Pinstripe question

There is not a super form of the Pinstripe, is there? I don't think there is, but I wanted to be sure; thanks. I would guess that, like Spiders, a Pin x Pin breeding would yield all Pins.

Bingo :gj:

I love pin's but since there is no super I'm patiently waiting til later to get mine.

I heard that Brian Barczyk produced the super pin last year, but they didn't look much different from regular pins. It'll probably take another year to prove out completely, though.

I asked him about it at Anahiem last year, and he said that it basically looked different out of the egg, but has gradually come to look like a regular pin.

Not sure what his plans for it are though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ginevive

a Pin x Pin breeding would yield all Pins.

---

With that breeding, you still have a 25% chance of getting normals from each egg.

Thanks :) Darnit though.. wouldn't a super pin, or a super spider, be cool? Danged genetics sometimes. ;)

Quote:

---

Re: Pinstripe question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginevive View Post
a Pin x Pin breeding would yield all Pins.

With that breeding, you still have a 25% chance of getting normals from each egg.

---

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

I asked him about it at Anahiem last year, and he said that it basically looked different out of the egg, but has gradually come to look like a regular pin.

Not sure what his plans for it are though.

---

Dom morph, when people try to produce a super out of a morph considered dominant.... they may tend to over hope for it to be a super when eggs hatch. That is dom to dom.... breeding.

I'd think like most morphs, you may see something look different when hatching and think/hope your onto something new only to see it turn out like the rest (So to speak) later. Just mother natures way of messing with your mind....LOL

Like spider, the vast majority if not all pins are heterozygous for the pinstriped mutation. Heterozygous means they have one version of the gene with the pinstripe mutation and another version that is normal for pinstripe. When you breed two pins (or spiders) together each egg has a 25% chance of getting the normal version of the respective gene from both parents and being normal. There is also in theory a 25% chance of producing the homozygous version which gets the mutant version from both parents. Whether or not that animal would be super looking would determine the mutation type, either co-dominant or dominant.

If either mutation turns out to be dominant then the way that will be proven is when a homozygous pin or spider is bred to normals and produces a large number of only spiders or pins and no normals unlike the heterozygous animals which are expected to produce 50% normals in this breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

---

That's incorrect. Providing they are both heterozygous Pinstripes, breeding Pinstripe x Pinstripe would hopefully lead to the production of a clutch of eggs, with each egg having the following genetic probabilities:

25% normal
50% heterozygous Pinstripe
25% homozygous Pinstripe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

---

I don't know which Punnett square you use, but it doesn't work on mine. As others have stated though, I assume that the pins in her mock breeding were Heterozygous, since noone knows of a proven Homozygous one yet.

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

Uh... no. Unfortunately that's not how genes work. Punnet Squares are your friend. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

there would be 25% normals...



If your statement above were true, then the flipside would also be true..... Normal looking het x normal looking het couldn't producing anything except normals... We all know that isn't true.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

---

This is the very same, except with spider.

http://www.ballpython.ca/what_get/dominant.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

Swing and a huge miss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

That only works for recessive traits, Gib... if you breed two animals with the same visual recessive morph, you cannot get anything but that recessive morph - like having a blue-eyed couple, who are not capable of producing brown-eyed children*.

Dominant traits don't work the same way, though - you can get the visual trait for either homozygous or heterozygous gene pairs. For example, a visual brown eyed couple can produce blue-eyed offspring... simply because the trait for blue eyes can 'hide' heterozygously under the dominant brown-eyed trait.

Likewise, the normal pattern trait can 'hide' under dominant Pinstripe... and if both pinstripe parents carry "not pinstripe" then there is a 25% chance for each egg that each parent will hand over the recessive normal trait to their offspring and produce a normal-looking hatchling.

* This is a massive simplification of the eye colour traits in humans - it's actually several related sets of genes that produce eye colour, and that's how you can get green, hazel and grey eyes - but generally speaking, blue eyes are recessive to brown eyes in the absence of any other eye colour genes.

Thanks for the info. :)

For a Pin x Pin breeding to have a 0% chance at normals, each Pin parent must be a homozygous Pin...

Ok Im no genetics expert in any way. From what I was seeing if two pins were bred together. Out of 4 eggs you should get 2 pins 1 Homozygous and 1 normal. Right? There is no super form that we know of right? Then the Homozygous must look just like the normal pin. So that should mean two pins from that clutch ( out of 4 eggs), when bred to a normal should be 50/50 pin/normal hatchlings( 4 eggs 2 pins 2 normals). Right? The 1 homozygous pin that I take it must look like a normal pin. When bred to a normal should produce all pins. Right? Then the normal X normal = normals.

