Normal X Pastel

Sup everyone, ok last stupid breeding question haha i know pastel is not dom, or codom, so if i breed my pastel male to my normal female the only thing im gettin is het pastel right ?

No such thing as a Het Pastel. It's a co-dom, so therefore is visual or not. No if, ands or buts about it.

You would get (statistically speaking) 50% normals, 50% Pastels :D

your pastel is a codom color morph (where as a spider is a dom pattern morph). there is no such thing as a het pastel. you would get pastels and normals if you bred the two together. hope this helps.

the two post above are 100% spot on

yea i just read that i didnt mean het pastel but ok so ill get pretty much 50/50 chance of pastels or normals

maybe you didnt see my last post :)

http://www.ballpythons.ca/genetics.html

I think it tends to confuse people when it is said that there is no such thing as a het pastel. It might be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a "het FOR pastel". A pastel IS a het. It carries one of the two alleles for the pastel trait. Because it is co-dominant, it is a visual het. The homozygous form is, of course, the super pastel.

If anyone tries to sell you a normal looking snake saying that its a het pastel, or het for pastel, run! Since its co-dominant, if its a het, it shows.

A common misconception in the ball python breeding community is that the word heterozygous only applies to recessive traits. Thats just not true. Genetics is genetics. Hets exist with all genetic traits. Some are visible (co-dom and dom) and some aren't (recessive).

As far as dominant is concerned, spiders may or may not be. Nobody has proven that they have a homozygous spider. If its co-dom, the super either hasn't been produced (unlikely), or the spider gene is lethal in its homozygous form. I think thats also unlikely. If its dominant, then there should be homozygous spiders throwing 100% spider babies. I've heard rumors of that, but haven't seen any evidence. So it could still be lethal in its homozygous form. I'm not sure there are many people breeding spiders to spiders. Most are going for combos.

If the results of breeding a spider gives any non-spiders, then the parent spider isn't homozygous. Its heterozygous: a het.

Steve

Hoo-t thankx man that helps out alot im still learing here but that puts everything in my terms haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoo-t

I think it tends to confuse people when it is said that there is no such thing as a het pastel. It might be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a "het FOR pastel". A pastel IS a het. It carries one of the two alleles for the pastel trait. Because it is co-dominant, it is a visual het. The homozygous form is, of course, the super pastel.

If anyone tries to sell you a normal looking snake saying that its a het pastel, or het for pastel, run! Since its co-dominant, if its a het, it shows.

A common misconception in the ball python breeding community is that the word heterozygous only applies to recessive traits. Thats just not true. Genetics is genetics. Hets exist with all genetic traits. Some are visible (co-dom and dom) and some aren't (recessive).

As far as dominant is concerned, spiders may or may not be. Nobody has proven that they have a homozygous spider. If its co-dom, the super either hasn't been produced (unlikely), or the spider gene is lethal in its homozygous form. I think thats also unlikely. If its dominant, then there should be homozygous spiders throwing 100% spider babies. I've heard rumors of that, but haven't seen any evidence. So it could still be lethal in its homozygous form. I'm not sure there are many people breeding spiders to spiders. Most are going for combos.

If the results of breeding a spider gives any non-spiders, then the parent spider isn't homozygous. Its heterozygous: a het.

Steve

---

Does this mean I could say my Male Double het for VPI snow is also Het Normal technically speaking? :weirdface

:rofl: Oh thats got to be good "Het normal", but what allele(s) are we talking about?

Sorry I just couldn't resist to add confusion and chaos! :taz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoo-t

It might be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a "het FOR pastel". A pastel IS a het. It carries one of the two alleles for the pastel trait. Because it is co-dominant, it is a visual het.

---

Steve,
You beat me to it. Great post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoo-t

I think it tends to confuse people when it is said that there is no such thing as a het pastel. It might be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a "het FOR pastel". A pastel IS a het. It carries one of the two alleles for the pastel trait. Because it is co-dominant, it is a visual het. The homozygous form is, of course, the super pastel.

If anyone tries to sell you a normal looking snake saying that its a het pastel, or het for pastel, run! Since its co-dominant, if its a het, it shows.

A common misconception in the ball python breeding community is that the word heterozygous only applies to recessive traits. Thats just not true. Genetics is genetics. Hets exist with all genetic traits. Some are visible (co-dom and dom) and some aren't (recessive).

As far as dominant is concerned, spiders may or may not be. Nobody has proven that they have a homozygous spider. If its co-dom, the super either hasn't been produced (unlikely), or the spider gene is lethal in its homozygous form. I think thats also unlikely. If its dominant, then there should be homozygous spiders throwing 100% spider babies. I've heard rumors of that, but haven't seen any evidence. So it could still be lethal in its homozygous form. I'm not sure there are many people breeding spiders to spiders. Most are going for combos.

