Just a question...

We all know you can get SUPERS from breeding two of the same genetically based snake, my question is can there be such thing as a SUPER NORMAL..??

Based on my understanding nope, if you did breed two normals and got something that looked extreme it would indicate a recessive gene is at play and both parents were hets or some subtle codoms are reacting. Getting a super is part of proving out if a unique looking normal is inheritable, more than just a normal.

all normals are "super" normals in the way the hobby uses the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

all normals are "super" normals in the way the hobby uses the word.

---

Very true SIR or MA'AM.. was talking about seeing the all white or all black forms of the "supers" but i'm seeing that a SUPER NORMAL(all blackorwhite) is a big NO-NO...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ECechoHO

Very true SIR or MA'AM.. was talking about seeing the all white or all black forms of the "supers" but i'm seeing that a SUPER NORMAL(all blackorwhite) is a big NO-NO...

---

I'm not sure you understand the genetics involved. Not all super forms are all white or all black and you can only produce a super form by pairing a co-dom to a co-dom. There is no super form produced from recessive to recessive or dom to dom pairing.

This video might help you have a better understanding on the basic ball python genetics. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5vSOPLub_c

Normals are normals. They are a genetic trait that is not mutated so not a morph. They are actually a dominant gene as well if I am remembering correctly. Being that they are not a mutated genetic trait they would not have a super form that would be all black or all white at all. The super form looks exactly like the non super form but in reality every normal is a super normal.

Sent from my 7040N using Tapatalk

All genes are either mutant genes or normal genes.

A normal gene is the gene most commonly found in a given gene pair in the snakes in the wild. A normal ball python has two copies of the appropriate normal gene in each gene pair and looks pretty much like most of the ball pythons crawling around Africa.
A mutant gene is NOT the gene most commonly found in a given gene pair in the snakes in the wild. A mutant ball python has at least one mutant gene in at least one gene pair and does not look like most of the ball pythons crawling around Africa.

The mojave gene is a mutant gene that is codominant to the corresponding normal gene. A mojave ball python has a mojave gene paired with a normal gene. A super mojave ball python has two copies of the mojave gene in that gene pair and does not look like a mojave. Therefore, a a ball python with two copies of the normal gene in that gene pair is a super normal because it does not look like a mojave ball python, too. And the appearance of that super normal ball python is ... (drum roll) ... normal! In other words, that super normal ball python looks pretty much like most of the ball pythons crawling around Africa.

We are using the normal gene as the standard of comparison. A mutant gene is dominant/codominant/recessive to the corresponding normal gene. Used this way, the normal gene is neither dominant, codominant nor recessive.

Older genetics literature and even modern texts use dominant/codominant/recessive without a standard. The albino gene is recessive to the corresponding normal gene, and the normal gene is dominant to the albino gene. The pinstripe gene is dominant to the corresponding normal gene, and the normal gene is recessive to the pinstripe gene. The mojave gene is codominant to the corresponding normal gene, and the normal gene is codominant to the mojave gene. Used this way, the normal gene could be either dominant, codominant or recessive.

Why do you list SUPER normals in your signature? You can't just make up your own genetics.:colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert ::colbert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yodawagon

You can't just make up your own genetics.

---

Why not, a lot of people do. :D

Have you looked at WOBP lately?

In science when we refer to the genetic condition that is representative of the vast majority of individuals we use the term 'wild type,' not normal.

A 'super' is used to denote a co-dominancy situation where both maternal and paternal alleles for a given trait are expressed concurrently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshSloane

In science when we refer to the genetic condition that is representative of the vast majority of individuals we use the term 'wild type,' not normal.

A 'super' is used to denote a co-dominancy situation where both maternal and paternal alleles for a given trait are expressed concurrently.

---

The Genetics Home Reference glossary defines "wild type allele" as "The normal, as opposed to the mutant, gene or allele" (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=wildtypeallele). So "normal" and "wild type" are synonyms. Besides, "normal" is quicker to type. :D

In the above definition for "super", the two genes in a gene pair could be either the same or different. For example, the type A human blood type gene and the type B human blood type gene are expressed concurrently in people with the AB blood type.

IMO, a super has two copies of a codominant mutant gene in the gene pair. The mojave mutant gene is codominant to the normal gene because the three possible genotypes (2 mojave genes, 2 normal genes, and a mojave gene paired with a normal gene) produce different appearances (AKA phenotypes). A mojave morph snake has a mojave gene paired with a normal gene. A super mojave morph snake is a blue-eyed leucistic and has a gene pair made up of 2 mojave genes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulh

The Genetics Home Reference glossary defines "wild type allele" as "The normal, as opposed to the mutant, gene or allele" (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=wildtypeallele). So "normal" and "wild type" are synonyms. Besides, "normal" is quicker to type. :D

In the above definition for "super", the two genes in a gene pair could be either the same or different. For example, the type A human blood type gene and the type B human blood type gene are expressed concurrently in people with the AB blood type.

IMO, a super has two copies of a codominant mutant gene in the gene pair. The mojave mutant gene is codominant to the normal gene because the three possible genotypes (2 mojave genes, 2 normal genes, and a mojave gene paired with a normal gene) produce different appearances (AKA phenotypes). A mojave morph snake has a mojave gene paired with a normal gene. A super mojave morph snake is a blue-eyed leucistic and has a gene pair made up of 2 mojave genes.

---

Yes the two are synonymous in some situations. I am a scientist, and if you were to use the term 'normal' to refer to a genetic condition you would be laughed out of the room. Normal is a relative term depending on the situation. Over an evolutionary timeframe, as mutations arise in a population, the mutated gene can become the predominantly inherited form of the gene. Which is why it's best to use wild type to avoid confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshSloane

Over an evolutionary timeframe, as mutations arise in a population, the mutated gene can become the predominantly inherited form of the gene. Which is why it's best to use wild type to avoid confusion.

---

It would become what is called normal, just as it would become what is called wild type. Still synonyms.

Might not want to pull the scientist card, not only is paul a scientist, hes a geneticist. Not just some internet taught like the most of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

It would become what is called normal, just as it would become what is called wild type. Still synonyms.

Might not want to pull the scientist card, not only is paul a scientist, hes a geneticist. Not just some internet taught like the most of us.

---

Excuse me? I am a scientist, a neurotoxicologist. And I have worked in genomics for many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshSloane

Excuse me? I am a scientist, a neurotoxicologist. And I have worked in genomics for many years.

---

I'm just saying so has paul, he just too humble most of the time to say I do this for a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yodawagon

Why do you list SUPER normals in your signature? You can't just make up your own genetics.:colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert::colbert ::colbert:

---

I've been wanting to ask that question for a few days now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshSloane

Excuse me? I am a scientist, a neurotoxicologist. And I have worked in genomics for many years.

---

I remember sitting in on a talk on genetics given by Paul about 15-20 years ago. It was very informative, I still remember it. Josh, you're still a student at the Anshutz Medical Campus of CU aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I'm just saying so has paul, he just too humble most of the time to say I do this for a living.

---

Well, I am retired, now.

For what it's worth, I have never claimed that I was a professional scientist or geneticist. I have stated on several forums that I have taken a University genetics course and that I have been a technician in a university genetics lab. I did get my name on a couple of genetics papers as junior author, though. And up till a few years ago, I could run snake genetics questions past one of my bosses at the lab for the real professional take.

As for using wild type vs normal, I would prefer to use wild type, too. It is more precise than "normal". But this is not a university or professional setting. IMO, jargon with a precise meaning must often give way to language that is less precise but more easily understood. YMMV.