So the only way to find out what pins are hets and what ones are Homozygous. The easiest way would be to keep them all breed them all to normals. 2 of those pins should produce 50% pins and 50% normals. Then the one if its Homozygous should produce all pins. Right? But I could breed a pin X pin and get all normals too. If my luck sucked that year or whatever. So there is a good chance there is a super pin yes/no? But it might not look any different than a normal pin. Any thoughts on this

I think this is a good explanation concerning pins and spiders..
Explanation of spider morph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

I apologize for questioning your expertise. I shall now go crawl back under my rock and do some more studying. Apperently, I am a fool, and need to learn more. Thanks for clarifying those genetics for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

Only sorta right... the idea that this gene is not completely dominant (co-dominant), you still have a 25% chance of getting a normal out of a pin to a pin, because they both could be only heterozygous for the trait.

The only way to find out if you have a homozygous pin (or loosly, 'super') you would need to breed it to a normal animal, and get 100% pinstripes.

If you breed a homozygous pin to a het pin, another homozygous pin, or a normal, you should get all pins in every litter, over and over and over.

If you don't then it's not homozygous.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i2...e-spider-1.jpg

wow alot of experts crawling out of the wood for this one..

well if as everyone is saying...you will can get normals from a pin to pin breeding..then why no true dominant form???No Super Spiders either...but you still get all spiders if you breed 2 of em them together..was done for quite a few years by a good number of folks and it never panned out..there are no super spiders as well as no super pin which has been tried many many times ...that means spider is a dominant gene as everyone is using in the punnet square(as is there is no "super")....and alas there will be normals in a spider to normal breeding.....and the pinstripe gene works exactly the same way and if you dont believe it or understand why....then breed a pair together and let me know what you end up with...

Gib - Your wrong...Pin and Spider genes work the same way - Use the square...There are no Homo forms of either - Right? So that would make them visual Hets - Right? Use the square - Your theoretically going to get 25% normals...Sure you might luck up and have "good odds" from clutch to clutch but you will produce normals...Theory is just that - Theory...I bred a Pastel x Spider - Do the math - How many Bees / Spiders / Pastels / Normals should I have gotten? I got lucky and hit 3 Bees / 1 Spider / 2 Normals...Mojo to a normal - 9 eggs...In theory I should have gotten 4.5 Mojos - I got 6...Albino to a Het - 4 eggs - 3 Binos...I could go on and on but I won't - It's called luck...No need to get defensive man but you are wrong...
BT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

wow alot of experts crawling out of the wood for this one..

well if as everyone is saying...you will can get normals from a pin to pin breeding..then why no true dominant form???No Super Spiders either...but you still get all spiders if you breed 2 of em them together..was done for quite a few years by a good number of folks and it never panned out..there are no super spiders as well as no super pin which has been tried many many times ...that means spider is a dominant gene as everyone is using in the punnet square(as is there is no "super")....and alas there will be normals in a spider to normal breeding.....and the pinstripe gene works exactly the same way and if you dont believe it or understand why....then breed a pair together and let me know what you end up with...

---

Did you look at the Markus Jayne link of what you'd get from a spider to spider pairing? In a four egg clutch, statistically three spiders and one normal. Are all these people wrong? :confuzd:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

wow alot of experts crawling out of the wood for this one..

well if as everyone is saying...you will can get normals from a pin to pin breeding..then why no true dominant form???No Super Spiders either...but you still get all spiders if you breed 2 of em them together..was done for quite a few years by a good number of folks and it never panned out..there are no super spiders as well as no super pin which has been tried many many times ...that means spider is a dominant gene as everyone is using in the punnet square(as is there is no "super")....and alas there will be normals in a spider to normal breeding.....and the pinstripe gene works exactly the same way and if you dont believe it or understand why....then breed a pair together and let me know what you end up with...

---

Remeber alot of these experts have been breeding these same pin's and spider's for a long time.:gj:

Gib is correct when he says there is no Super form of spider or pinstripes, but being homozygous for any trait does not mean it is a "super" form. There very well could be homozygous pinstripes out there, they will not look any different from a heterozygous pinstripe.

Homozygous simply means that it carries identical alleles for a single trait.
In this case, a homozygous pin could be written as "Pn/Pn" and the heterozygous form will be written as "Pn/N" ('N' is normal). The expression of both of these combinations looks the same.

If there is a homozygous form of spider or pin, then every time you breed it to a normal, you should get 100% spiders or pins.

As far as I know, no one has proved that. The homozygous form of each may also be in theory homozygous lethal. In rats, the homozygous form of certain genes will be absorb back into the female's body. You will never see it.

