What do you think this is

He wants 150 "rehoming" fee. Some of the markers look like a pin. I'm seriously thinking about picking up this guy I'd appreciate your opinions.

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/n...962238038.html

Looks like a nice normal to me. I think you can find something better for $150.00

[QUOTE=adamsmasher;939526]He wants 150 "rehoming" fee. Some of the markers look like a pin. I'm seriously thinking about picking up this guy I'd appreciate your opinions.

The enclosure is worthless right now as it is not appropriated for an animal that size, you still need to spend $75 on a thermostat, buy 2 identical hides (avoid the log hides), you will also need a digital thermometer, and the animal cost about $30.

Is it worth it? NO

its a normal and pins are dominant either its a pin or it not there are no markers this is a pin on top of a spider
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/i...z/DSC00670.jpg

no one has answered my question though as to what they think it is. I'm assuming that you all think its just a normal. Some of the horozontal markings look like a pinstripe was just wondering if it was say a het pin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsmasher

He wants 150 "rehoming" fee. Some of the markers look like a pin. I'm seriously thinking about picking up this guy I'd appreciate your opinions.

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/n...962238038.html

---

It's a nice normal. It's not a pin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsmasher

no one has answered my question though as to what they think it is. I'm assuming that you all think its just a normal. Some of the horozontal markings look like a pinstripe was just wondering if it was say a het pin

---

There is no such thing as a HET pinstripe as it is a co-dominant mutation. Its just a normal. I think you can spend your $150 much better somewhere else.

My pin thanks you for the pic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsmasher

no one has answered my question though as to what they think it is. I'm assuming that you all think its just a normal. Some of the horozontal markings look like a pinstripe was just wondering if it was say a het pin

---

It is a normal, there is no het for Pin a pin is a Dominant morph not a recessive.

This is a Pin

http://stewartreptiles.com/BallPytho...instripe03.jpg

well he dropped his price to 125 sorry I'm not well versed on genetics yet but now I understand (I think) that there can't be heterozygous alieles for co dominant traits, that right? I have a pinstripe so I know what they look like some of the striping just sort of looked like mine, but thankfully I've been informed that its just not possible. Thanks

http://s437.photobucket.com/albums/q...cture003-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsmasher

well he dropped his price to 125

---

125 dollars is still very expensive, I would offer him 30 dollars for the BP and with the rest of the money you were about to spend I would buy the proper enclosure, thermostat, hides, UTH etc.

hay are you ga ball pythons on another reptile forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsmasher

hay are you ga ball pythons on another reptile forum?

---

Yes

the one with the green screen right, I forget the site

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsmasher

the one with the green screen right, I forget the site

---

Yes, Reptic Zone

yes! thats it!

A Pinstripe IS a heterozygous animal. Saying there is no such thing as a het pin or a het codom animal is false.
A "HET" codom is a morph, whereas a "HET" recessive is normal in appearance.
In the Pin's case the homozygous animal looks exactly like the hetero animal.
-Steven

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevenkeogh

A Pinstripe IS a heterozygous animal. Saying there is no such thing as a het pin or a het codom animal is false.
A "HET" codom is a morph, whereas a "HET" recessive is normal in appearance.
In the Pin's case the homozygous animal looks exactly like the hetero animal.
-Steven

---

I know what you are saying and will agree to a degree.

In these case since the animal looks normal the poster wanted to know if it could be a normal looking animal het for pin which is IMPOSSIBLE a normal looking animal can only be het for a recessive trait.

Which mean in THIS case the animal is either a pin or it is not (this was the main idea of this thread)

Yes this animal is not a pin but there is also such a thing as a heterozygous pin. Pinstripe is actually the reason it's more important than ever for ball python people to start understanding what "heterozygous" really means. It does not mean "normal looking hidden gene carrier", it just works out that way with recessive mutations. It also does not mean "half way to another morph", it just works out that way with co-dominant mutations (i.e. a pastel has a heterozygous genotype at the pastel locus, it isn't really correct to say it's heterozygous for super pastel).

