What are Pieds? (Jinx)

[bunnykit]

I forgot to mention; Some the markers (except for the white ring marker on het pieds), the train track for example, is shown and found in animals that is proven to be not het for pied. That alone proves that the het pied is not the cause of it, but rather have a ripple effect when coming in contact with that gene/s.

The ring on het pied might be another reaction that occurs when the het pied gene comes in contact with another type of gene/s that is not visibly displayed. If that other gene/s in not present, neither will the marker, and the het pied gene alone will thus be recessive only.

Until it is proven, it is only a theory, until someone takes this seriously and stop babbling on how many animals they have seen and how much they think they know I will only consider it all to be opinions, not proof.

[carlson]

I want a curly tail floppy ear Russian pet fox. If I under stand what you were saying about them the Russians have made foxes into pets! I know I'm off topic but I didn't know about the pet foxes till now

[Royal Hijinx]

Bunnykit - that was a very long post, and all I really got out of it was that you want to use another term that is not part of genetic lingo (at least that I have heard), which really in not needed, as we have terms to describe what is happening.

No one is denying that other genes play a part. Your argument would be more true for the Pied if it only affected certain morphs with its visibility. It affects all morph and normals. Just as a inc-dom should. The degree of this effect is variable as it is with all subtle morphs. People keep bringing up no so subtle morphs like Spider, Mojave etc... when it is the subtle that should be compared, like Specter.

(side note: Spider is still not technically proven dominant)

This does not apply to what we still believe may be true recessive like Albino. You can pile on as few or as many genes as you like (the oddball ones that color up different as outliers) and still not see that the het Albino is carrying anything else. This is just not the case for het Pied and really so far for het Clown.

Now, if one were to ask the question "Are some morphs more inherently unstable and easily affected by other morphs" the answer to that is "yes", but really that does not apply here since het Pied seems to visually affect most everything.

Let us talk about markers for a moment. The key to a subtle mutation is that while you may not be able to pinpoint EXACTLY what is off (as far as ID of the morph) but you surely be able to see the SOMETHING is different from the normal appearance. IF you can SEE this difference in the heterozygous form, the mutation is NOT recessive. Sometimes polygenetic variability will do a good job of masking the subtlety, but it is still there. This goes back to the idea of 100% ID of het Pieds out of a random pool of say 100 snakes. What I would say is that they may not be immediately ID'd as het Pied, but they are more likely to at least be ID'd as DIFFERENT. I submit that if you put two Specters in a tub with 100 normals, not tell anyone what morph is in there and how many, the success rate of someone saying I found two Specters would be low, with the rate of saying they found two "different" snakes higher. And depending on the variability among the normals some folks would not find any anomalies. So in this case markers may or may not help, but does not really change the fact that (in this case) Specter is a visible inc-dom mutation, and the markers (however subtle) ARE there. The results for het Pied in the same scenario would likely be similar.

Look, it would be beyond awesome if we could map genomes and do a ton of truly scientific experiments to see what is happening, but no one is paying for that to happen.

What we do have is a combination of experience with the animals as well as personal education and reasoning capability. Between myself, Brant and Travis we have over 20 years of college and graduate level education in varying fields. And with Travis' actually being in genetics, that is a bonus. You may say "so what" and that is fine, but what is shows is that there are groups of folks who have learned over the years how to examine and formulate opinions based on the available information.

The available information at this point does not support the Pied mutation as being Simple Recessive, and does better support it being incomplete dominant.

[Royal Hijinx]

Also, the concentration on the railroad tracks for het Pieds, and the fact that some normals have them is just not valid. Some normals have a banded pattern with little or no alien heads. Does this automatically cast out Genetic Banded? Some have broken up alien heads, does this cast out Genetic Granites? The same for singe alien heads and Mojaves, clean bellies and LOT of morphs etc...

Getting stuck on ONE marker is not the way to go about it. Polygenetics and, frankly, quality of the specimen have (as mentioned) a lot to do with it as well.

Does not change the fact het Pieds are a visual morph.

[Mike41793]

Besides train tracks what other indicators make JUST a het pied a morph on its own? I'm talking about on its own, not in another morph.

[youbeyouibei]

Genome mapping. I'd gladly contribute to help fund that research project! Hands on experience is great but without specific parameters, test/control groups, a significant enough population to account for statistical anomalies, it's all just anecdotal "evidence" in the end. More likely than not doesn't meet the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Interesting points to the discussion but at the end of the day it's just that, a discussion.

^ This ^!

And I wholeheartedly agree with the points you made (v below v) and the example you cited regarding the Russian foxes. Interesting discussion and I can see both sides of the discussion...or argument, whatever but I'm still on the fence.

HmmHmmHmm.... Reading through those ten pages hurt my brain. I won't comment on who's throwing stones in a house made of glass, but it pretty much covers everyone, most likely even myself.

Anyhow, I would be more interested in seeing a real gene test being done, not just on pied, het pied, albino and het albino, but on all kinds of morphs and on a large group of ball pythons.
People here talk about genes, but all we have to go on right now are visible changes, that can only be seen from the outside. Genes control EVERYTHING, outside in, personality, temperament, color, fertility etc.

