Genetics....

So have been doing a lot of reading and studying on genetics due to the Dom, Co-Dom, Recessive terms thrown around with the occasional Allele and Locus thrown in there.. So in trying to further my understanding of what I am seeing in breeding I am starting to believe there are some truths misrepresented. The first one would be our labeling of dominant genes. Dominant gene would mean that anything on the same locus and the corresponding allele would be overridden by the dominant gene. We have called Spider and Pinstripe dominant genes, when in reality they may be dominant to some alleles but they are in fact incomplete dominant, hence the spinner that comes from the mixing of the two. Also, Co-Dominance means that there will be evidence of the individual alleles present in the resulted phenotype, for example if Mojave and Cinnamon were true Co-Dom you would see part Mojave and part cinnamon on the same snake (which from study sounds a lot like paradox but I am not even going there), instead we once again see incomplete dominance because the result in most of our breeding shows a mixing of different alleles that are not distinctive of the originals. I am not saying I have this 100% down, because I surely don't but I think based on what I read you could refer to Mojave as an incomplete dominant gene with most other allelic combinations and co-dom is mostly in reference to genes like Spider/pinstripe, but in truth these alleles lie on different parts of the genes or possibly another place on the DNA strand all together... and fire away and bash me!!! lol

No bashing, you just have some terms a little confused.

To relate it to human genetics; a widow's peak is a dominant trait. Like the spider and pinstripe genes, which are generally going to be heterozygous dominant (Ss or Pp), if you were to cross two individuals, one with the dominant trait and one without, half the offspring will be born with and the other half without. The mixing of patterns you get from a spinner combo are more difficult to explain, since you can't really relate snake patterns to human genetics. Patterns just kind of end up mixed when you have more than one present.

Co-doms, or incomplete dominant is the term we use when a trait is expressed visually one way in the heterozygous form, but completely different in the homozygous form. There is no part-mixing when different co-doms are mixed, if you were to mix a mojave and a cinnamon, both would be equally expressed. With color morphs like this, think skin color; if you have a black parent and a white parent, you don't get patchy kids, do you? They end up somewhere in between.

Imperfect metaphors, since in the end ball pythons genetics are very different than humans, but do you kind of see what I mean? It can be a little confusing as far as technical terms go, since most of the terminology used was established by breeders and not geneticists. Just wait until you get into a debate on what "sex-linked" means in ball python breeding.

Short answer is yes the hobby has many terms screwed up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

The first one would be our labeling of dominant genes. Dominant gene would mean that anything on the same locus and the corresponding allele would be overridden by the dominant gene. We have called Spider and Pinstripe dominant genes, when in reality they may be dominant to some alleles but they are in fact incomplete dominant, hence the spinner that comes from the mixing of the two.

---

When we call classify a gene we are comparing it to the wild trait allele. Dominant means the phenotype looks the same in heterozygous and homozygous form. So a pinstripe and a super pinstripe (super being another made up term for the hobby) look the same. Spider and Pinstripe are incomplete dominant to each other and could be possibly recessive to other traits. We classify only based on the wild trait allele. Since there is no evidence of a homozygous spider, we really can't classify it. I made up the term "unproven dominant" to cover these traits with unknown homozygous forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

Also, Co-Dominance means that there will be evidence of the individual alleles present in the resulted phenotype, for example if Mojave and Cinnamon were true Co-Dom you would see part Mojave and part cinnamon on the same snake (which from study sounds a lot like paradox but I am not even going there), instead we once again see incomplete dominance because the result in most of our breeding shows a mixing of different alleles that are not distinctive of the originals.

---

That is correct. The only gene I know of that could be classified as truly co-dom is scaleless head/scaleless. Everything else as far as i can see would be inc-dom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Spider and Pinstripe are incomplete dominant to each other and could be possibly recessive to other traits.

---

Visually, yes, but not quite genetically. Terms like dominant/recessive/codom/incomplete...are relative terms. They only apply to other genes on the same locus, not to genes in other positions on the chromosome. For example, you can use these terms when comparing to the mojave allele to wild type, lesser, butter...but not spider or albino because spider and albino are in different areas.

The OP was close:
"Dominant gene would mean that anything on the same locus and the corresponding allele would be overridden by the dominant gene [True]. We have called Spider and Pinstripe dominant genes, when in reality they may be dominant to some alleles but they are in fact incomplete dominant, hence the spinner that comes from the mixing of the two[NO]."

Like the first part says, dominant refers to alleles on the same locus but because pinstripe and spider are not their genetic definition does not change.

