal alternative to the albino gene and the normal alternative to the pied gene reside at different locations in the chromosomes. They cannot make a gene pair, so they are not alleles, either.

The mojave and lesser mutant genes can make a gene pair; they are alleles. The spider and pinstripe mutant genes cannot make a gene pair; they are not alleles.

Clear as mud?

---

So I understand all that. But the term "allelic" by itself is a generic term that mean "having to do with alleles" and you've defined allele quite fine I think. But just using the word "allelic" to me does not adequately describe the "Acts Like Super" behavior. Dominant is an allelic behavior. So is Recessive which was your example.

When someone says "this morph is recessive" we know what that means. When someone says "this is the Super/Homozygous for of this morph" we know what that means. Allelic covers all of the these. So if a new morph comes along how would know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic"?

Sure, "Act Like Super" is silly but no one else has come up with anything else that I know of. So there needs to be a more specific word or phrase to describe to behavior of "this 2 gene parent will produce offspring that all have either gene A or gene B but not both."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K;

So there needs to be a more specific word or phrase to describe to behavior of "this 2 gene parent will produce offspring that all have either gene A or gene B but not both."

---

Why? That description makes perfect sense to me, without needing a new piece of jargon that then has to be explained with the same sentence above.

I also hate the term 'Acts like a super'.
Allelic, homozygous, incomplete dominant, co dominant, etc etc is what I prefer....
And the definition given also made sense to me as well.



http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/28076572.jpg

Acts Like Super, ALS, is the best/most accurate term to use that does not confuse other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Acts Like Super, ALS, is the best/most accurate term to use that does not confuse other people.

---

That assumes other people know what "super" means. Otherwise, it's still just another bp-specific term that has to be explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K

So I understand all that. But the term "allelic" by itself is a generic term that mean "having to do with alleles" and you've defined allele quite fine I think. But just using the word "allelic" to me does not adequately describe the "Acts Like Super" behavior. Dominant is an allelic behavior. So is Recessive which was your example.

When someone says "this morph is recessive" we know what that means. When someone says "this is the Super/Homozygous for of this morph" we know what that means. Allelic covers all of the these. So if a new morph comes along how would know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic"?

Sure, "Act Like Super" is silly but no one else has come up with anything else that I know of. So there needs to be a more specific word or phrase to describe to behavior of "this 2 gene parent will produce offspring that all have either gene A or gene B but not both."

---

I think you have a misunderstanding of what allelic is, as you said it is relating to alleles, here is the simple google definition of allele: One of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome. The reason you can get either gene A or gene B but not none or both is because they are on the same place on the chromosome, that place is known as the locus.

Dominant and Recessive are classifications based on the phenotype (looks) of the animal in heterozygous (het) and homozygous (super) form, usually when compared to the wild trait (normal). It has nothing to do with alleles at all. Lesser and mojave are found on the same locus, albino and candy are found on the same locus, them being co-dom or recessive has nothing to do with it.

The trade already had a non-technical term, called "being compatible". Being compatible = allelic = being on the same locus = Acts like super. All describing the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasonC2K

So I understand all that. But the term "allelic" by itself is a generic term that mean "having to do with alleles" and you've defined allele quite fine I think. But just using the word "allelic" to me does not adequately describe the "Acts Like Super" behavior. Dominant is an allelic behavior. So is Recessive which was your example.

When someone says "this morph is recessive" we know what that means. When someone says "this is the Super/Homozygous for of this morph" we know what that means. Allelic covers all of the these. So if a new morph comes along how would know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic"?

Sure, "Act Like Super" is silly but no one else has come up with anything else that I know of. So there needs to be a more specific word or phrase to describe to behavior of "this 2 gene parent will produce offspring that all have either gene A or gene B but not both."

---

If a new morph comes along, we would not know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic".

Here is how we would know that how toffino works. Toffee and albino are alleles. The toffee mutant gene is recessive to the normal allele. The albino mutant gene is recessive to the normal gene. The albino mutant gene is codominant to the toffee mutant gene. A toffino snake has a toffee mutant gene paired with an albino mutant gene.

A snake can have one of the following gene pairs:
2 normal genes -- snake is normal and looks normal
toffee mutant gene and normal gene -- snake looks normal
albino mutant gene and normal gene -- snake looks normal
two toffee mutant genes -- snake has toffee appearance
two albino mutant genes -- snake has albino appearance
albino mutant gene and toffee mutant gene -- snake has toffino appearance.

