Bumblebee's

I heard somewhere that if you breed a Bee with a normal do you get:
25% Normal
25% Spider
25% Pastel
25% Bee
Is that true?

I actually believe it is

50% Spider
50% Pastel

Those are for each egg of course...

I could be wrong....

No, it is

25% Bumble Bee
25% Spider
25% Pastel
25% Normal

I have one. Just got him a couple of weeks ago.

Oh ok cool, glad to be proven wrong

Now when doing a punnet square..how would that be set up?

(Sorry don't mean to hijack your thread)

Bumble Bee = ?

Normal = NN

To make a bee you breed a pastel to a spider. Bees are double homozygous. This means that they carry both dominant genes (for pastel and spider). The odds are only what combo will show up. Both genes = Bee, Spider gene = spider, Pastel gene = Pastel.

Not sure how the punnett would look though.

Oh god I feel so stupid...I just did a punnet and got the %25

I really don't know what I was thinking, oh well get more practice / understanding in my belt.

Thank you for fixing my boo-boo

No biggie. I had no idea until my Bee breeder told me. I was going to buy a pied. he suggested the bee instead. Said it was a better investment in the beginning, get the pied next year. So i bought him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roswell

To make a bee you breed a pastel to a spider. Bees are double homozygous. This means that they carry both dominant genes (for pastel and spider). The odds are only what combo will show up. Both genes = Bee, Spider gene = spider, Pastel gene = Pastel.

Not sure how the punnett would look though.

---

How do you figure? They are both het for the spider and pastel gene. If what you were saying was true, you would not be able to make killer bee's, as they are homozygous for pastel.

Robin

Bumblebee Spider • Bumblebee Ball Pythons are the first "double dominant" morph. These are a combination of the Pastel Jungle and Spider genes. .....

Killer Bee Spider • ..... Killer Bee Spiders are a Super Pastel Jungle version of the Bumblebee Spider "designer" morph. ......

(found these definitions on BPM Genetics Lab)

http://www.ballpythonmorphs.com/genetics.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roswell

Not sure how the punnett would look though.

---

Ss = spider
Pp = pastel

SsPp x sspp

.... SP Sp sP sp
sp SsPp Sspp ssPp sspp
25% 25% 25% 25%

I kept forgetting that the bees base was spider x pastel. That's what i get for staying up so late!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roswell

Bees are double homozygous.

---

Bees are heterozygous pastels and either hetero or homozygous spider (as far as we know, they are visually identical). The precentages of offspring are completely dependent on whether the animal carries both spider alleles or not.

If the spider alleles are heterozygous, then the offspring with a normal can potentially be SsPp (bee), Sspp (spider), ssPp (pastel) or sspp (normal).

If homozgous, the offspring can only be SsPp (bee) or Sspp (spider).

So it will only produce bees and spiders?:S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlfreq

homozygous spider (as far as we know, they are visually identical)

---

I am not aware of any proof that this animal exists?

So until it is proven the ratio is still 25% Bee, 25% Spider, 25% Pastel and 25% Normal (per egg)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch Art

I actually believe it is

50% Spider
50% Pastel

Those are for each egg of course...

I could be wrong....

---

That is correct. Each egg has a 50% chance of being pastel and a 50% chance of being spider. So when these overlap you wind up with the 25% Pastel, 25% Spider, 25% normal and 25% bee. So you weren't completely wrong, just about the outcomes of the percentage of each egg.
A killer bee x normal produces 50% bees and 50% pastels.

Looks like a good square to me Matti!

The important thing to remember is that spider and pastel are two different genes so each has its own normal version. There are many different "normal" genes.

I'm not sure exactly what "double dominant" means. But the bees are double hets for two dominant type mutations (pastel being co-dominant and spider to be determined – possibly dominant).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord jackel

I am not aware of any proof that this animal exists? So until it is proven...

---

Whether we know it exists or not doesn't change the statistical probability of such a genetic pairing. In fact, knowledge of such probabilities during breeding are, in the absense of a complete genome map, the only way to infer that one exists.