Thanks for the replies... Now for a follow on: When Drawing out a Punnett square that is just a statistical tool used to show the distribution of genotypes NOT phenotypes, correct? for example: Take Champagne (C) mixed with Fire (F) and Enchi (E) . Now most people who have messed with the Champ gene know it drowns out most everything, which to me makes it pretty close to a true dominant as I have been able to find; but at the very least an incomplete dominant. So mixing a CF will result in a phenotype of a C however with Enchi the CE is very apparent because those two are VERY Co-Dominant. With that said does this mean that there is a hierarchy of alleles that express themselves over others/with others/almost move to recessive status? Because in my mind as 5+ gene snakes come out, a simple gene like Yellow Belly (still an awesome gene!!) will disappear and once in a blue moon reappear almost making one thing there is a recessive gene and YB will become het Ivory? I think right now we can categorize all these visual heterozygous genes because ball pythons have been relatively untouched for millennia's, but in the next 20-30 years will we be able to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

Thanks for the replies... Now for a follow on: When Drawing out a Punnett square that is just a statistical tool used to show the distribution of genotypes NOT phenotypes, correct? for example: Take Champagne (C) mixed with Fire (F) and Enchi (E) . Now most people who have messed with the Champ gene know it drowns out most everything, which to me makes it pretty close to a true dominant as I have been able to find; but at the very least an incomplete dominant. So mixing a CF will result in a phenotype of a C however with Enchi the CE is very apparent because those two are VERY Co-Dominant. With that said does this mean that there is a hierarchy of alleles that express themselves over others/with others/almost move to recessive status? Because in my mind as 5+ gene snakes come out, a simple gene like Yellow Belly (still an awesome gene!!) will disappear and once in a blue moon reappear almost making one thing there is a recessive gene and YB will become het Ivory? I think right now we can categorize all these visual heterozygous genes because ball pythons have been relatively untouched for millennia's, but in the next 20-30 years will we be able to?

---

NO. You are still thinking that every gene possible in the animal relates to every other gene in terms of dominant/codom/recessive...they dont. Those terms only apply to alleles on the same locus. So far champagne is only incomplete dominant (because there is a super, just lethal) with the wild type allele because that is currently the only other allele we know of on the same locus. You cannot compare champagne's incomplete dominantness to any other incomplete dominant gene we know of because they are ALL on other loci.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

Co-Dominance means that there will be evidence of the individual alleles present in the resulted phenotype, for example if Mojave and Cinnamon were true Co-Dom you would see part Mojave and part cinnamon on the same snake

---

I think the first thing to understand about ball pythons genetics is that we use the term co-dominance incorrectly. To date, there is no such thing as a "co-dominant" morph in ball pythons. Period. Everything that we call co-dominant is actually "incomplete dominant" but the other term is used so commonly that we're sort of stuck with it. So you can completely disregard any confusion you have about the true definition of co-dominance not matching ball python genetics. Read the first sentence of the description of Mojaves: http://www.worldofballpythons.com/morphs/mojave/

http://reptilesbreedingenterprise.com/Genetics_3.html

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ind...dominant-genes
Besides, co-dominance requires two fully dominant alleles expressing themselves at the same locus. Even if we were using the term correctly, Mojave and Cinnamon are found at different loci, so they cannot be described as co-dominant to each other, or even incompletely dominant to each other.

For example:

Lets say the Mojave allele is represented by M, and the normal allele at the same locus is represented by m. Incomplete dominance simply means that the Mm doesn't look exactly like MM or mm. There is a super mojave, a mojave, and a normal... meaning two M's is more phenotypically intense than just one M (hence the term incomplete dominance).

With the Cinnamon trait, the heterozygous cinnamon (Cc) looks different from either the super (CC) or the normal (cc).

Meanwhile, a Mojave Cinnamon would be MmCc, not MC. Mojave is incomplete dominant, and Cinnamon is incomplete dominant, but they are not incomplete dominant to each other. This is called independent assortment and it is crucial to understanding combo morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Family Jewels

To date, there is no such thing as a "co-dominant" morph in ball pythons. Period.

---

Why would scaleless head/scaleless not fall under this definition?

Definitions of codominance and incomplete dominance.

I've looked through a number of genetics texts trying to get the lowdown on codominance and incomplete dominance. So far, I have found three different definitions:
1. Position in the AA to aa appearance range. Two genes (A and a) produce three genotypes, AA, Aa, and aa. In incomplete dominance, an Aa individual has an appearance that is more or less intermediate between the appearances of the AA and aa individuals. Example -- red, pink and white flowers. In codominance, the Aa individual has both the AA and aa appearance. Example -- A, B and AB blood types in the ABO blood type system. (By the way, this definition has a third class. Overdominance, where the Aa individual's appearance is outside the AA to aa range.)

2. Number of functional gene products. Two genes (A and a) produce three genotypes, AA, Aa, and aa. In incomplete dominance, only the A gene produces a functional product . The Aa individual produces less product than an AA individual. This causes an Aa individual to have an appearance that is more or less intermediate between the appearances of the AA and aa individuals. Example -- red, pink and white flowers. In codominance, both genes produce a functional product. The Aa individual has both products and both the AA and aa appearance. Example -- A, B and AB blood types in the ABO blood type system. Overdominance is incorporated into codominance.

3. Lumping definition. Two genes (A and a) produce three genotypes, AA, Aa, and aa. Each genotype produces a distinctive appearance. Codominance is the preferred term. Both incomplete dominance and overdominance are synonyms. Examples -- red, pink and white flowers. A, B and AB blood types in the ABO blood type system.

I prefer definition 3 because the other two do not agree. And just changing the test can change the classification.

For example, in humans there is normal hemoglobin and sickle cell hemoglobin. Using definition 1, when a blood smear is examined under the microscope, normal hemoglobin (aa) produces few or no sickled red blood cells. AA hemoglobin produces many sickled red blood cells, while Aa hemoglobin produces an intermediate number of sickled red blood cells. Therefore sickle cell gene is incompletely dominant to the normal gene. However, protein electrophoresis can separate the two hemoglobins, which makes the sickle cell gene a codominant by both definition 1 and 2. The sickle cell gene is an overdominant, too. Because the average life span of an Aa individual is considerably longer than the average life spans of AA and aa humans where malaria is common and medical treatment is poor.