If the results of breeding a spider gives any non-spiders, then the parent spider isn't homozygous. Its heterozygous: a het.

Steve

---

I've said this before and got nothing but "You're crazy" responses. Glad someone else understands. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoo-t

I think it tends to confuse people when it is said that there is no such thing as a het pastel. It might be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a "het FOR pastel". A pastel IS a het. It carries one of the two alleles for the pastel trait. Because it is co-dominant, it is a visual het. The homozygous form is, of course, the super pastel.

---

Agreed completely.

BUT! Using the phrase Het Pastel leads one to believe that it is a NORMAL het for pastel, which is why I felt the need to correct it.

Phrasing and word structure are all important when defining something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Using the phrase Het Pastel leads one to believe that it is a NORMAL het for pastel, which is why I felt the need to correct it.

---

That's because of the unfortunate and common misunderstanding in the ball python community of what the word heterozygous means. Hets are only normal looking with recessive mutations. Heterozygous really means having an unmatched pair of genes. Understanding that the pastel has one pastel mutated copy and one normal for pastel copy of the genes at the pastel locus makes it easy to understand that it a has a 50/50 chance of passing the pastel mutant version on to each of it's offspring.

As combinations involving different mutation types become more common I think it's worth the time to go back and understand genotypes as it will make predicting outcomes much easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

That's because of the unfortunate and common misunderstanding in the ball python community of what the word heterozygous means. Hets are only normal looking with recessive mutations. Heterozygous really means having an unmatched pair of genes. Understanding that the pastel has one pastel mutated copy and one normal for pastel copy of the genes at the pastel locus makes it easy to understand that it a has a 50/50 chance of passing the pastel mutant version on to each of it's offspring.

As combinations involving different mutation types become more common I think it's worth the time to go back and understand genotypes as it will make predicting outcomes much easier.

---

So you are saying that a normal can be Het for Pastel???

I think I am misunderstanding your arguement here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

So you are saying that a normal can be Het for Pastel???

I think I am misunderstanding your arguement here.

---

Het def. -Having two different alleles for a single trait.

A Pastel is het for Super Pastel...The Super Pastel being the Homo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coldbloodaddict

Het def. -Having two different alleles for a single trait.

A Pastel is het for Super Pastel...The Super Pastel being the Homo.

---

That I know.

But being HET PASTEL is construing that it is a Normal Het for Pastel, which is not possible...

Am I on the wrong track here? I feel like we may all be saying the same thing in different ways...

And yes, before you ask, I am quibbling with semantics.

I guess technically they would be called het Super Pastels...Kind of like how a Yellow Belly is also called a het Ivory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

That I know.

But being HET PASTEL is construing that it is a Normal Het for Pastel, which is not possible...

Am I on the wrong track here? I feel like we may all be saying the same thing in different ways...

And yes, before you ask, I am quibbling with semantics.

---

You are thinking het means RECESSIVE, which it does not. A Het pastel is a normal pastel. Since it only has one pastel gene it is heterozygous. We don't use the extra word of "het" with pastel since it is unnesscessary, as the pastel gene is co-dom, therefore visual.

Het clown = Normal ball with 1 clown gene
Since clown is recessive the clown gene is not expressed in the phenotype

Het pastel = Normal ball with 1 pastel gene or commonly called a Pastel

Sicne pastel is co-dom the pastel gene is expressed in the phenotype.


I think your error Heather is in thinking het means recessive.

Hope I explained it clear enough if not I can try again:D

These co-dom x normal questions have been popping up a lot lately. Maybe we can have a sticky with something like this:

Breeding a Co-dom x Normal results in 50% co-doms and 50% normals

Breeding a co-dom x co-dom results in 50% co-doms, 25% normals, and 25% supers

Breeding a dominant x normal results in 50% doms and 50% normals

Breeding a dominant x dominant results in 75% doms and 25% normals

Breeding a het x normal results in 50% hets and 50% normals with all of them appearing normal

Breeding a het x het results in 25% homozygous visual morph and 66% poss. hets, all appearing normal

Breeding a recessive visual x het results in 50% homozygous visual morph and the other half are 100% hets

Breeding a recessive visual to a normal results in 100% hets

Co-Doms:
pastel - super = super pastel
mojave - super = Blue eye leusistic
lesser - super = Blue eye leusistic
butter - super = Blue eye leusistic
black pastel - super = super black pastel (solid black)
cinnamon pastel - super = super cinny (solid black)
fire - super = Black eye leusistic
vanilla (thunder) - super = super vanilla aka lightning
woma - super = pearl
yellow belly - super = ivory
het red axanthic - super = red axanthic
spot nose - super = power ball
phantom - super = super phantom
Lori ball - super = super Lori ball
Enchi - super = super Enchi
sable - super = super sable
banana ball - super = ???

