Vanilla het?????

I was looking at the Kingsnake classifieds and saw that Tom Crutchfield is selling a snake that he calls het for vanilla. I may be mistaken but I thought vanilla was a co-dom trait.
Here is the ad for anyone interested:
http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=32&de=458669

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPenn

I was looking at the Kingsnake classifieds and saw that Tom Crutchfield is selling a snake that he calls het for vanilla. I may be mistaken but I thought vanilla was a co-dom trait.
Here is the ad for anyone interested:
http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=32&de=458669

---

Now i am not saying he is lying or anything here.The whole vanilla morph thing is still up in the air as far as understanding the genetics are concerned,from what i understand.I think thats why he included the UNPROVEN part in his description.

I do believe that Vanillas(AKA Thunders) have been proven co-doms.
However that seller always has the 'There is something going on here!' lines in his ads. He had a really nice blushy female up for grabs that 'something is going going on here' for 775 even though she was just a nice normal blusher.
And to me that doesn't look much like the vanillas I've seen other then the widish stripe. No faded head, no 'dots'. I wouldn't pay that price for it.

Is the vanilla a thunder? Are they two separate lines of the same morph like cinnamon pastels and black pastels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

The whole vanilla morph thing is still up in the air as far as understanding the genetics are concerned,from what i understand.

---

Your understanding of the vanilla mutation is incorrect. Your best bet would be to contact Chris McQuade at Gulf Coast Reptiles and speak to him about what is what. Gulf Coast proved this mutation years ago. Vanillas are a codominant mutation that when bred together will produce super vanillas. There are also vanilla combintations that have been produced. Nothing "up in the air" about the mutation in any way.

-adam

Thank you Adam for your reply! I figured that you would know! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPenn

Is the vanilla a thunder?

---

Not according to Tom Carlton and Chris McQuade (the two guys that founded the thunder and the vanilla).

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Vanillas are a codominant mutation that when bred together will produce super vanillas.
-adam

---

And Super Vanillas are very pretty snakes! :sweeet:

Is it possible that two people are using the same name to describe two different morphs?

Everything I've read always says that Vanilla and Thunder are the same and interchangeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

Everything I've read always says that Vanilla and Thunder are the same and interchangeable.

---

I held both animals in Daytona and had lengthy conversations with both Tom and Chris about why they each feel that their animals are not the same thing ... time will tell.

-adam

Quote:

---

This is an 800 gram female UNPROVEN Vanilla.

---

Quote:

---

I have seen quite a number of the hets and am confident that this is one.

---

Does anybody see something wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPenn

Thank you Adam for your reply! I figured that you would know! ;)

---

You know that's right...Adam gets around :nerd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cueball

You know that's right...Adam gets around :nerd:

---

In more ways then one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAudOne

In more ways then one.

---

:hump:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

:hump:

-adam

---

:giggle: :wuv:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cartmansdad

Does anybody see something wrong with that?

---

I think what he is saying is that vanillas ARE hets - i.e. they have one copy of the vanilla gene and one normal for vanilla gene. Just like pastels are hets for the pastel gene. We are in a confusing place right now with the use of the word "het". I really think we need to continue to move away from thinking of it as limited to normal looking het recessives because the real meaning is so helpful in predicting the outcome of increasingly complex dominant type crosses.

He could have said that it was het for super vanilla (I don’t know enough about the mutation to say if this animal really is or not) but that also would be a bit of a misuse. Heterozygous is a genotype term and tells us about the gene pair (unmatched) and doesn't by it's self tell us what it looks like. Just like het doesn't always mean normal looking (just happens to usually work out that way with recessive type mutations) it also doesn't mean half way to some other visible phenotype (just happens to work out that way with co-dominant mutation types). A het for a completely dominant mutation would look just like the homozygous version. The important thing about being het is having an unmatched pair of genes and having a 50/50 chance as to which will be passed to any offspring.

If spider or some other ball python mutation does turn out to be complete dominant we will need to refer to possible homozygous spiders, known het spiders, and known homozygous spiders but they will all look the same. We generally don't talk about het pastels because they look different and have their own pastel phenotype different from the homozygous pastel phenotype. But even with co-dominant types it wouldn't be wrong to talk about genotypes like hets for the mutant pastel gene it's self.

So vanilla's are co-dom?


Also, it looked like a normal to me.