Another example. Siamese cats have two Siamese coat color genes, and Burmese cats have two Burmese coat color genes. The Tokinese cat has a gene pair made up of a Burmese gene and a Siamese gene. The Tonkinese coat color is intermediate between the Burmese and Siamese coat colors. But both genes have a functional product, making them codominant to each other.

Now let's take the mojave gene. A super mojave has some pigment on the top of the head and neck. A super lesser has no pigment on the top of the head and neck. So apparantly the mojave gene is doing something functional even if greatly impaired compared to the normal gene. That would make the mojave gene an incomplete dominant (to the normal gene) by definition 1 and a codominant to the normal gene by definition 2.

For what it's worth, it is hard enough teaching the difference between dominant, codominant and recessive genes. Adding the hassle with incomplete dominant and overdominant just isn't worth it, IMO. Especially as many would simplify things by classing everything as an incomplete dominant. So it's definition 3 for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

Thanks for the replies... Now for a follow on: When Drawing out a Punnett square that is just a statistical tool used to show the distribution of genotypes NOT phenotypes, correct? for example: Take Champagne (C) mixed with Fire (F) and Enchi (E) . Now most people who have messed with the Champ gene know it drowns out most everything, which to me makes it pretty close to a true dominant as I have been able to find; but at the very least an incomplete dominant. So mixing a CF will result in a phenotype of a C however with Enchi the CE is very apparent because those two are VERY Co-Dominant. With that said does this mean that there is a hierarchy of alleles that express themselves over others/with others/almost move to recessive status? Because in my mind as 5+ gene snakes come out, a simple gene like Yellow Belly (still an awesome gene!!) will disappear and once in a blue moon reappear almost making one thing there is a recessive gene and YB will become het Ivory? I think right now we can categorize all these visual heterozygous genes because ball pythons have been relatively untouched for millennia's, but in the next 20-30 years will we be able to?

---

Yes. A Punnett square is just a statistical tool used to show the distribution of genotypes NOT phenotypes. Phenotypes are only derived from the genotypes.

You are getting into epistasis with the rest of this post.

New word. Epistasis = A mutant gene at one locus masks the effect of a mutant gene at another locus. Example. In the house mouse, the albino (c) mutant gene prevents melanin from forming. The nonagouti (a) mutant gene changes the normal agouti color to black. The c mutant gene is epistatic to the a mutant gene because a cc mouse and an aa cc mouse look identical -- both are albino; the effect of the a gene is not apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

So have been doing a lot of reading and studying on genetics due to the Dom, Co-Dom, Recessive terms thrown around with the occasional Allele and Locus thrown in there.. So in trying to further my understanding of what I am seeing in breeding I am starting to believe there are some truths misrepresented. The first one would be our labeling of dominant genes. Dominant gene would mean that anything on the same locus and the corresponding allele would be overridden by the dominant gene. We have called Spider and Pinstripe dominant genes, when in reality they may be dominant to some alleles but they are in fact incomplete dominant, hence the spinner that comes from the mixing of the two. Also, Co-Dominance means that there will be evidence of the individual alleles present in the resulted phenotype, for example if Mojave and Cinnamon were true Co-Dom you would see part Mojave and part cinnamon on the same snake (which from study sounds a lot like paradox but I am not even going there), instead we once again see incomplete dominance because the result in most of our breeding shows a mixing of different alleles that are not distinctive of the originals. I am not saying I have this 100% down, because I surely don't but I think based on what I read you could refer to Mojave as an incomplete dominant gene with most other allelic combinations and co-dom is mostly in reference to genes like Spider/pinstripe, but in truth these alleles lie on different parts of the genes or possibly another place on the DNA strand all together... and fire away and bash me!!! lol

---

You are correct in writing that herpers misrepresent some truths. That is why I prefer standard genetics definitions to the herper versions. You might like to look at the Genetics Home Reference -- http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook. It's free.

The dominant/codominant/recessive classification results from a comparison. For example, both the mojave gene and the lesser gene are codominant (for this discussion a synonym of incomplete dominant) to the corresponding normal gene. However, the lesser gene is dominant to the mojave gene. Because both the super lesser and the het lesser/mojave snakes are blue-eyed white, while the super mojave is nearly a blue-eyed white but has some pigment on the top of the head and neck. The classification is different because the comparison is to different gene. I could point to several examples (not in snakes, yet) where one gene is dominant to a second gene, codominant to a third, and recessive to a fourth.

The comparison can be either explicit or implied. "The lesser gene is dominant to the mojave gene" is an explicit comparison. "The lesser gene is a codominant mutant gene" is an implied comparison. And when the comparison is implied, the assumption is always that the comparison is with the corresponding normal gene.

All I know is that cinnamon + mojave looks great.


:taz:



http://www.worldofballpythons.com/morphs/savannah-ball/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Why would scaleless head/scaleless not fall under this definition?