As the first proven dominant mutation type in ball pythons we will now need a way to talk about the differences between het pinstripes and homozygous pinstripes that look the same. So understanding that "heterozygous" really means having an unmatched pair of genes at whatever location you are talking about you can see how a het albino, a pastel, and a het pinstripe all have that in common. How they look in relation to normal and their homozygous mutant forms is what defines the mutation type (recessive, co-dominant, and dominant). The important thing is understanding that they are still all hets and follow the same breeding results such as each baby having a 50/50 chance of getting the mutant copy from a het parent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

It also does not mean "half way to another morph", it just works out that way with co-dominant mutations (i.e. a pastel has a heterozygous genotype at the pastel locus, it isn't really correct to say it's heterozygous for super pastel).

---

Randy, sorry, I'm really new to bp and I'm just starting to get my head around genetics. The gene sticky was very helpful in explaining dominant, co-dominant, het, homozygous, etc. But, just as I've started to understand this, I got confused by your statement above. Because, I thought since when you breed 2 pastel's together you get the homozygous form which is the super-pastel, I thought then inversely, a pastel is het super pastel?

I'm thinking this is the same as a yellow-belly whose homozygous form is ivory, so a yb is het ivory?

I'm still not sure about the difference between co-dom and dominant. I think a dominant trait is where the het and the super forms are identical while a co-dominant trait is where the het has a visual difference from the super form? Is this correct? But then, I've also read that there is no homozygous spider... so, i'm not really sure I get all this...

Whew! I remember how confused I was when I first started learning about ball python genetics. I think one of the major confounding factors for new people is that there is sometimes a disconnect between what we as ball python people refer to a trait and what a geneticist would refer to a trait as. When I first started learning about ball python genetics, I got the impression that a 'het' as a normal looking animal that carries the allele for a recessive trait. Really though, an animal that is heterozygous from a genetics standpoint is just an animal with two different alleles (varying forms of a gene). Thus, the normal looking animals we typically refer to as 'hets' carry one normal allele and one recessive allele. For example, a het albino had one albino allele and one normal allele. It takes two copies of the albino allele for an animal to look albino though. Since the one normal allele masks the single recessive allele, the animal looks normal. At the same time, a pastel can be referred to as a heterozygous animal as well. A normal pastel carries one copy of the normal allele and one copy of the pastel allele. In this case, however, since the pastel allele is dominant to the normal allele, the animal is a pastel instead of a normal. You can't have a het for pastel, because any animal that doesn't look like a pastel does not carry a pastel allele. What we refer to as codominant mutations are mutations that, when present in two copies, shows a different expression than the single copy. Therefore, an animal with two copies of the pastel gene is a super pastel. In this case, having two copies of the gene 'ramps up' expression of the pastel trait. This is the same case with the mojave/lesser/butter complex, where two copies of any of those alleles gives the blue eyes lucy super. This gets even trickier when you run across mutations that are simply dominant, as Randy was referring to the pinstripe being. In this case, a heterozygous animal that carries one copy of the pinstripe allele and one copy of the normal allele looks like a pinstripe. At the same time, an animal with two copies of the pinstripe allele looks the same as an animal with one copy. By being a dominant trait, it means there is no difference in expression between the 'heterozygous' animal that carries one copy of the pinstripe allele and the 'homozygous dominant' animal that carries two copies of the pinstripe allele. As for the homozygous spider thing, I believe people think the homozygous spider is a lethal condition, meaning no homozygous spiders ever hatch out because something developmentally goes wrong early in development. At the same time, I think I remember someone saying they had heard of a male spider that always throws spider offspring. This would be a homozygous dominant spider. The problem is it is very hard to prove beyond a doubt you have a dominant spider or pinstripe. The animal will always have offspring that are spiders of pins, but you could also get that from a really 'lucky' heterozygous animals.

I hope this helps, and if I have said anything that sounds wrong someone please correct me. I am still fairly new to this myself. And if someone else could chime in on the homozygous spider issue, I know I am not up to date on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

Randy, sorry, I'm really new to bp and I'm just starting to get my head around genetics. The gene sticky was very helpful in explaining dominant, co-dominant, het, homozygous, etc. But, just as I've started to understand this, I got confused by your statement above. Because, I thought since when you breed 2 pastel's together you get the homozygous form which is the super-pastel, I thought then inversely, a pastel is het super pastel?