Here is how we would know that how lesser and mojave work. The lesser and mojave mutant genes are alleles. The lesser mutant gene is codominant to the normal allele. The mojave mutant gene is codominant to the normal gene. The lesser mutant gene is dominant to the mojave mutant gene.

A snake can have one of the following gene pairs:
2 normal genes -- snake is normal and looks normal
lesser mutant gene and normal gene -- snake is a lesser platinum
mojave mutant gene and normal gene -- snake is a mojave
two lesser mutant genes -- snake is a blue-eyed leucistic (BEL)
two mojave mutant genes -- snake is nearly white with some pigment on top of head and neck.
lesser mutant gene and mojave mutant gene -- snake is a BEL, like a snake with two lesser mutant genes

Plug the genotypes into a mating and apply the appearances to the offspring for any mating you care to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Here is how we would know that how lesser and mojave work. The lesser and mojave mutant genes are alleles. The lesser mutant gene is codominant to the normal allele. The mojave mutant gene is codominant to the normal gene. The lesser mutant gene is dominant to the mojave mutant gene.

---

Actually the Lesser and Mojave mutated alleles are dominant to the normal wild phenotype. It only takes one copy of the mutated allele to overide the wild type allele. One copy of either lesser or mojave will make a lesser or mojave. Same goes for all "codominant" and "dominant" morphs.
Lesser is not dominant to Mojave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Actually the Lesser and Mojave mutated alleles are dominant to the normal wild phenotype. It only takes one copy of the mutated allele to overide the wild type allele. One copy of either lesser or mojave will make a lesser or mojave. Same goes for all "codominant" and "dominant" morphs.
Lesser is not dominant to Mojave.

---

They are not dominant to the normal, we know this as their homozygous form is a BEL, the lesser as we know it is a cross between the lesser and normal alleles, one does not dominant over the other.

The Lesser BEL is all white
The Lesser/Mojave BEL is all white
The Super Mojave is not.

Thus Lesser is dominant over mojave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

They are not dominant to the normal, we know this as their homozygous form is a BEL, the lesser as we know it is a cross between the lesser and normal alleles, one does not dominant over the other.

The Lesser BEL is all white
The Lesser/Mojave BEL is all white
The Super Mojave is not.

Thus Lesser is dominant over mojave

---

LOL all codominant or dominant morphs are dominant to the wild type. If a Lesser is bred to a normal, all of the offspring that caries that lesser allele are going to be a lessers. Same is said for all of the ball python morphs in existence. Simple as that.
Lesser is not dominant over mojave. I have absolutely no idea how you can even come to that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

LOL all codominant or dominant morphs are dominant to the wild type. If a Lesser is bred to a normal, all of the offspring that caries that lesser allele are going to be a lessers. Same is said for all of the ball python morphs in existence. Simple as that.
Lesser is not dominant over mojave. I have absolutely no idea how you can even come to that conclusion.

---

I'll be correct and say all the incomplete dominant morphs are incomplete dominant with the normal, all dominant morphs are dominant to the normal and all recessive are recessive. why is this? because what we classify a gene is, is compared to the normal.

Incomplete dominant (co-dom in the bp world) has 3 different phenotypes. Back to the lesser

2x Normal = Normal
Normal and Lesser = Lesser
2x Lesser = BEL

So looking at this information it is quite obvious that lesser does not dominant over the normal allele, because when the normal allele is not present the phenotype changes. The lesser we identify is the combination of the lesser and normal allele, its not JUST the lesser allele, as that would be a white snake with blue eyes. Incomplete dominance. not dominant.

Now for lesser mojave, we are not comparing them to normal, just each other.

2x Lesser = white snake
Lesser and Mojave = white snake
2x Mojave = grey head

So we have the same phenotype with Homozygous Lesser and Lesser/Mojave, The Mojave gene has no baring on the phenotype. Thus Lesser dominants over Mojave. This in no way effect their relationship with normal, which is incomplete dominance for both

So that how I came to that conclusion, I suggest you refresh on your classifications, what you are spreading is just misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I'll be correct and say all the incomplete dominant morphs are incomplete dominant with the normal, all dominant morphs are dominant to the normal and all recessive are recessive. why is this? because what we classify a gene is, is compared to the normal.

Incomplete dominant (co-dom in the bp world) has 3 different phenotypes. Back to the lesser

2x Normal = Normal
Normal and Lesser = Lesser
2x Lesser = BEL

So looking at this information it is quite obvious that lesser does not dominant over the normal allele, because when the normal allele is not present the phenotype changes. The lesser we identify is the combination of the lesser and normal allele, its not JUST the lesser allele, as that would be a white snake with blue eyes. Incomplete dominance. not dominant.