---

Scaleless heads are one of the better arguments I've seen for true codominance in ball pythons. I say this because unlike most mutations, the heterozygote has parts of both phenotypes (normal and scaleless) represented in *patches*. The only problem I see with it is that it's not even close to an even distribution between the two phenotypes.

In chicken color, codominance is evenly distributed: http://www.angelfire.com/super2/bioc...Notes/wpeB.gif

In shorthorn cattle, roughly 50/50 distribution: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...CEEQMyg5MDk4ZA

In Camellia flowers, again 50/50 (-ish): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ododendron.jpg

etc. One (co)dominant allele is just as likely to be phenotypically represented as the other (co)dominant allele at any random point on the animal.

However in the scaleless head, the scaleless phenotype is limited to less than 1% of the snake's body and it's always in the same place... the normal allele seems pretty dominant over the scaleless allele. It sort of reminds me of het pied markers (ringers) peaking through despite their recessiveness to the normal allele. Meanwhile, in the codominant ABO blood system, a person with AB blood doesn't have 99% A antigens and 1% B antigens... the antigens are evenly distributed approximately 50/50 across the surface of the cell.

Another thing I noticed about widely agreed upon examples of codominance is that they usually involve at least three alleles at the same locus. For example, spotted and dotted lentils are considered codominant (when combined they create an equally spotted and dotted lentil), and each is individually dominant to the recessive clear allele. Likewise, A antigens and B antigens are codominant to each other, and each is individually dominant to the recessive O allele. But that's just a random tangent.

Like I said, scaleless heads make a reasonable argument for codominance... although they don't fit the picture with what we'd (ideally) expect to see, and I'll admit I don't really consider them to be in quite the same category as color and pattern morphs.



Ideally, a codominant ball python morph would look something like an extreme paradox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

You are correct in writing that herpers misrepresent some truths. That is why I prefer standard genetics definitions to the herper versions. You might like to look at the Genetics Home Reference -- http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook. It's free.

The dominant/codominant/recessive classification results from a comparison. For example, both the mojave gene and the lesser gene are codominant (for this discussion a synonym of incomplete dominant) to the corresponding normal gene. However, the lesser gene is dominant to the mojave gene. Because both the super lesser and the het lesser/mojave snakes are blue-eyed white, while the super mojave is nearly a blue-eyed white but has some pigment on the top of the head and neck. The classification is different because the comparison is to different gene. I could point to several examples (not in snakes, yet) where one gene is dominant to a second gene, codominant to a third, and recessive to a fourth.

The comparison can be either explicit or implied. "The lesser gene is dominant to the mojave gene" is an explicit comparison. "The lesser gene is a codominant mutant gene" is an implied comparison. And when the comparison is implied, the assumption is always that the comparison is with the corresponding normal gene.

---

Lesser is NOT "dominant" to the Mojave gene in any way shape or form. They are actually both codominant genes. And there is no het lesser/mojave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Lesser is NOT "dominant" to the Mojave gene in any way shape or form. They are actually both codominant genes. And there is no het lesser/mojave.

---

Dominant mean looking the same in heterozygous and homozygous form. Super lesser and lesser/mojave can be argued to look the same. however with the amount of yellowed out lesser/mojave I have seen i will disagree.

However every lesser is a het and every mojave is a het. Paul is using real genetic terms for the most part

I should have clarified what I meant by "het lesser/mojave". That is a ball python that has a gene pair made up of one lesser gene and one mojave gene. It is a visual het, not a normal-looking het.

Both the lesser gene and the mojave gene are codominant to the NORMAL gene. Comparing the lesser with the mojave gene is a whole new ball game. The relationships with the normal gene are irrelevant because the normal gene is not included in the new comparison.

A ball python with two lesser genes is blue-eyed leucistic.
A ball python with a lesser gene paired with a mojave gene is also blue-eyed leucistic. It looks like a ball python with two lesser genes.
A ball python with two mojave genes is nearly leucistic but has some pigment on the top of the head and neck.

That matches the definitions of a dominant and a recessive gene. The lesser gene is dominant to the mojave gene, and the and the mojave gene is recessive to the lesser gene.

The pinstripe gene is dominant to the normal gene because a snake with a pinstripe gene paired with a normal gene looks like a snake with two pinstripe genes. See the parallel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Lesser is NOT "dominant" to the Mojave gene in any way shape or form. They are actually both codominant genes. And there is no het lesser/mojave.

---

Mojave is incomplete dominant because the heterozygous form is a completely different phenotype from the homozygous ("super") mutant allele, and it is different from the homozygous normal allele. Same goes for lessers.

Also, all lessers and mojaves are both hets, but calling them hets is redundant since "het mojave" means "mojave", and "het lesser" means lesser. The term het does not mean hidden, it simply means heterozygous (homozygous refers to either the super or the normal animal). You are however very correct that they are not dominant to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

I should have clarified what I meant by "het lesser/mojave". That is a ball python that has a gene pair made up of one lesser gene and one mojave gene. It is a visual het, not a normal-looking het.

Both the lesser gene and the mojave gene are codominant to the NORMAL gene. Comparing the lesser with the mojave gene is a whole new ball game. The relationships with the normal gene are irrelevant because the normal gene is not included in the new comparison.