Dominants:
Spider
Pinstripe
calico?

Recessives:
Albino
Piebald
Clown
Axanthic
Hypo/Ghost
Caramel Albino
Lavendar albino
Genetic Stripe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

You are thinking het means RECESSIVE, which it does not. A Het pastel is a normal pastel. Since it only has one pastel gene it is heterozygous. We don't use the extra word of "het" with pastel since it is unnesscessary, as the pastel gene is co-dom, therefore visual.

Het clown = Normal ball with 1 clown gene
Since clown is recessive the clown gene is not expressed in the phenotype

Het pastel = Normal ball with 1 pastel gene or commonly called a Pastel

Sicne pastel is co-dom the pastel gene is expressed in the phenotype.

---

Your arguement is that a visual pastel is a Het Pastel. That to me is erroneous for this reason. How can you be Het for being visual considering it is a co-dom morph? The whole definition of co-dom is that there are normals and there are Pastels. Black and White, no grey in the middle.

Why use that definition when it is SO misleading?

I can understand where the arguement for a Pastel being het for SUPER pastel, but a normal pastel being het Pastel is not really semantically correct to me....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Your arguement is that a visual pastel is a Het Pastel.

---

That is what I am saying.

Quote:

---

That to me is erroneous for this reason.

---

I said most people don't use the term het with pastel, since it is obvious. BUT the snake still is a heterozygous pastel

Quote:

---

How can you be Het for being visual considering it is a co-dom morph?

---

You keep making the same error. Heterozygous does not mean recessive. Heterozygous means having 1 allele of a gene, which is exactly what a pastel is.

Quote:

---

The whole definition of co-dom is that there are normals and there are Pastels. Black and White, no grey in the middle.

---

No the whole definition of Co-dominant means the gene is expressed in the phenotype(physical appearance). Co-dominant genes also only require 1 allele to appear in the phenotype, where as recessive genes require 2 alleles.

Quote:

---

Why use that definition when it is SO misleading?

---

Because that is genetics....The Ball Python industry has streamlined genetics and in turn caused misconceptions.

Quote:

---

I can understand where the arguement for a Pastel being het for SUPER pastel, but a normal pastel being het Pastel is not really semantically correct to me....

---

Pastel is the heterozygous form of a Super Pastel, which makes the Pastel heterozygous. Semantically correct or not, that is genetics.

Absolutely not.

So are you saying that the Het Ivory is an incorrect definition because it is a Yellowbelly?

Your arguement is stating that then the definition of the animal should be Het Yellowbelly....

Same goes with all co-doms???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

Pastel is the heterozygous form of a Super Pastel, which makes the Pastel heterozygous. Semantically correct or not, that is genetics.

---

I don't disagree with this statement. I disagree with the phrasing of the term.

I am aware of genetics. I have my degree. Don't patronize me. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Absolutely not.

So are you saying that the Het Ivory is an incorrect definition because it is a Yellowbelly?

Your arguement is stating that then the definition of the animal should be Het Yellowbelly....

I am aware of genetics. I have my degree. Don't patronize me. I don't appreciate it.

---

A heterozygous yellowbelly is not a yellowbelly?

Also they have these names cause Ball python people have named them not geneticists.

Sorry you feel patronized, but I'm trying to help you understand the genetic view of it.

For the sake of the discussion bringing up degrees isn't relavent unless it is in snake genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

A heterozygous yellowbelly is not a yellowbelly?

---

A het ivory is a yellowbelly, so the super form is the Ivory. Thus the name. What do you call the normals then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

Also they have these names cause people Ball python people have named them not geneticists.

---

That is true. How many people playing with Ball Pythons are??? I admit I am not. I just work in a lab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

Sorry you feel patronized, but I'm trying to help you understand the genetic view of it.

For the sake of the discussion bringing up degrees isn't relavent unless it is in snake genetics.

---

Really? I feel it does. I have my Bachelors in Biology, and took several classes in Genetics. What is your background in this?
What you're saying makes sense in a way, but I am concerned about the PHRASING as it pertains to the animal, and how it tends to confuse those that do not fully understand.

heterozygous:
a genotype consisting of two different alleles of a gene for a particular trait (Aa). Individuals who are heterozygous for a trait are referred to as heterozygotes.

If A is pastel, then it is a visual expression of Pastel, but the homozygous form being Super (AA) so therefore Het for Super Pastel...

I can't see how you can use that arguement to argue that there is a Het pastel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

A het ivory is a yellowbelly, so the super form is the Ivory. Thus the name. What do you call the normals then?