---

If you are looking at it in this way then pastel is the Heterozygous form of "Opal" or Super Pastel which is a codom mutation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

I'm thinking this is the same as a yellow-belly whose homozygous form is ivory, so a yb is het ivory?

---

Yes Yellow Belly is Heterozygous for Ivory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

I'm still not sure about the difference between co-dom and dominant. I think a dominant trait is where the het and the super forms are identical while a co-dominant trait is where the het has a visual difference from the super form? Is this correct? But then, I've also read that there is no homozygous spider... so, i'm not really sure I get all this...

---

The "no homozygous spider" is due to no homozygous spider has been proven out or atleast not released to the public if it has. No Super form has been created so it is not considered a codom. It is believed by many that the Homozygous form of spider is actually leathal an that is why none have been hatched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

...I thought since when you breed 2 pastel's together you get the homozygous form which is the super-pastel, I thought then inversely, a pastel is het super pastel?

I'm thinking this is the same as a yellow-belly whose homozygous form is ivory, so a yb is het ivory?...

---

The distinction between calling a pastel "het for the pastel mutation" and calling it "het for super pastel" is a small and not terribly important distinction. The main thing is that you realize that a pastel is a het and so has a 50/50 chance of passing the pastel mutation on to each offspring. The importance of understanding which phenotypes are hets (and understanding genotypes in general) is in predicting offspring. As complex combos become more common a good understanding of genotypes will really help.

But if you care, here is why I think it's technically better not to call a pastel a het for super pastel. It comes down to the meaning of the word het. By calling a pastel a het for super pastel you are implying that het means half way to some other morph. If that is the case, then is a pinstripe with one pinstripe mutant copy and one normal for pinstripe copy at the pinstripe locus still a het even though the pinstripe with two pinstripe mutant copies looks the same and isn't a different morph? The answer is yes, a pinstripe with one pinstripe mutant copy and one normal for pinstripe copy is a het because being a het has nothing to do with what the homozygous genotype looks like or even if it exists. Spiders and the vast majority of pinstripes so far are hets because the true definition of heterozygous is having an unmatched pair of whatever genes you are talking about. And that unmatched pair is why its offspring have that 50/50 chance as to which version of the gene they will inherit. A genotype refers to the comparison between a copy of a gene and its pair. Add the mutation type and then you know something about the phenotype but just the genotype by it's self doesn't tell you what a het or homozygous animal looks like. Heterozygous pastel only describes the pair of genes at the pastel locus and how they compare to each other. We know that because pastel is a co-dominant mutation that a ball python that is heterozygous at the pastel locus with one of the copies being the pastel mutant looks different than a ball python with two copies of the pastel mutation and different than a ball python with two normal for pastel copies but that is all part of the definition of co-dominant and not the definition of heterozygous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

...I'm still not sure about the difference between co-dom and dominant. I think a dominant trait is where the het and the super forms are identical while a co-dominant trait is where the het has a visual difference from the super form? Is this correct? But then, I've also read that there is no homozygous spider... so, i'm not really sure I get all this...

---

You've got this right. I would talk about the "homozygous" dominant rather than the "super" form of a dominant mutation as I'm not sure if everyone agrees on what "super" means and if a homozygous dominant is a "super" but I know what you meant. Also, I would add that part of the definition of co-dominant is that the het isn't normal looking or else you could claim that albino is co-dominant because het albinos look different than homozygous albino (but that exclusion might have been implied by "super" but again I try not to use that word as it's not completely defined what snake breeders meant when they made "super" up).

As far as spider, as discussed above a spider is heterozygous at the spider locus because it has a mismatched pair of genes there (one spider mutant and one normal for spider). Being heterozygous spider doesn't require anything about a homozygous spider. Now if it turns out that spider is a homozygous lethal mutation I believe that it would still be considered co-dominant because there would be a distinct difference between the non normal looking het spiders (the visual spiders) and the homozygous spiders in that the homozygous spiders don't live. The jury is still out on what happens to the homozygous spiders and if enough have been attempted and put through breeding trials to confirm that spider isn't dominant as often reported. I think it's been long enough without a public proven homozygous spider that it's likely (but not proven) homozygous lethal.

Listen to Randy he always has a great way of explaining in simple terms to understand no matter how long his post becomes....LOL