A ball python with two lesser genes is blue-eyed leucistic.
A ball python with a lesser gene paired with a mojave gene is also blue-eyed leucistic. It looks like a ball python with two lesser genes.
A ball python with two mojave genes is nearly leucistic but has some pigment on the top of the head and neck.

That matches the definitions of a dominant and a recessive gene. The lesser gene is dominant to the mojave gene, and the and the mojave gene is recessive to the lesser gene.

The pinstripe gene is dominant to the normal gene because a snake with a pinstripe gene paired with a normal gene looks like a snake with two pinstripe genes. See the parallel?

---

This is not exactly true. We classify ball python morphs by their genetic dominance, not their visual dominance. while you could say that visually one gene is recessive to another, we will have a very long and non productive discussion if you mean to classify every ball python gene in relation to any other gene.

cont'd

Also, paulh makes a good point about Lessers and Mojaves. Lesser and Mojave appear to exist at the same locus, and if they do, they must have a dominance relationship to one another (dominance relationship doesn't necessarily mean dominant, it just means that their status can be described by their relation to one or more alleles at that locus, in addition to the obvious wild type). You could argue (using paulh's logic about super mojaves looking different) that:

L is dominant to M, and both L and M are incomplete dominant to the normal allele.

Simple dominance:
LL- solid white lucy
LM- solid white lucy
MM- grey head lucy

Incomplete dominance:
LL - solid white lucy
Ln - lesser
nn - normal

Incomplete dominance:
MM - grey head lucy
Mn - mojave
nn - normal

Again, this only works because mojave and lesser probably exist at the same allele. The same can not be said about the overwhelming majority of morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daigga

This is not exactly true. We classify ball python morphs by their genetic dominance, not their visual dominance. while you could say that visually one gene is recessive to another, we will have a very long and non productive discussion if you mean to classify every ball python gene in relation to any other gene.

---

I have no intention of trying to classify every ball python gene in relation to just any other gene. Only the genes that can form gene pairs. The spider and pinstripe (to name only two) cannot form a gene pair and therefore have no dominance relationship.

Family Jewels hit the bullseye when writing (above) "Lesser and Mojave appear to exist at the same locus, and if they do, they must have a dominance relationship to one another ."

Using this logic makes every ball python morph a het. There are so many expert geneticist in this community that only make things more convoluted with their misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Using this logic makes every ball python morph a het. There are so many expert geneticist in this community that only make things more convoluted with their misinformation.

---

That or homozygous, do we really have to refer you to this thread? http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...Basic-Genetics

Quote:

---

Heterozygous (Het) – An unmatched pair of alleles at any given locus…this term is usually reserved for recessive traits that do not show up even though one gene is present.

---

while the lingo might only use it for recessive it doesn't change the fact that every gene is going to have a het and homo form, the classification doesn't matter. A classification comes from phenotype of the animal in het and homo form.

well maybe i shouldn't say every gene, unless something physically happens to stop the homozygous form, desert females not being able to lay a viable clutch stops the homozygous desert.

The irony of you condescendingly using words such as logic and misinformation :)

Never ceases to amaze me. Ignorance that thinks everyone else is ignorant. Trust me I know more about genetics than you do.
Your claim to fame is having someone put together some code to remake someone elses work into your work.
You are a cool dude though.... seriously. :gj:
Hope the rest of your life is just as appealing as your knowledge and attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Never ceases to amaze me. Ignorance that thinks everyone else is ignorant. Trust me I know more about genetics than you do.
Your claim to fame is having someone put together some code to remake someone elses work into your work.
You are a cool dude though.... seriously. :gj:
Hope the rest of your life is just as appealing as your knowledge and attitude.

---

Tess your game is always the same, call everyone else stupid but when it comes to actually producing something for your claims you fail nearly every time. If you know so much, why don't you actually try to help others learn, I've called you out to show your vast knowledge multiple times, but again failure nearly every time. Apparently your idea of showing your vast knowledge is posting links and telling people they are stupid if they can't figure it out. This community is supposed to be about helping people, yet you seem stuck on trying to put yourself on top of everyone else. If your comments make no sense yes I am going to rain on your parade especially when you still act so condescending after years of this.

I'm not saying I'm perfect and might even have a snarky comment once in a while. I also know that there are quite a few individuals that know much more than me in this hobby, some in this very thread. Some of them work in the genetics field for a living. What I know is thanks to them. However they are able to make claims and back them up with some sort of evidence and be able to explain it, you know help the community. Even look at your most recent comment, what kind of contribution is that? A claim with no explanation and an insult, same song and dance.

Yep thats all that genetic calc is, a copy of WoBP. After the initial release who has been copying who? lol Can't really make me feel bad about that. btw what's your claim to fame tess? If you must know I consider the rest of my life pretty great. You can't make me feel bad about that either. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

Never ceases to amaze me. Ignorance that thinks everyone else is ignorant. Trust me I know more about genetics than you do.
Your claim to fame is having someone put together some code to remake someone elses work into your work.
You are a cool dude though.... seriously. :gj:
Hope the rest of your life is just as appealing as your knowledge and attitude.