That is true. How many people playing with Ball Pythons are??? I admit I am not. I just work in a lab.




Really? I feel it does. I have my Bachelors in Biology, and took several classes in Genetics. What is your background in this?
What you're saying makes sense in a way, but I am concerned about the PHRASING as it pertains to the animal, and how it tends to confuse those that do not fully understand.

---

Het Ivory = Yellowbelly

Heterozygous Yellowbelly = Yellowbelly = Het Ivory

Its all the same thing just semantically incorrect. I call them yellowbellys because thats what the first person who produced them calls them.

I personally havn't met or heard of one geneticists that breeds ball pythons.

I may not have a degree, but have taken more than my share of science and Biology classes. Through high school and college I have taken 8 Biology related classes, which all undoubtedly deals with genetics.

I agree genetics is confusing and when have I ever said to a new person thats a het pastel or event tried explaining it to a new person? I havn't. When I see people mocking others for their own incorrect information is when I try to educate some people on the basic terms of genetics, which is all this discussion is.

Not saying you mock, but others do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

I agree genetics is confusing and when have I ever said to a new person thats a het pastel or event tried explaining it to a new person? I havn't. When I see people mocking others for their own incorrect information is when I try to educate some people on the basic terms of genetics, which is all this discussion is.

Not saying you mock, but others do.

---

Okay, I am going to say that I HAVE seen people get scammed by the "Het Pastels" (aka Normals). I have also had to explain it to them.
Which is why it is so important to me that this wording, and the semantics behind them is clarified so that people are again NOT mislead.

I understand you are not trying to be difficult, and I also understand that you ARE educated in genetics. Problem is, I think personally that you are explaining it in a way that can mislead many people into thinking that there is such thing as a normal het pastel just way the phrase used!

I HATE seeing people scammed, which is why I wanted to clarify the issue to forgo any possible confusion. Problem is, if they read thru this, I doubt the confusion will pass... :rolleyes:

Heterozygous:
A genotype consisting of two different alleles of a gene for a particular trait (Aa). Individuals who are heterozygous for a trait are referred to as heterozygotes.

Using Pastel as an example, in a normal ball python the genes should look like

nnpp

nn= normal
pp= the normal gene that would be in place of the pastel gene

A pastel would look like this

nnPp

nn= normal
Pp= Pastel

As you can see in these genes Pp that it is heterozygous. Making a visual pastel, but it is heterozygous.

A super pastel would look like this

nnPP

nn= normal
PP= super pastel

This makes a homozygous form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Okay, I am going to say that I HAVE seen people get scammed by the "Het Pastels" (aka Normals). I have also had to explain it to them.
Which is why it is so important to me that this wording, and the semantics behind them is clarified so that people are again NOT mislead.

I understand you are not trying to be difficult, and I also understand that you ARE educated in genetics. Problem is, I think personally that you are explaining it in a way that can mislead many people into thinking that there is such thing as a normal het pastel just way the phrase used!

I HATE seeing people scammed, which is why I wanted to clarify the issue to forgo any possible confusion. Problem is, if they read thru this, I doubt the confusion will pass... :rolleyes:

---

I am no teacher and I am not the best at explaining things, but hopefully I have gotten what I wanted to say accross, if not I'm sure people like Randy and others will maybe put it into better words than I can.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

Heterozygous:
A genotype consisting of two different alleles of a gene for a particular trait (Aa). Individuals who are heterozygous for a trait are referred to as heterozygotes.

Using Pastel as an example, in a normal ball python the genes should look like

nnpp

nn= normal
pp= the normal gene that would be in place of the pastel gene

A pastel would look like this

nnPp

nn= normal
Pp= Pastel

As you can see in these genes Pp that it is heterozygous. Making a visual pastel, but it is heterozygous.

A super pastel would look like this

nnPP

nn= normal
PP= super pastel

This makes a homozygous form.

---

Okay, lets do this one more time.

Yes, I see your punnet square.

Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons.

Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Okay, lets do this one more time.

Yes, I see your punnet square.

Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons.

Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

---

That is what has happened to genetics in the Ball Python Industry, when someone says Het pastel people automatically think recessive, which I was trying to correct.

I agree people leave off the het because it is unneccessary and can cause confusion. I just don't like people being ridiculed and made fun of for something they aren't wrong about.

I personally call it a pastel, and as stated before, its all sematics

wow you guys are funny i just looked and there are 29 posts and i stoped looking after 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew420

wow you guys are funny i just looked and there are 29 posts and i stoped looking after 12

---

Its all good, its what civil debate is all about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew420

wow you guys are funny i just looked and there are 29 posts and i stoped looking after 12

---

Its all for you, Babaay ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

So you are saying that a normal can be Het for Pastel???

I think I am misunderstanding your arguement here.