Now for lesser mojave, we are not comparing them to normal, just each other.

2x Lesser = white snake
Lesser and Mojave = white snake
2x Mojave = grey head

So we have the same phenotype with Homozygous Lesser and Lesser/Mojave, The Mojave gene has no baring on the phenotype. Thus Lesser dominants over Mojave. This in no way effect their relationship with normal, which is incomplete dominance for both

So that how I came to that conclusion, I suggest you refresh on your classifications, what you are spreading is just misinformation.

---

Sorry but you are the one spreading misinformation. Technically speaking the wild type phenotype is considered Dominant. Both the het and homo look the same. Co doms, in all living things, do not have 3 phenotypes.

You need only one dominant allele to express a dominant trait. Lesser is dominant to normal, or it could be that normal is dominant to lesser. Either way. If you breed a lesser to a normal you are going to get lessers and normals. If the hatchling gets one lesser allele from one parent and another normal allele from the other parent, that baby is going to be a lesser. The lesser allele is dominant over the normal allele. Simple fact.

Your theory on lesser and mojave is also incorrect.

Tessadas, I'm starting to wonder, do you actually believe this crap or do you just have fun trolling?

Sent from microwave using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coleslaw007

Tessadas, I'm starting to wonder, do you actually believe this crap or do you just have fun trolling?

Sent from microwave using Tapatalk 2

---

You know, since the past other genetic discussions on the forum, I was actually starting to wonder the same thing.....

It helps to bear in mind that, as a hobby, we misuse a lot of the terms involved.

We greatly simplify the genetics as that works well enough for what we require - it is very far from the truth of the molecular genetics involved however.

Exactly. If we're already simplifying, I personally see no reason to dumb it down even further. You enjoy the hobby? Cool, take a few minutes to learn at least the basics.

I'm not sure how many people I've talked to (in real life) who've been in the hobby far longer and had about zero clue how the genetics aspect worked, yet wouldn't believe me when I tried to explain it to them since I'm "a newb." I usually give up trying to explain, thank them for "teaching me," and let them carry on believing what they want. I'm talking definitely confused, like the guy who *insisted* I would get visuals, hets and poss hets from a hypo to morph hypo pairing.

I seriously don't even think I know much, I have a grasp of the fundamentals, but that's about it. There's TONS I have yet to learn, but I will make every effort to use the correct terminology and have a clear understanding of the basics at very least. How can I educate future customers if I don't bother to understand?

Sent from microwave using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Sorry but you are the one spreading misinformation. Technically speaking the wild type phenotype is considered Dominant. Both the het and homo look the same. Co doms, in all living things, do not have 3 phenotypes.

You need only one dominant allele to express a dominant trait. Lesser is dominant to normal, or it could be that normal is dominant to lesser. Either way. If you breed a lesser to a normal you are going to get lessers and normals. If the hatchling gets one lesser allele from one parent and another normal allele from the other parent, that baby is going to be a lesser. The lesser allele is dominant over the normal allele. Simple fact.

Your theory on lesser and mojave is also incorrect.

---

Classifications are based on a genotype vs phenotype relationship. I don't know how I can explain it to you any better, Paul explained it to you, I explained it in less words then felt like I expanded on it. I don't know what else to say, you have a total misunderstanding of classifications and apparently fail to even understand incomplete dominance and co-dominance.

As a total newbie to genetics I personally find allelic easier to understand. 'Acts Like Super' doesn't really seem to me a more accessible term because it hinges on someone having knowledge of what a super is, and how it acts. By the time someone is at the stage where they understand the concept of a super there is no reason why they shouldn't also understand the term allelic. I would think both terms/concepts are considered part of basic BP genetics. Using 'Acts Like Super' may also prevent people from forming a deeper understanding of what is actually going on with the genetics.

IMO, Acts Like Super is just an attempt to replace accurate jargon with inaccurate jargon. And as OhhWatALoser already wrote, we already have "compatible" as a non-scientific term. Two thumbs down on Acts Like Super.

There is so much about the genetics of these animals we don't understand. So me personaly I could care less what one breeder on a video felt to him like was the easiest way to describe how the genetics of an animal respond when bred out. "It's all wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" anyway.. LOL

+10pts of you get the reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freakie_frog

There is so much about the genetics of these animals we don't understand. So me personaly I could care less what one breeder on a video felt to him like was the easiest way to describe how the genetics of an animal respond when bred out. "It's all wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" anyway.. LOL

+10pts of you get the reference.

---

^ What the good Doctor said. ;)

If anyone is still having a hard time understanding,may I suggest staying at a Holiday Inn Express!