---

I read a Michael Crichton book once. :rolleye2:

So in further research... Candy (or toffee) gene throws the ball python terms out the window and can only be understood in real genetics... Toffe = Recessive gene ; Albino = Recessive gene; Het albino x Het Toffee = Toffino. Toffino is a Visual of a recessive gene that are distinctly different. In ball python terminology it doesn't make since, but understanding Alleles/Locus/phenotypes/Genotypes is the only way that makes since. Toffee and Albino reside in same locus and their alleles match making them allelic. Albino to Toffino will result in 50% Albino 50% Toffino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

So in further research... Candy (or toffee) gene throws the ball python terms out the window and can only be understood in real genetics... Toffe = Recessive gene ; Albino = Recessive gene; Het albino x Het Toffee = Toffino. Toffino is a Visual of a recessive gene that are distinctly different. In ball python terminology it doesn't make since, but understanding Alleles/Locus/phenotypes/Genotypes is the only way that makes since. Toffee and Albino reside in same locus and their alleles match making them allelic. Albino to Toffino will result in 50% Albino 50% Toffino.

---

The definition of "het" has gotten so far off the standard genetics definition that I have to specify the two genes in a gene pair to be sure I am understood. For example, "Het albino x Het Toffee = Toffino". Some people use the "x" character to mean "mated to" or "crossed with". Other people use the "x" character to mean "and". So, does "Het albino x Het Toffee" mean a ball python with a normal gene paired with an albino gene mated to a ball python with a normal gene paired with a toffee gene? Or does it mean a gene pair made up of an albino gene and a toffee gene?

By the way, jdhutton2000 is using the term allele correctly. The definition at www.dictionary.reference.com is "any of two or more variants of a gene that have the same relative position on homologous chromosomes and are responsible for alternative characteristics, such as smooth or wrinkled seeds in peas." Every genetics text I've seen gives the same definition in more or less similar words.

@paul Yeah that's what I mean when I say het Albino x het Toffee I am saying that Na x Nt = "at" which is a visual recessive gene Toffino. Kinda opened my eyes cause I naively thought all recessives required a homozygous for to show, and didn't even occur to me that recessive genes could behave the same as our co-dom/incomplete dominate (visual heterozygous) genes. So today was a breakthrough! Now to start a recessive project to find Allelic recessive genes out! LoL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

does "Het albino x Het Toffee" mean a ball python with a normal gene paired with an albino gene mated to a ball python with a normal gene paired with a toffee gene? Or does it mean a gene pair made up of an albino gene and a toffee gene?

---

I've always used (and seen it used) to indicate a breeding. So a het albino X het toffee would produce a 1:3 phenotypic ratio of toffinos and normals (66% poss het for either albino or toffee). However it sometimes depends on context.

NERD actually stumbled on a very convenient genetic term to describe what we're seeing when two "compatible" mutant allelic traits combine to produce a unique phenotype: Compound heterozygous.http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ind...cts-like-super

NERD lists all of the following as compound heterozygous:http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ind...uper-balls/als

As you can see, the definition fits perfectly with the Toffino / Candino phenomenon... as well as several others that have created difficulties for ball python terminology.

For example:
Gg = gravel (dominant gene/ heterozygous)
Yy = yellowbelly (dominant gene/ heterozygous)
GY = highway (compound heterozygous)

Tt = het toffee (recessive gene/ heterozygous)
Aa = het albino (recessive gene/ heterozygous)
ta = Toffino (compound heterozygous)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdhutton2000

@paul Yeah that's what I mean when I say het Albino x het Toffee I am saying that Na x Nt = "at" which is a visual recessive gene Toffino. Kinda opened my eyes cause I naively thought all recessives required a homozygous for to show, and didn't even occur to me that recessive genes could behave the same as our co-dom/incomplete dominate (visual heterozygous) genes. So today was a breakthrough! Now to start a recessive project to find Allelic recessive genes out! LoL

---

Toffino is not a gene. Toffino is the appearance of a ball python that has a gene pair made up of a toffee gene and an albino gene. The identy of the genes and the identity of the snake's appearance are two different things. Another example of this is a ball python with a mojave gene paired with a lesser gene. The appearance of such a snake is blue-eyed leucistic.

If toffino was a gene, then toffino snakes would be able to breed true. But toffino mated to toffino always produces albino, toffino, and toffee snakes.

I looked up compound heterozygous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_heterozygosity I am not too happy about using the term. Mostly because it is another piece of jargon for newbies to learn and misuse. NERD is expanding the meaning to any gene pair in which the two genes are not the same and neither gene is a normal gene. Which leads to confusion with visual het -- any gene pair in which the two genes are not the same and the creature does not look normal. IMO, it is easier to simply identify a gene pair by the genes -- lesser/mojave, normal/albino, albino/albino, normal/normal, etc.

I like the gene symbol system at http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/gene.shtml (See sections 2.3 and 3.1 in particular.) The mouse geneticists have answered nomenclature questions than herper geneticists haven't imagined yet.

Gene pairs with two different genes that are both recessive to the normal gene have already turned up in several species of snakes -- reticulated pythons, corn snakes, boa constrictor, and others. There are hundreds of them in the lab mouse. I have no doubt that more will be found in snakes, eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

Toffino is not a gene. Toffino is the appearance of a ball python that has a gene pair made up of a toffee gene and an albino gene. The identy of the genes and the identity of the snake's appearance are two different things. Another example of this is a ball python with a mojave gene paired with a lesser gene. The appearance of such a snake is blue-eyed leucistic.