BT LOL not defensive at all and your right the pin and spider gene work exactly the same way...So theoretically you should get a normal ...because it is accepted to be a codom or a dominant trait..of which it is neither...and there are no "supers" and no "hets" because they already homozygous for that trait...and when you breed 2 homozygous animals you will get all homozygous animals.

and im really not tryin to argue with anyone...im just saying there are ALOT of things we dont understand with genetics and alot of things that a simple punnet square doesnt cover simply becuase somethings arent as simple as a codom or recessive trait( just look at all the brown morph genetics)

And Emilio...I can put me into that list thats been breeding them as well for quite a few years

all Im saying is try it out...see what ya produce...or..ask some of the guys that tried to hit the super spider or the super pin for quite a few years

If what your saying is that every pin x pin crossing will always 100% give pins, then I have no way to explain it, and there is something much bigger going on with the pinstripes, perhaps some other trait is closely linked to pins, with a probability of 99.999~%.

Are there people with proof that ANY pin crossed with a pin produces 100% pins? I would really like to know. That would decide that there is something definitely going on with those pins and spiders. And apparently, they inherit traits differently than everything else.

But if it helps to understand, call the pinstripes from a Pin x normal cross, het for normal.
If those het for normal pins are crossed with each other, the same punnet's above still apply, and you should theoretically get 25% chance of normals.

I still theorize that the homozygous form of pins are probably lethal. I have no proof, and people will call me crazy, but I can see no other way around this.

But if there are people with the proof of any pin x pin crossing produces 100% pins in a litter, then my whole theory is shot.

There's another project to add to the list, homozygous lethal pins. ;)

I talked to barczyk a lil bit about this last year and there hasnt been any problems with pin to pin breedings and also that he had pretty much given up on tryin to make the super pin

I'll ask him next saturday... I need more definite answers lol, maybe pick up a pair? :D

LOL there ya go!!

How many Pins you produce Gib?
BT

Here's an email from Mr. Barczyk...Are we done yet?
BT

From: bhb@comcast.net
Sent: Sun 1/06/08 9:50 AM
To: brian taylor (brtaylor30@hotmail.com)

You would produce 25% normals. that's the ratio that would work out genetically. Of course that in a huge group of numbers. but you know that. I'll look forward to talking to you tonight. Later, Brian

-------------- Original message --------------
From: brian taylor <brtaylor30@hotmail.com>
I can feel your love right thru the computer...LOL...I'll try and call you about 10PM Sunday night...Answer me a quick question to end an argument on a forum...From a Pin x Pin breeding - Would you or would you not produce theoretically 25% Normals....
BT

LOL BT I stand Corrected Sir! I definitly wouldnt call this an argument ;)

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the unfortunate misuse of the term dominant as in "dominant form" when homozygous should have been used instead. Like the incorrect and often repeated idea that heterozygous only applies to recessive morphs, it's very hard to unlearn incorrect information.

Going back to basics and remembering that genes come in pairs, one from each parent, it's easy to see why a pinstripe or spider from pin/spider X normal is heterozygous for that mutation. It has an unmatched pair of versions of the gene at the pinstripe or spider location (the definition of heterozygous) because only one of the parents had the mutant version of the gene to give. Once you see that spiders and pinstripes with one normal parent are heterozygous animals it's easy to see how when you breed two of them together a baby might get the normal version from both parents.

The only question is if there are also surviving homozygous animals produced when both parents show the mutation and that we don’t yet know. In theory there should be but the lack of a public proven homozygous spider this far in is confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rapture

For a Pin x Pin breeding to have a 0% chance at normals, each Pin parent must be a homozygous Pin...

---

Incorrect, Only one parent would need to be homozygous. The other could then even be a normal BP and you still get all pinstripe offspring.

I personally still think it like the spider gene are lethal genes in the super or homozygous form. Do some of you breeders find you lose eggs in pin to pin and spider to spider clutches?

Robin

Here's a new idea from Dave Barker, I think many will find this little tidbit interesting, and also something I was trying to understand. The possibility that the pinstripe has a gene or other trait closely linked to it that we don't understand yet. Anyways, here's what Dave had to say, I hope he does not mind that I post this.

Quote:

---

On Jan 6, 2008 11:35 AM, Dave Barker <vpi@beecreek.net> wrote:


Of course, it's possible that one or both conditions are not even genetic,
but rather are epigenetic in nature and inheritance. Epigenetics, as I
understand it, is the inheritance of traits that are not the expression of a
gene, but rather the expression of some other molecules that are associated
closely with DNA (I believe these molecules "coat" a strand of DNA").

