Help on double het genes

so i am getting a male piebald het red axhantic and a female bumble bee het piebald, het red axhantic.So if i bred these two together would i get the same chance of getting visual bumble bee pieds as if i bred a Piebald to a bumble het pied.

Yes - the odds are the same for any one individual gene no matter how many other genes are involved. You just increase the chances of the Bumblebee Pieds you happen to produce also having the Het Red Axanthic gene.

Also, just to clear things up a bit, you don't have a double recessive gene animal (a "double het"). Het Red Axanthic is one of the unfortunately named incomplete dominant morphs in the hobby.

Sorry i dont understand? I dont know much about ball python genes at the moment still doing my reaserch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

Sorry i dont understand? I dont know much about ball python genes at the moment still doing my reaserch.

---

Het red axanthic is a bad name. It isn't a true het because the het red axanthics are visually different from a normal ball python. A het pied on the other hand can't easily be visually distinguished from a normal.

ah so if i bred the pied het red axhantic to a bumble bee to could make just bumble bee het pied and no het red axhantic? and the red axhantic isnt actually a het gene but a dominate gene?

This (http://www.morphmarket.com/c/reptile...ic-calculator/) is your friend

Het red axanthic is incomplete dominant as Eric said. In our community the term codominant is used in place of incomplete dominant for some reason.

Het red * het red = red axanthic the same way het pied * het pied = pied the only difference is that het red is visually different from a normal ball python

I just wanted to point out that codominant and icomplete dominance are two different things. Codominance is when two traits are shown (you can see them both. For example, you mix plants with red flowers and white flowers and the offspring come out red with white spots) incomplete dominance is when two traits mix (for example, you mix a plant with red flowers with one that has white flowers and the offspring come out pink) sorry for using plants as an example but its easier that way lol

If you really want your head to spin, what if I told you that Het Red Axanthic is actually more technically correct than the hobby gives it credit for? In the BP world, we use the term "het" when specifically referring to recessive genes. In the real world of genetics, the term "het" means soooooo much more. ;)

And, to get back on track to your original question, I highlighted your chances of producing a visual Bumblebee Pied from this pairing (1/8 in total, with 3/4 of the time that Bumblebee Pied carrying at least one copy of the HRA gene).

Male:	Het Red Axanthic, Piebald
Female:	Het Red Axanthic, Bumblebee, Het Piebald
Percent	Fraction	Traits
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Red Axanthic, Spied
6.25%	1/16	Pastel, Het Red Axanthic, Spied
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Spied
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Piebald, Red Axanthic
6.25%	1/16	Pastel, Het Red Axanthic, Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Red Axanthic, Bumblebee, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Bumblebee, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Bumblebee, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Pastel, Het Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Red Axanthic, Spied
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Spied
3.125%	1/32	Spied
3.125%	1/32	Piebald, Red Axanthic
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Spider, Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Spider, Het Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Spider, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Het Piebald
View Results Page

EDIT: Fixed the chart I shared - I forgot the female was also HRA. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

If you really want your head to spin, what if I told you that Het Red Axanthic is actually more technically correct than the hobby gives it credit for? In the BP world, we use the term "het" when specifically referring to recessive genes. In the real world of genetics, the term "het" means soooooo much more. ;)

And, to get back on track to your original question, I highlighted your chances of producing a visual Bumblebee Pied from this pairing (1/8 in total, with 3/4 of the time that Bumblebee Pied carrying at least one copy of the HRA gene).

Male:	Het Red Axanthic, Piebald
Female:	Het Red Axanthic, Bumblebee, Het Piebald
Percent	Fraction	Traits
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Red Axanthic, Spied
6.25%	1/16	Pastel, Het Red Axanthic, Spied
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Spied
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Piebald, Red Axanthic
6.25%	1/16	Pastel, Het Red Axanthic, Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Red Axanthic, Bumblebee, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Bumblebee, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Bumblebee, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Pastel, Het Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Pastel, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Red Axanthic, Spied
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Spied
3.125%	1/32	Spied
3.125%	1/32	Piebald, Red Axanthic
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Spider, Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Spider, Het Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Spider, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
6.25%	1/16	Het Red Axanthic, Het Piebald
3.125%	1/32	Het Piebald
View Results Page

EDIT: Fixed the chart I shared - I forgot the female was also HRA. :)

---

Thank you for doing chart. so i would get a 12.5% chance of producing a visual bumble bee pied?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

Thank you for doing chart. so i would get a 12.5% chance of producing a visual bumble bee pied?