If toffino was a gene, then toffino snakes would be able to breed true. But toffino mated to toffino always produces albino, toffino, and toffee snakes.

I looked up compound heterozygous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_heterozygosity I am not too happy about using the term. Mostly because it is another piece of jargon for newbies to learn and misuse. NERD is expanding the meaning to any gene pair in which the two genes are not the same and neither gene is a normal gene. Which leads to confusion with visual het -- any gene pair in which the two genes are not the same and the creature does not look normal. IMO, it is easier to simply identify a gene pair by the genes -- lesser/mojave, normal/albino, albino/albino, normal/normal, etc.

I like the gene symbol system at http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/gene.shtml (See sections 2.3 and 3.1 in particular.) The mouse geneticists have answered nomenclature questions than herper geneticists haven't imagined yet.

Gene pairs with two different genes that are both recessive to the normal gene have already turned up in several species of snakes -- reticulated pythons, corn snakes, boa constrictor, and others. There are hundreds of them in the lab mouse. I have no doubt that more will be found in snakes, eventually.

---

This and some of the other stuff some people here try to say is doing the same thing. This hobby already has way too many things wrong with it. Why compound this further for others? Yes technically all single gene morphs are Het for the "super" Homo form. You calling a mojave a het is not helping matters. Just like someone else who is trying to say that a Banana isn't a banana but a het and that a super Banana is actually a Banana. That's pretty ignorant imo. A Banana is a Banana and a super Banana is a Super Banana.
The Toffino is a recessive genetic combination that works just like Super Stripe, Vanilla cream or mojave/lesser and a few other combos. The only difference is that its a recessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

This and some of the other stuff some people here try to say is doing the same thing. This hobby already has way too many things wrong with it. Why compound this further for others? Yes technically all single gene morphs are Het for the "super" Homo form. You calling a mojave a het is not helping matters. Just like someone else who is trying to say that a Banana isn't a banana but a het and that a super Banana is actually a Banana. That's pretty ignorant imo. A Banana is a Banana and a super Banana is a Super Banana.
The Toffino is a recessive genetic combination that works just like Super Stripe, Vanilla cream or mojave/lesser and a few other combos. The only difference is that its a recessive.

---

You know, if we simply listed the two genes in a gene pair, we could dispense with the terms heterozygous, visual het, and compound het.

The point that I was trying to make is that toffino is a combination of genes. If toffino was a gene, then it would be possible to have snakes with 2 toffino genes. Mating a snake with two toffino genes to another snake with two toffino genes would produce only snakes with two toffino genes. This does not happen. The dominant/codominant/recessive classification results from the comparison of two genes that can form a gene pair. Both albino and toffee genes are recessive to the corresponding normal gene. As toffino comes from a gene combination and not a gene, toffino cannot be a recessive.

I agree with the statement that a Banana is a Banana and a super Banana is a Super Banana.

Definitions:
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=genotype
A genotype is an individual's collection of genes. The term also can refer to the two alleles inherited for a particular gene. The genotype is expressed when the information encoded in the genes' DNA is used to make protein and RNA molecules. The expression of the genotype contributes to the individual's observable traits, called the phenotype.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=phenotype
A phenotype is an individual's observable traits, such as height, eye color, and blood type. The genetic contribution to the phenotype is called the genotype. Some traits are largely determined by the genotype, while other traits are largely determined by environmental factors.

The trouble is that herpers play very loosely with the concepts of the genotype and the phenotype. A banana ball python displays the banana trait (phenotype) because the gene pair is made up of a normal gene and a banana mutant gene (genotype). A super banana ball python displays the super banana trait (phenotype) because the gene pair is made up of two banana mutant genes (genotype).

When we breeders are predicting the results from a given pair of snakes, we need to know the snakes' genotypes. That is why we call a normal-looking snake (phenotype) a het albino (genotype) if the snake has an albino mutant gene paired with a normal gene. Or call a ball python with two pinstripe genes a super pinstripe even though it looks like a pinstripe ball python (which has a gene pair made up of a pinstripe mutant gene and a normal gene).

IMO, we ought to list a ball python's genotype and phenotype when we write.

Quote:

---

IMO, it is easier to simply identify a gene pair by the genes -- lesser/mojave, normal/albino, albino/albino, normal/normal, etc.

---

I didn't mean that "compound heterozygote" should be promoted as common terminology for bp breeding. I just found the term personally helpful in understanding how to attribute genotypes for compatible morphs in a Punnet square (using ta instead of ttaa, or TtAa). Mouse breeders have a better foundation (terminology-wise) and I actually wanted to use the superscripts for the allelic traits...I just couldn't figure out how to do it in this forum. I'm genuinely curious as to what mouse breeders use in the place of "compound heterozygote" (if anything?). In normal conversation however, I completely agree that lesser/mojave, normal/albino is most practical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

NERD is expanding the meaning to any gene pair in which the two genes are not the same and neither gene is a normal gene. Which leads to confusion with visual het -- any gene pair in which the two genes are not the same and the creature does not look normal.

---

While I agree that NERD is expanding the meaning a little from the Wikipedia page on medical genetics, I don't think it's that far off at all. A compound heterozygote is when two mutant alleles pair up at the same locus to create a new (and exaggerated) phenotype. This is completely different from a single-mutation visual het in which one of the alleles is the wild type, and you're only dealing with a single mutant allele. This is really not any different from the medical definition.