The fact is that I don't really understand epigenetics, it's a fairly new
field of research, and don't have any strong understanding of what all is
involved. I have read that epigenetics can cause some pretty strange
patterns of inheritance, including inheritance that cannot be explained by
classic Mendelian inheritance.

It would be simple enough to buy a pair of pins and breed them together. If
the pattern of inheritance is Mendelian, then either (1) a "super"
homozygous will result if the pin appearance is codominant; (2) a homozygous
pin will result if it is a dominant trait (further breeding would be
necessary to prove it); (3) or a lethal cross is in effect and the
homozygous condition does not exist. Failing those three possibilities, then
the answer would have to involve some non-Mendelian, probably epigenetic,
explanation.

At least that is how I understand it.

Dave

---

I have cut this from the original message.

We certainly do need to check our theories against reality to see if we need new theories, like the cutting edge stuff Mr. Barker mentions. The problem in this case may well be that few spider X spider or pin X pin breedings seem to have been done, or at least reported. I was wondering if anyone other than the founders of the two lines had ever done either but I did hear back from one other large breeder who had done spider X spider and its likely there are others this far in. But I've yet to hear much on detailed results. Spiders have been around long enough that even I have a pair now so eventually enough results should be available to start to figure out if the mutation is dominant or co-dominant.

If spider does turn out to be homozygous lethal (technically co-dominant I think) and predictable via standard genetics it would be very difficult to prove. Eggs often fail to hatch from non spider X spider clutches and het X het clutches often miss the homozygous. It's also very hard to prove something by its absence. Maybe we just haven’t been lucky enough to prove a homozygous spider yet. It would probably take detailed results from a lot of spider X spider clutchs to start to build a statistically significant trend. And then if it turns out that some how the homozygous embryos die before shelling (getting into the reproductive details I know almost nothing about) it would be even harder to prove with any certainty.

Getting back to pinstripe, this all goes double compared to spider because I believe there are even fewer pin X pin breedings and probably done by even fewer breeders (maybe for pinstripe it really is only the founder so far).

This is pretty amazing. To me, it just goes to show how much we all still have to learn fro breeding these snakes. I would have liked to breed Pin x Pin, but like many others I want to do some Pin combos first; that is a goal for the fall of '08 for me. Maybe the desire for combos actually prevents many from buying, say, 1.1 Pin to breed together? I personally am torn between going for Spinners, or Lemon Blasts.. that alone makes my head spin! Luckily I have some time to decide, but my point is that the awesome combos producable by crossing Spiders, or Pinstripes, seem to be more interesting than breeding the morph to another of its own morph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ginevive

This is pretty amazing. To me, it just goes to show how much we all still have to learn fro breeding these snakes. I would have liked to breed Pin x Pin, but like many others I want to do some Pin combos first; that is a goal for the fall of '08 for me. Maybe the desire for combos actually prevents many from buying, say, 1.1 Pin to breed together? I personally am torn between going for Spinners, or Lemon Blasts.. that alone makes my head spin! Luckily I have some time to decide, but my point is that the awesome combos producable by crossing Spiders, or Pinstripes, seem to be more interesting than breeding the morph to another of its own morph.

---

Then there are other crazy combos including Pinstripes; like the awesome jigsaw! All the more reason for Pin owners to want combos x 1000 :)

Just to add onto this conversation - I stumbled across this pertinent post from their mail bag.

Quote:

---

Dear VPI,

I was wondering what the story is with spider ball pythons. I've tried a number of major breeders, and no one had the answer for me! Since you folks are amazing at what you do, I figured I'd throw the question your way and see if you know.

Since spiders don't have a "super" form, then what would a spider x spider breeding yield? if it were like your more standard co-doms, you would theoretically get 25% normals, 50% spiders, and 25% "super spiders". Since obviously that 25% of "super spiders" doesn't exist, does that leave with you with 75% spiders that are all just your standard spiders? Or perhaps that 25% of the spiders produced, though appearing normal, would have "super"-esque traits. By this I mean that similar to the super pastel in that breeding it to a normal would produce all pastels, or in this case all spiders. I haven't been able to find anything on this subject, and as I said I've contacted numerous breeders, and they haven't really known.

Any input you have on this question would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Eric

Dear Eric,

I don't know this based on personal experience--we've never bred a spider to a spider--but it's my understanding that the spider mutation is a dominant trait over a normal appearance. So when you breed a spider to a spider, you expect to see 75% of the babies with a spider appearance and 25% appear normal. Of those babies that have a spider appearance, 66% are actually het-normals and 33% are homozygous spiders. But you can't tell them apart unless you breed them.