---

I think the problem here all goes back to a misunderstanding of what heterozygous means. I didn't say anything about a normal looking pastel het. Many ball python people hear the word het and think it has to look normal because with the recessive mutations where they first learned about hets they just happened to look normal. You made the jump from het pastel to normal looking because of the common and deeply ingrained misunderstanding of the word het in the ball python community.

The solution is to stop thinking heterozygous means "normal looking gene carrier".

Het also doesn't mean "half way to something else". Technically a pastel isn't het for super pastel. Even if it turns out that spider or pinstripe are dominant and the homozygous versions look the same there will still be heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. In fact, if we ever do get a proven dominant ball python mutation it will be more important than ever to understand genotype terms because the heterozygous and homozygous mutant genotype animals will look the same so we’ll have to start talking about het pinstripes (or whatever mutation) to tell them apart.

The key is to go back to the real meaning of heterozygous - having an unmatched pair of whatever genes you are talking about. Deciding what a heterozygous animal looks like in relation to a homozygous normal and a homozygous mutant depends on the mutation type. The pastel phenotype animals are heterozygous for the pastel mutation because they have two different versions of the pastel gene; one with the pastel mutation inherited from one of the parents and one normal for pastel version of the pastel gene inherited from the other parent. Because pastel is a co-dominant mutation the hets do not look normal and the homozygous for the pastel mutation animals are a different non normal phenotype animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Het also doesn't mean "half way to something else". Technically a pastel isn't het for super pastel. Even if it turns out that spider or pinstripe are dominant and the homozygous versions look the same there will still be heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. In fact, if we ever do get a proven dominant ball python mutation it will be more important than ever to understand genotype terms because the heterozygous and homozygous mutant genotype animals will look the same so we’ll have to start talking about het pinstripes (or whatever mutation) to tell them apart.

---

AKA Boa Morphs? I honestly don't follow that well, so therefore do not know if the problem is apparent on that end as well???

Granted, I was arguing a point that has been brought up often, and yes, there is misconceptions within the genetics of the BP industry. I acquiese to that completely.

I just need to know how to phrase it so that it doesn't end up being confusing to the general public, as HET is as you said, misconstrued.

Which is why I defended Pastel. I think I'll just stick with that.

:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Okay, lets do this one more time.

Yes, I see your punnet square.

Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons.

Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

---

IMHO, although it will be very difficult to undue the years of "het = normal looking" thinking and there will be lots of confusion along the way I think we as an industry need to work through it to start understanding genotypes. I just don't see how when the average Joe has the opportunity to do crosses like killer bee het ghost X pastel ghost they will be able to predict the offspring without being able to break each component down to its genotype. So basically I'm arguing that we need to fix the general public's expectation that "het pastel" is a normal looking animal rather than accepting it and continuing to say things like "there are no het pastel/spider/etc.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I think the problem here all goes back to a misunderstanding of what heterozygous means. I didn't say anything about a normal looking pastel het. Many ball python people hear the word het and think it has to look normal because with the recessive mutations where they first learned about hets they just happened to look normal. You made the jump from het pastel to normal looking because of the common and deeply ingrained misunderstanding of the word het in the ball python community.

The solution is to stop thinking heterozygous means "normal looking gene carrier".

Het also doesn't mean "half way to something else". Technically a pastel isn't het for super pastel. Even if it turns out that spider or pinstripe are dominant and the homozygous versions look the same there will still be heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. In fact, if we ever do get a proven dominant ball python mutation it will be more important than ever to understand genotype terms because the heterozygous and homozygous mutant genotype animals will look the same so we’ll have to start talking about het pinstripes (or whatever mutation) to tell them apart.

The key is to go back to the real meaning of heterozygous - having an unmatched pair of whatever genes you are talking about. Deciding what a heterozygous animal looks like in relation to a homozygous normal and a homozygous mutant depends on the mutation type. The pastel phenotype animals are heterozygous for the pastel mutation because they have two different versions of the pastel gene; one with the pastel mutation inherited from one of the parents and one normal for pastel version of the pastel gene inherited from the other parent. Because pastel is a co-dominant mutation the hets do not look normal and the homozygous for the pastel mutation animals are a different non normal phenotype animal.

---

Thats what I meant to say! Thanks Randy!

Here is another terminology issue that IMHO might be better worded differently. You aren't out right using mutation types like co-dom and dominant as genotypes like on some ball python sites but you are close to it. In the below example it's implied that your "co-dom" and "dominant" mutation animals are heterozygous based on your results. But since the pastel mutation type is co-dominant isn't a super pastel just as much a co-dom as a regular pastel? If there is a homozygous pinstripe out there and pinstripe mutation type is dominant then wouldn't the homozygous pinstripe be just as much a dominant as the heterozygous pinstripes we've seen so far? Basically I think we should stick to using co-dom and dominant at the mutation type level and not apply it to specific genotype examples. The pastel mutation type is co-dominant compared to the normal version of the pastel gene, so co-dom refers to the mutation and not the snake that might have 1 or two copies of that mutation.