---

Per egg

and would the chances be the same if i was breeding a pied het red axhantic het albino to a albino het red axhantic het pied? would i get 1/4 25% chance of getting an albino pied per egg?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gc99

I just wanted to point out that codominant and icomplete dominance are two different things. Codominance is when two traits are shown (you can see them both. For example, you mix plants with red flowers and white flowers and the offspring come out red with white spots) incomplete dominance is when two traits mix (for example, you mix a plant with red flowers with one that has white flowers and the offspring come out pink) sorry for using plants as an example but its easier that way lol

---

Actually this statement above is referring to 'classical' genetics, not snake genetics. When we refer to 'codominance' there is no mixing of visual traits to get a hybrid visual trait. Here are some 'cliff notes' on snake genetics:

Dominant: With a dominant gene there is no 'super' form. For example, if you bred a Pinstripe to a Pinstripe you would get 3 out of 4 pinstripes and one normal. The link to the genetics calculator is one I wouldn't use, if you plug in Pinstripe x Pinstripe it shows you get a 'super pinstripe'. This doesn't happen with a dominant gene (you'll only get supers with co-dominant genes).

Codominant: This is similar to a dominant gene except there is a 'super' form. Think of it as a recessive gene, but the difference is that it has a visual recessive, similar to the het red axanthic. Usually the super form is totally different than the codominant visual, such as a bamboo vs the pure white super Bamboo.

Recessive: Similar to classical genetics, if you breed a recessive pied to a normal all the babies look normal but all carry one copy of the recessive trait. You have to breed the babies together to get a visual (only one of four babies will be visual).

Allelic: This refers to two different genes that are on the same location of the DNA and act together as a single dominant gene to produce an unexpected visual that looks totally different than either gene. For example, if you cross a yellow belly with a Specter, both look almost exactly like a normal, you will get a 'super stripe' that has one copy of the yellowbelly and one copy of the Specter gene, looks totally different than either of the parents. Now if you start breeding using allelic traits things get interesting. They act like a codominant 'super' form but have two different genes instead of the same genes. So if you breed a super stripe to normal you get half yellow belly and half specter. And if you cross two super stripes you get super yellow bellies (Ivories), super Specters, and superstripes!

Super: Super is the results of a codominant trait having two copies of the same gene but almost always results in a completely different visual than the base form. If you breed a super to anything you never get a normal. For example, if you breed a super Bamboo to a normal all the babies will be Bamboos. And if you breed a super to a super you get all supers.

Confused yet?

:)

I would suggesting using this genetic calculator, it's pretty close to being perfect:

http://www.worldofballpythons.com/wizard/

Yes, het is short for heterozygous. Heterozygous means it has one allele and therefore het red axanthic is fair to say. Technically fire, Mojave, pastel and every other "codominant" gene is heterozygous for the super. However I feel like trying to explaining this to someone who doesn't understand genetics would only complicate the issue. In every other case (as far as I know) we only say het for supposedly recessive genes. Based on the communities terminology het red axanthic is a misnomer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

and would the chances be the same if i was breeding a pied het red axhantic het albino to a albino het red axhantic het pied? would i get 1/4 25% chance of getting an albino pied per egg?

---

Yes. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again? Please take the time to learn and use the tools shared in this post where the exact same quesiton was asked: https://ball-pythons.net/forums/show...=1#post2505949.

I think someone actually messed up when they named it 'het red axanthic'. Perhaps initially they thought it was a recessive trait, then realized it was actually a visual het. Perhaps it was named that way for so long they stuck with it, but it should have been listed as a co-dominant gene using red axanthic and super red axanthic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

Yes. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again? Please take the time to learn and use the tools shared in this post where the exact same quesiton was asked: https://ball-pythons.net/forums/show...=1#post2505949.

---

Don't get discouraged, I used to ask the same things over and over when I first started. The genetics can be very confusing. I used to sit all day in front of the genetics calculator for weeks on end before I finally got it. I found that it helped me to put a dollar figure on each baby snake and think about the market and how well they would sell, that way you can optimize your breeding for maximum dollars and sales (if you plan on breeding). Most big breeders like to have a lot of mid range or low end snakes with a few high end snakes, the low end is their 'bread and butter' since that's what most people can afford as a pet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

Don't get discouraged, I used to ask the same things over and over when I first started. The genetics can be very confusing. I used to sit all day in front of the genetics calculator for weeks on end before I finally got it. I found that it helped me to put a dollar figure on each baby snake and think about the market and how well they would sell, that way you can optimize your breeding for maximum dollars and sales (if you plan on breeding). Most big breeders like to have a lot of mid range or low end snakes with a few high end snakes, the low end is their 'bread and butter' since that's what most people can afford as a pet.

---

Oh - I don't get discouraged (easily) by variations on the same questions by someone who is learning. I wouldn't be able to be a Mod if that were the case! This is different, though. It is literally the exact same question with the exact same genetics being asked in multiple threads. :)

Ok im sort off starting to get it now so the het red axanthic is not a het but it is simalar to a heterogeneous gene except from its visual? And thank you to everyone that has helped me in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

Oh - I don't get discouraged (easily) by variations on the same questions by someone who is learning. I wouldn't be able to be a Mod if that were the case! This is different, though. It is literally the exact same question with the exact same genetics being asked in multiple threads. :)

---

I can clearly remember my first NARBC snake show and asking about genetics for the first time, the snake guy behind the counter said, 'your not very smart, are you?' LOLOLOLOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

I can clearly remember my first NARBC snake show and asking about genetics for the first time, the snake guy behind the counter said, 'your not very smart, are you?' LOLOLOLOL

---

Well... are you? :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

Ok im sort off starting to get it now so the het red axanthic is not a het but it is simalar to a heterogeneous gene except from its visual? And thank you to everyone that has helped me in this thread.