If you breed a het-normal to a normal, then 50% are normals and 50% appear as spiders (het-normals).

But if you were to breed a homozygous spider to a homozygous normal, then you get all babies with the spider appearance ("het-normals.")

Since the spider appearance appears to be a true dominant trait, with respect to the normal trait, I'm using the term "het-normal" to refer to a snake with a spider appearance that is het for normal--in other words, the "regular" spider that is most often seen. There isn't a "super-spider" in the sense of the common use of "super" with regard to codominant traits. There ought to be a homozygous spider, though--but a homozygous dominant trait can't be told from its het form.

That is how it works if the spider is a dominant trait, at least in theory. The fact is that we have never heard of anyone creating a homozygous spider that when bred to a normal produces 100% spider babies. Surely in the 10 years that the mutation has been around, someone has accomplished it, but not that we've heard of. Maybe the homozygous form of spider is a lethal combination?

I hope that helps, DGB

---

I know the combo appeal is working against me getting answers. I finally got a pair of spiders this year. I'd much rather breed the female spider to my male pastel (another late first for me this year) and go for bumble bee. But after shooting my mouth off about the possibility that spider is homozygous lethal for at least 5 years now I'm obligated to try spider X spider myself. I'm still hoping someone else might come up with the answer by the time my female spider is grown but if not I'll do spider X spider. The hard part is that one breeding is almost sure not to produce a quick and certain answer. If we had data from all the spider X spider breedings already done and the breedings of their offspring we could probably come up with a pretty sure answer already.

It would be awesome if someone wanted to create a huge central database and catalog all genetics of what is produced by all breeders! I don't even think that a god or goddess could pull that one off, though.

I heard that a group of corn snake breeders got together and pooled data to finally get to the bottom of the allele relationship between stripe and motley. It was at least 10 years after the theory was put forth in the original Color Guide to Corn Snakes but they got it done. Maybe as ball python morphs get cheaper we can start to figure out the tricky things here too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

Here's a new idea from Dave Barker, I think many will find this little tidbit interesting, and also something I was trying to understand. The possibility that the pinstripe has a gene or other trait closely linked to it that we don't understand yet. Anyways, here's what Dave had to say, I hope he does not mind that I post this.

"Of course, it's possible that one or both conditions are not even genetic, but rather are epigenetic in nature and inheritance. Epigenetics, as I understand it, is the inheritance of traits that are not the expression of a gene, but rather the expression of some other molecules that are associated closely with DNA (I believe these molecules "coat" a strand of DNA").

The fact is that I don't really understand epigenetics, it's a fairly new field of research, and don't have any strong understanding of what all is involved. I have read that epigenetics can cause some pretty strange patterns of inheritance, including inheritance that cannot be explained by classic Mendelian inheritance."


I have cut this from the original message.

---

JUst to clarify, epigenetics involves

(1) the transgenerational inheritance of gene expression patterns
(2) the stable inheritance of gene expression patterns between cell divisions (usually during development)

Most of the research and findings center upon (2)


Both involve chemical modifications ("markers") to DNA and chromosome structure that are heritable and influence the expression of a gene. Many of these chemical modifications are subjected to modulation by environmental factors (chemical exposure, diet, temperature, etc).

While developmental biologists and stem cell researchers are very interested in (1), breeders and geneticists would be most in (2).

Transgenerational effects have been found in mammals and plants. I am not aware of anything in reptiles yet.

Bottom line is that epigenetics tell us that two genetic clones of one another can look very different and yeild very different offspring. The classic example is of a type of trait in mice called agouti.

Agouti mice are fat, yellow, and prone to diseases such as diabetes. The trait is inheritable, but has a strange pattern of inheritance. You see if you have two genetically identical mice one can be agouti while the other one can be normal. Recently, researchers have found that if you expose a mouse's mother to BPA (Bis-Phenol A-a chemical found in some plastic bottles and liners) the chance of it having a agouti appearance goes up dramatically. On the other hand, if you don't expose it to BPA than you dont see the agouti appearance at all.

Furthermore, what they found is that diets high in folic acid and compounds from soy diets reversed the effect in presence of BPA.

For more info see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

One key insight emerging from epigenetics is that the lifestyle and chemical you are exposed to may affect the biological legacy of your kids and even your kids' kids!

Thanks for another great post Mendel. However, I had to drink my coffee faster just so that my eyes could focus on the big words better. LOL. That was a very interesting read.

Ok, you know in boas they have hypo boas, and super hypos.

Well, you cant tell the difference in the super, and regular, only if you breed them will you tell. So this is the same for spiders and pins right? Should we start labeling spider to spider babies as poss super spider?