I've argued for using one set of inheritance rules based on genotypes that applies to each mutation type and then using the mutation type to sort out the phenotypes later.

Basically:

1. If starting with parent phenotypes break the parents down to their genotypes. Example, a Killerbee het ghost could be represented as sSPPGg where S, P, and g are the mutant versions of the Spider, Pastel, and Ghost genes respectively with the capital versions indicating the more dominant when compared with the normal versions of the same genes (s, p, and G).

2. Use the same genotype inheritance rules for all non sex linked mutations:

a. homozygous X homozygous = 100% homozygous (applies to both homozygous normal and homozygous mutant, the results are the same as the parents – homozygous normal X homozygous normal = 100% homozygous normal just like homozygous mutant X homozygous mutant = 100% homozygous mutant).

b. het X homozygous normal = 50% chance het, 50% chance homozygous normal. Depending on the mutation you may know which of your 50% chance het eggs hit the odds as soon as they hatch but they are still 50% chance hets when laid.

c. het X het = 25% homozygous mutant, 50% heterozygous, 25% homozygous normal. Once the eggs hatch if the mutation type isn’t co-dom you will have two of these groups together based on phenotype making a 33/66% possible split - as in 66% chance het recessives mutation animal or eventually 33% chance homozygous dominant mutation animals.

d. het X homozygous mutant = 50% chance het and 50% chance homozygous mutant. This is really the same rule as b. just inverted homozygous mutant for homozygous normal.

3. Convert back to phenotypes by knowing the mutation types. Example, realize that your homozygous mutant pastels (PP) are super pastel phenotype.

We may eventually get comfortable enough with genotypes that we don't even need step 1 and 3. If we called super pastels “homozygous pastels” then there would be no need to convert between the common name of the phenotype and the genotype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

These co-dom x normal questions have been popping up a lot lately. Maybe we can have a sticky with something like this:

Breeding a Co-dom x Normal results in 50% co-doms and 50% normals

Breeding a co-dom x co-dom results in 50% co-doms, 25% normals, and 25% supers

Breeding a dominant x normal results in 50% doms and 50% normals

Breeding a dominant x dominant results in 75% doms and 25% normals

Breeding a het x normal results in 50% hets and 50% normals with all of them appearing normal

Breeding a het x het results in 25% homozygous visual morph and 66% poss. hets, all appearing normal

Breeding a recessive visual x het results in 50% homozygous visual morph and the other half are 100% hets

Breeding a recessive visual to a normal results in 100% hets

Co-Doms:
pastel - super = super pastel
mojave - super = Blue eye leusistic
lesser - super = Blue eye leusistic
butter - super = Blue eye leusistic
black pastel - super = super black pastel (solid black)
cinnamon pastel - super = super cinny (solid black)
fire - super = Black eye leusistic
vanilla (thunder) - super = super vanilla aka lightning
woma - super = pearl
yellow belly - super = ivory
het red axanthic - super = red axanthic
spot nose - super = power ball
phantom - super = super phantom
Lori ball - super = super Lori ball
Enchi - super = super Enchi
sable - super = super sable
banana ball - super = ???

Dominants:
Spider
Pinstripe
calico?

Recessives:
Albino
Piebald
Clown
Axanthic
Hypo/Ghost
Caramel Albino
Lavendar albino
Genetic Stripe

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Here is another terminology issue that IMHO might be better worded differently. You aren't out right using mutation types like co-dom and dominant as genotypes like on some ball python sites but you are close to it. In the below example it's implied that your "co-dom" and "dominant" mutation animals are heterozygous based on your results. But since the pastel mutation type is co-dominant isn't a super pastel just as much a co-dom as a regular pastel? If there is a homozygous pinstripe out there and pinstripe mutation type is dominant then wouldn't the homozygous pinstripe be just as much a dominant as the heterozygous pinstripes we've seen so far? Basically I think we should stick to using co-dom and dominant at the mutation type level and not apply it to specific genotype examples.
I've argued for using one set of inheritance rules based on genotypes that applies to each mutation type and then using the mutation type to sort out the phenotypes later.

---

Randy, I know exactly what you are saying, and I agree that we should be using one set of rules based on genotype and not phenotype. I think that ball python genetics can be confusing to newbies, and we can do better at standardizing the lingo.