---

It works the exact same as the other codominant/incomplete dominant genes - it's just named funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinnerman

Ok im sort off starting to get it now so the het red axanthic is not a het but it is simalar to a heterogeneous gene except from its visual? And thank you to everyone that has helped me in this thread.

---

Actually no... Typically we call it 'heterozygous' only if we are talking about a recessive gene, and in all cases the 'het' is not a visual. (het is short for heterozygous). The only way you can tell if it's heterozygous is if you know for sure what the parents were. So 'het red axanthic' is similar to a co-dominant gene (not at all similar to heterozygous).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

Well... are you? :rolleye2:

---

Well I not to sure about that, but I can tell you I didn't buy a snake from that guys table LOL. And at the time I actually had a pocket full of cash burning a hole in my pocket!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

Well I not to sure about that, but I can tell you I didn't buy a snake from that guys table LOL.

---

LoL...... I have refused sales when the buyer starts asking too many questions that annoy me or throw up flags....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

LoL...... I have refused sales when the buyer starts asking too many questions that annoy me or throw up flags....

---

HA HA! You are like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld, 'NO SNAKE FOR YOU. COME BACK NEXT YEAR!'

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

How about this making things get cleared up. Het red axanthic is the same thing as a pastel. Both codominate not recessive. And both can produce a super.

Sorry but as a new person that barely knows much about genetics yet this and the other threads made absolutely no sense until just now lol it finally clicked and that's probably the easiest way to explain the answer to his question that I can think of coming from a person with the same or less knowledge of genetics as the op. In other words i put it into newbie terms hahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

Actually this statement above is referring to 'classical' genetics, not snake genetics. When we refer to 'codominance' there is no mixing of visual traits to get a hybrid visual trait. Here are some 'cliff notes' on snake genetics:

Dominant: With a dominant gene there is no 'super' form. For example, if you bred a Pinstripe to a Pinstripe you would get 3 out of 4 pinstripes and one normal. The link to the genetics calculator is one I wouldn't use, if you plug in Pinstripe x Pinstripe it shows you get a 'super pinstripe'. This doesn't happen with a dominant gene (you'll only get supers with co-dominant genes).

Codominant: This is similar to a dominant gene except there is a 'super' form. Think of it as a recessive gene, but the difference is that it has a visual recessive, similar to the het red axanthic. Usually the super form is totally different than the codominant visual, such as a bamboo vs the pure white super Bamboo.

Recessive: Similar to classical genetics, if you breed a recessive pied to a normal all the babies look normal but all carry one copy of the recessive trait. You have to breed the babies together to get a visual (only one of four babies will be visual).

Allelic: This refers to two different genes that are on the same location of the DNA and act together as a single dominant gene to produce an unexpected visual that looks totally different than either gene. For example, if you cross a yellow belly with a Specter, both look almost exactly like a normal, you will get a 'super stripe' that has one copy of the yellowbelly and one copy of the Specter gene, looks totally different than either of the parents. Now if you start breeding using allelic traits things get interesting. They act like a codominant 'super' form but have two different genes instead of the same genes. So if you breed a super stripe to normal you get half yellow belly and half specter. And if you cross two super stripes you get super yellow bellies (Ivories), super Specters, and superstripes!

Super: Super is the results of a codominant trait having two copies of the same gene but almost always results in a completely different visual than the base form. If you breed a super to anything you never get a normal. For example, if you breed a super Bamboo to a normal all the babies will be Bamboos. And if you breed a super to a super you get all supers.

Confused yet?

:)

I would suggesting using this genetic calculator, it's pretty close to being perfect:

http://www.worldofballpythons.com/wizard/

---

Some things need to be addressed here.

Scaleless head/scaless might be a true co Dom

Your description of dominant is one repeated through the hobby but it is flat out misinformed. There's no such thing as "no super" unless something is physically preventing genes from pairing up. Like desert females not being able to make eggs or if we came across a W linked gene. Other than that they all have supers. Also we have super pins that produce all pins and super leopards that produce all leopards. Each looking just like the heterozygous form. Give me a year and perhaps I'll have some super pins proved out, just picked up 9 normal females, all with dates with possible Super pins :)

I have no problem arguing that is the least accurate calculator available. If anything I'd suggest morph markets for the UI. But if accuracy is what your after, it may not be updated with new morphs but I don't think there's one more accurate than mine.