That said, I wonder how prevalent spider x spider crossings (or any SxS crossing for that matter) are since it's a co-dom without a known visual super. Are such crossings generally avoided by larger breeders due to a lack of a visual super or because of a higher precentage of bad eggs? If not, have any breeders done in-depth tracking of the resulting offspring looking for these imperceptible supers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlfreq

Whether we know it exists or not doesn't change the statistical probability of such a genetic pairing. In fact, knowledge of such probabilities during breeding are, in the absense of a complete genome map, the only way to infer that one exists.

That said, I wonder how prevalent spider x spider crossings (or any SxS crossing for that matter) are since it's a co-dom without a known visual super. Are such crossings generally avoided by larger breeders due to a lack of a visual super or because of a higher precentage of bad eggs? If not, have any breeders done in-depth tracking of the resulting offspring looking for these imperceptible supers?

---

While I agree with your thought process I disagree that we should use the Homo Spider assumption in genetic calculations. This would be assuming a genetic makeup that so far has not been proven...so from a breeding supposition we must assume (until proven otherwise) that the Spider gene in a Bee are Het. Unless you are specifically testing the theory of a Homo Spider (in your bee or other cross) I am not sure why you would want to assume otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roswell

Bumblebee Spider • Bumblebee Ball Pythons are the first "double dominant" morph. These are a combination of the Pastel Jungle and Spider genes. .....

Killer Bee Spider • ..... Killer Bee Spiders are a Super Pastel Jungle version of the Bumblebee Spider "designer" morph. ......

(found these definitions on BPM Genetics Lab)

http://www.ballpythonmorphs.com/genetics.html

---

Dominance, co-dominance, and recessive are gene types. it has nothing to do with whether a snake is homo and het for a certain gene.

Heterozygous means it has only one gene for a certain genotype. Example being a pastel, or in recessive traits, a het albino. Homozygous or "super" as some people call it means that both gene's of a certain genotype are present. The phenotype, or physical appearance are changed and usually enhanced in co-dom's such as the super pastel. Recessive traits also only show when in the homozygous form, such as an albino.

When they say bumblebees are the first "double dominant" morph, they only mean it has 2 dominant gene types. The pastel being co-dom, and the spider being dom, or co-dom, depending on who you talk with, as opposed to recessive. Neither is a super or homo, so both gene pairing still have a wild gene.


Pastel - Pp
Super pastel - PP
Spider - Ss
Bumblebee - PpSs
Killer bee or Super pastel spider - PPSs

An example of a double recessive would be a Albino Piebald. Though again, Recessive phenotypes only show up in the Homo or super form when both genes for that genotype are present.

Het albino - Aa
Het Peid - Pp
Albino Het Pied - AAPp
Pied het Albino - PPAa
Albino Pied - PPAA

Robin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright202

So it will only produce bees and spiders?:S

---

No, as other have said, you will also get pastels and normals.

Bee's - SsPp
Spiders - Sspp
Pastels - Ppss
Normals - ppss

If you were to then breed your bumblebee to a pastel, you have the chance of creating killer bees. Which is homo or super for pastel, in addition to also having the spider gene

Killer bee - PPSs

Robin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord jackel

While I agree with your thought process I disagree that we should use the Homo Spider assumption in genetic calculations. This would be assuming a genetic makeup that so far has not been proven.

---

I agree completely, the default position without having proven SS in either animal should be that the animal only has a single spider allele. I just think if breeder are lead to believe that is the only possible outcome, we are much more likely to pass over a homozygous version if one does come about and is, as we are led to believe now, visually identical to a heterozygous animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlfreq

I agree completely, the default position without having proven SS in either animal should be that the animal only has a single spider allele. I just think if breeder are lead to believe that is the only possible outcome, we are much more likely to pass over a homozygous version if one does come about and is, as we are led to believe now, visually identical to a heterozygous animal.

---

I agree...but how many generations or outcrossing of a particular animal would need to be "watched" to verify if the underlying gene set is Het or Homo. While perhaps academically interesting I am not sure (given the constant price declines for these animals) that it would make good business sense to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord jackel

but how many generations or outcrossing of a particular animal would need to be "watched" to verify if the underlying gene set is Het or Homo.

---

I don't think it's a question of generations as much as it is the number of Ss offspring before reaching statistical improbability. Assuming an average clutch size of 6 eggs, and using only S? x ss crossings (50/50 per fertilization), I would expect an animal could be inferred to be homozygous in as few as 5 clutches, as that would statistically-speaking, only have a 1 in 2^30 chance.