I made this chart with the thoughts that newbies can give it a quick look and see that a pastel x normal will give you chances of 50% normals and 50% pastels. Since there is no evidence of homozygotes for the spiders and pinstripes, I wanted to keep it basic. I also agree that it's important that we start recognizing genotypes for what they are, and get rid of the "all hets look normal" way of thinking. I always try to explain co-doms as being heterozygous for a super form, while having a different phenotype than a wild type color and pattern, because that's what they are, hets. Just for the sake of providing this to newbies, while not jumping to any conclusions about homozygous dominant phenotypes, I wanted to keep it simple. Obviously when I say that a spider x spider breeding will give you 75% spiders, common sense would tell you that statistically 1/3 of those should technically be homozygous animals, I wanted to stick to a simple chart keeping with what we know to be true as this point. Once people start getting into those double co-dom het recessive X visual recessive, they would be wise to dig a little deeper into genotypes before assuming any potential outcomes. :)

Edit: I just realized I didn't write anything for homozygous co-doms in my first post, though. That's not helping anything. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

But since the pastel mutation type is co-dominant isn't a super pastel just as much a co-dom as a regular pastel?

---

The idea that the arrangement of the alleles in a particular animal have any bearing whatsoever on the dominant/recessive nature of the gene in question is in, and of itself, the primary misconception.

I personally think this is just a condition of any breeding hobby though, since heterozygous forms are often found, sometimes years, before a homozygous form is located or produced. Since proving a trait is genetic often takes multiple generations, by the time we locate the homozygous form, we're usually well ensconced in the fallacy of the heterozygous form being, itself, a discreet morph, and thus name the homozygous version something different completely (ie. mojave vs. BluEL, fire vs BlaEL, yb vs. ivory, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlfreq

I personally think this is just a condition of any breeding hobby though, since heterozygous forms are often found, sometimes years, before a homozygous form is located or produced. Since proving a trait is genetic often takes multiple generations, by the time we locate the homozygous form, we're usually well ensconced in the fallacy of the heterozygous form being, itself, a discreet morph, and thus name the homozygous version something different completely (ie. mojave vs. BluEL, fire vs BlaEL, yb vs. ivory, etc).

---

:gj::gj::gj:
That's a big part of the confusing genetics lingo with balls. While all these should technically be called hets for whatever the super is, it takes time to even find out whether or not these new mutations are co-dominant for something, and what the super form, if there is one, will look like. So someone gives these hets their own name before it's ever even know whether it's a dominant or co-dominant trait, and usually before its even known whether the phenotype is genetic or not. Then if it proves out to be a co-dom with a super form, the super usually gets a new name that has little or nothing to do with the name the het was labeled. It would definitely be easier for everyone to understand if either names weren't decided for the hets until a superform was produced and named, or all supers were labeled only as super (whatevers). The current system doesn't bother me, but if we are trying to keep ball python genetics simple to comprehend, we aren't doing the best job. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

The current system doesn't bother me, but if we are trying to keep ball python genetics simple to comprehend, we aren't doing the best job. :)

---

Amen to that...

:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

The current system doesn't bother me, but if we are trying to keep ball python genetics simple to comprehend, we aren't doing the best job.

---

This is where I keep going back to the idea of having some sort of AKC style registry for Ball Pythons. Until the industry comes together and publishes standards for what comprises a morph, and beyond that what makes for a good specimen of a particular morph, the current chaos, and the large number of unscrupulous people willing to exploit it for financial benefit, will continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlfreq

This is where I keep going back to the idea of having some sort of AKC style registry for Ball Pythons. Until the industry comes together and publishes standards for what comprises a morph, and beyond that what makes for a good specimen of a particular morph, the current chaos, and the large number of unscrupulous people willing to exploit it for financial benefit, will continue.

---

Agreed. Implimenting a standard with a body to oversee everything would also make me a somewhat more comfortable about people making hybrids.

OK, since I kinda started all this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

...Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. ...

---

Also genetically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

...To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons. ...

---

I disagree with this. It implies that it is normal to the segment of the general public that doesn't understand genetics, and assumes that the term het only applies to recessive traits, which is not true. Once it is explained that het does NOT mean normal looking, then we can make progress. I think Randy said it best. Heterozygous means an unmatched pair of genes on a particular locus. It has absolutely nothing to do with visual/non-visual. And they exist in recessive, co-dominant, and dominant traits. I also agree with Randy in that if/when spider and pinstripe are proven dominant, understanding that a het spider is still a spider, but not homozygous will be especially important.