Description describing a genetic disorder in humans----

"When a person has one mutated copy, he or she is called a carrier or heterozygote. When a person has two of the same mutated copies, he or she is called a homozygote. When a person has two different – but mutated – copies, he or she is called a compound heterozygote."

What's happening at a molecular level is that the normal allele has a modifying effect on the mutant allele. In other words, the normal allele tries to "pick up the slack" as much as possible. However when both alleles are mutant (i.e. typically causing some enzymatic pathway to malfunction), then there's nobody around to pick up the slack. There is no modifying influence from a normal allele. This "doubling up" of mutant alleles can occur as a homozygote (albino) or as a heterozygote (toffino)... and even though I would never try to explain any of this to someone who doesn't care about genetics, I personally find it fascinating.

I agree mostly with the both of you, family Jewels and paulh.

How ever I do not think we should add 2 gened names to things such as a Banana, Mojave or what have you. There is no need to say a Mojave is a Normal/Mojave. Or that a Banana is a Banana/Normal.
Lets keep it simple for people to understand. Heck most new people take a few months or years to even understand the normal stuff as it is. Banana is Banana , Mojave a Mojave and etc lol!
Now when one is talking about a BEL that is comprised of 2 different genes then yes, we should list both genes as otherwise who would know?

Family Jewels:

Two ways to indicate a superscript.

1. A lot of text editors will not do superscripts. In that case, set it off with a ^ character. In math, 3^3 equals 3² equals 3 squared equals 9. The symbol c^ch means c with ch as superscript.

2. Some forums have editors that will do superscripts. c^ch. This one does do superscripts. Start the superscript with a <left bracket character>sup<right bracket character>, and end the superscript with a <left bracket character>/sup<right bracket character>. The left and right bracket characters are the two keys just to the right of p key on my keyboard. [ and ].

I find these things fascinting, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

I agree mostly with the both of you, family Jewels and paulh.

How ever I do not think we should add 2 gened names to things such as a Banana, Mojave or what have you. There is no need to say a Mojave is a Normal/Mojave. Or that a Banana is a Banana/Normal.
Lets keep it simple for people to understand. Heck most new people take a few months or years to even understand the normal stuff as it is. Banana is Banana , Mojave a Mojave and etc lol!
Now when one is talking about a BEL that is comprised of 2 different genes then yes, we should list both genes as otherwise who would know?

---

I would like to keep things as simple as possible. But how can I explain why mojave mated to mojave does not produce 100% mojave babies without using genes? After all, albino mated to albino produces 100% albino babies. What makes a mojave x mojave mating different from an albino x albino mating?

I'd be interested in your take on a minimum list of genetics jargon. I don't think I could get by without dominant, codominant, recessive, normal, mutant, gene and gene pair. Should morph, base morph, and super be added? I am assuming that most forum attendees know what cell, egg, sperm and trait mean.

Wow... should have kept up with this debate! LoL. I think in the end, saying het Mojave is wrong, because it would be het BEL (grey head)... het would be in reference to the "super" or homozygous form of the gene. Like Paulh was saying people are confusing phenol and geno types.
Now I will also say that when we are on a Ball Python genetics forum, using proper genetics terms, especially when that was the sole purpose of this thread was to talk about the ambiguity between real and BP genetics.

And "het BEL (grey head)" is another example of confusing phenotypes and genotypes. BEL (grey head) is the phenotype produced by a gene pair made up of two copies of a mutant gene named mojave. Mojave is the phenotype produced by a gene pair made up of a normal gene and a mojave mutant gene. I'd agree with het BEL (grey head) designation if the mutant gene was named BEL (grey head).

I think it is easier to parallel nomenclature between recessive, codominant, and dominant genes (as the pro geneticists do) than to make it up as we go along.

Two genes can make three gene pairs.

Albino is a mutant gene that is recessive to the corresponding normal gene.
Genotype = Two normal genes = homozygous normal. Phenotype (appearance) = normal.
Genotype = One normal gene and one albino gene = heterozygous albino. Phenotype (appearance) = normal.
Genotype = Two albino genes = homozygous albino. Phenotype (appearance) = albino.

Mojave is a mutant gene that is codominant to the corresponding normal gene.
Genotype = Two normal genes = homozygous normal. Phenotype (appearance) = normal.
Genotype = One normal gene and one mojave gene = heterozygous mojave. Phenotype (appearance) = mojave.
Genotype = Two mojave genes = homozygous mojave. Phenotype (appearance) = BEL (grey head).

Pinstripe is a mutant gene that is dominant to the corresponding normal gene.
Genotype = Two normal genes = homozygous normal. Phenotype (appearance) = normal.
Genotype = One normal gene and one pinstripe gene = heterozygous pinstripe. Phenotype (appearance) = pinstripe.
Genotype = Two albino genes = homozygous pinstripe. Phenotype (appearance) = pinstripe.

As it is now, just giving the phenotypes in a breeding problem requires translating them to genotypes before doing the problem. That can stop a newbie cold, even one who is familiar with the principles of genetics. Giving the genotypes allows anyone familiar with the principles of genetics to get the correct genotype answer to the problem even if that person is unfamiliar with the names to the corresponding phenotypes.