The problem I see is that many, many people come on this forum and ask "What do I get if I breed a pastel to a normal?" They don't have a firm understanding of genetics. (Not a dis against you Andrew!!!) When you tell them that there is no such thing as a het pastel, it merely adds to the confusion. Help them to understand that from a genetics perspective, it works the same way with recessive, co-dominant, and dominant. Tell them they must learn which traits are recessive, co-dom, and dom. Then it becomes easy to understand that breeding a pastel to a normal yields 50% normals and 50% pastels. It becomes easy to understand what a 66% probable het is, and why there are no 66% het pastels. And it becomes easy to understand that the normal looking snake that Will Scamu is selling is NOT a het pastel! They can look Will in the eye and say "No, pastel is co-dominant. If it was a het, it would BE a pastel!" To me, avoiding the issue to protect them only serves to make it worse. They still don't understand, and THAT leaves them open for Will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

...Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

---

I have no problem calling it a pastel. Its only when someone says its not a het, that I jump in and get myself in trouble. ;)

Steve

yellowbelly = het ivory as is pastel = het superpastel as is mojave/lesser = het blue eyed lucy.

Is that not correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by addsdad

yellowbelly = het ivory as is pastel = het superpastel as is mojave/lesser = het blue eyed lucy.

Is that not correct?

---

Yeah, but I'm kinda with Randy when he says that its not really correct to say het super pastel. The name of the trait is pastel, not super pastel. To me, super is a descriptive term to say that it is homozygous. So to say het super pastel would be similar to saying het homozygous pastel. So, in my mind a pastel is heterozygous for the pastel trait, or a "het pastel". Then there's Opal, another name for super pastel. So a pastel = het Opal.

Yellowbelly/Ivory opens a whole different can of worms. What's the name of the trait? Yellowbelly or Ivory? It almost seems like two different names for the same trait. Yellowbelly = het Ivory. Ivory = homozygous Yellowbelly.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoo-t

Yeah, but I'm kinda with Randy when he says that its not really correct to say het super pastel. The name of the trait is pastel, not super pastel. To me, super is a descriptive term to say that it is homozygous. So to say het super pastel would be similar to saying het homozygous pastel. So, in my mind a pastel is heterozygous for the pastel trait, or a "het pastel". Then there's Opal, another name for super pastel. So a pastel = het Opal.

Yellowbelly/Ivory opens a whole different can of worms. What's the name of the trait? Yellowbelly or Ivory? It almost seems like two different names for the same trait. Yellowbelly = het Ivory. Ivory = homozygous Yellowbelly.

Steve

---

I think the homozygotes should all be called supers for whatever the heterozygous animal is, because of mutations like the mojave, lesser, butter, yellowbelly, goblin, etc. If one guy is selling a BEL for $2,500 and another guy is selling a BEL for $2,800, people might thing they are getting a better deal with the cheaper one, not knowing that the cheaper one os a super mojave while the more expensive one is a super butter. If everything was labeled a heterozygous goblin or a homozygous goblin or super goblin, things would be easier for a lot of people, and it would reduce scams and misleading ads. If anyone tries selling a het for a co-dom and it looks normal, they are obviously lying. In general, people should know better than to buy a het for pastel or het for spider if the animal is obviously a wild type animal. Het means the animal carries one copy of the mutated gene. Doms and co-doms show that in the phenotype. Homozygous means the animal carries both copies of the gene. In recessives this is the visual, and in co-doms it's the super form. Anyone buying these animals to breed should already know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I think the homozygotes should all be called supers for whatever the heterozygous animal is, because of mutations like the mojave, lesser, butter, yellowbelly, goblin, etc. If one guy is selling a BEL for $2,500 and another guy is selling a BEL for $2,800, people might thing they are getting a better deal with the cheaper one, not knowing that the cheaper one os a super mojave while the more expensive one is a super butter. If everything was labeled a heterozygous goblin or a homozygous goblin or super goblin, things would be easier for a lot of people, and it would reduce scams and misleading ads. If anyone tries selling a het for a co-dom and it looks normal, they are obviously lying. In general, people should know better than to buy a het for pastel or het for spider if the animal is obviously a wild type animal. Het means the animal carries one copy of the mutated gene. Doms and co-doms show that in the phenotype. Homozygous means the animal carries both copies of the gene. In recessives this is the visual, and in co-doms it's the super form. Anyone buying these animals to breed should already know this.

---

Excellent post, Jake! I was thinking about this last night, only from a different angle. I was thinking that everything should be named based on the homozygous form. Its already the case with recessives, and to a much lesser extent, co-doms, ie Opal and Ivory. I think if the pastel and yellowbelly names were dropped, and the heterozygous animals were simply called het Opal and het Ivory, there would be much less confusion. Spiders and Pinstripes would fall into place as well (assuming they're proved dominant). But, as you said, the blue eyed leucistics present a problem with that. Probably doesn't matter, though, because the names are in place and are probably going to stick!

In any event, I think discussions like this one are incredibly valuable. The people who don't understand the genetics can come away with a much more thorough understanding.

Steve