As an example, in russia they have been breeding foxes for more then 50 fox generations, and the things they picked their breeding animals on was; How much did the animal like humans? They wanted to see, and prove out, how dogs had been breed from wolves and try out how fast you could achieve that.
For all those that starts to think this is unrelated, bear with me here.
They breed on temperament alone, but after a few generations, the 'kind' foxes started showing other traits, such as curled tails, floppy ears, new coloration's such as piebald, blaze, white socks etc. Their behavior changed, and they are now visible different from the 'wild' foxes.

So what is there to learn from this, and how is it relevant to this thread? My point is that just because some genes expresses color, and is related to color, that same gene controls more then just that simple color. Spider ball pythons tend to have the head wobble for example, because that gene controls more then just the withdrawal of color and pattern. It also controls things inside the animal.
Now, there are spiders with a 'bad' wobble, and spiders with almost no wobble, so there is a scale on how much the gene affect the animal. This change could be related to the other side of the genetic, since spiders are dom it means one gene on that pair, and for all we know the other gene might affect the wobble, or the combination or other genes from one or both or it's parents might. It might be random, it may not be.
Hets have one gene, just like spiders, and just like spiders they will show their gene and it's effect differently. Just like there are pattern and color variation within every morph, there will be differences in the hets too. In my eyes that is only logical.

Now I know there will be flames and fire because I just compared a dom to a het, but bear with me. What I want to compare is not (only) how much it shows or does not show, but rather how diffidently they may express themselves even within the same group. Also if you compare a spider to a het pied, then the het pied will in my eyes be a recessive and the spider without a doubt dom. There is a scale, and pied is inherited way more subtitle and invisible.

You guys keep obsessing over 'is it seen or is it not' and 'that means it is, it means it is not' but I don't think you see the big picture all together.
Genes control EVERYTHING, so if one gene is present, it might, and most likely will, affect more then just ONE thing.
Can het pieds have markers? Yes, they can. Is there a case, known cases, where there was NO markers? Yes, there have been. Where does that put us?

It is proven that markers is not a 100% way to identify a het, some morph hets are easier to identify because the color gene that causes the homogeneous form does have some more gene coverage than just that one thing, and thus it MIGHT, but is not GUARANTIED to affect other genes on different scales. Is it still a recessive? It is interesting to think about, and I think it is, but think about it like this;

Even though spider is not a het, I will use it for example once again (one of my fav colors, what can I say):

If a het pied have a ring, and a spider have a wobble, in the grand picture all that tells us is that the gene have more jobs than one or that the gene works together with other genes and creates a ripple effect. Can the one gene in a heterogeneous animal have any visible change and still be het? Yes, it can, in SOME cases, and in those cases it is based on what the OTHER genes are.
Don't forget the other genes.
The 'normal' genes and the 'pied' genes play together, and that is why I would love to see a real genetic analyse on several het pieds and similar morphs. Only then can you with certainly say you understand the GENES. I would love to see an gene analysis on a het pied with high markers, and one without any markers at all for example. I know the het pied gene would be there in both cases, but what about the other genes except that one/s? How do they play together?

As for the visual bit and the name for them....I liked the sound of 'expressed hets' - and I know at least one of you will spit fire and flames at the combo of those words since they do in fact contradict each other, but truth is that hets are not 100% certain to display any markers at all, and thus I don't consider it to be proven anything else than recessive.
In the case with markers the gene/s that was passed along played with the genes of the other part in the animal, causing some small, occasional visible changes, and some breeders that have seen many, many, many animals will have an easier time identifying a possible het, but this warning goes to ALL of you;

Until something is proven by more than your own experience overconfidence in your own ability will only do you harm, and close any paths in your mind to be open for new ideas.

Genes are not always simple. Genes can not always be understood completely by just looking at an animal, simply because we don't understand what the genes does exactly in the animal without a complete analysis, and I have yet to see any one here present such. One color morph have great variations, no matter what animal it is, and its only to be expected that hets may have variations too, this does not make them more or less het, but as with the other colors it may affect the end result in the animal, and what visual genes you can actually see in them.

....Yeah...I hope anyone understood where I'm coming from with this. Sorry for the long speech.

[Royal Hijinx]

Besides train tracks what other indicators make JUST a het pied a morph on its own? I'm talking about on its own, not in another morph.

You know, that is a great question. There is a lot of concentration on the railroad tracks, but I will tell you that many are ID'd in a clutch just because they are "different". Hopefully some one else who has a better working knowledge of this than I do will chime in here.

As for eliminating the morph as recessive, all that is needed is for the het Pied to be visually DIFFERENT from the non-het Pieds in the clutch. As brant mentioned, sometimes you really need to see a snake with its clutch mates to pull it out as different. IF you can do this it is NOT recessive.

Also, as stated before, the subtlety of the morph can make this difficult, especially if one is not looking for it.

[bunnykit]

You know, that is a great question. There is a lot of concentration on the railroad tracks, but I will tell you that many are ID'd in a clutch just because they are "different". Hopefully some one else who has a better working knowledge of this than I do will chime in here.

As for eliminating the morph as recessive, all that is needed is for the het Pied to be visually DIFFERENT from the non-het Pieds in the clutch. As brant mentioned, sometimes you really need to see a snake with its clutch mates to pull it out as different. IF you can do this it is NOT recessive.

Also, as stated before, the subtlety of the morph can make this difficult, especially if one is not looking for it.

You can't 'create' a morph or identifying one with just saying it's 'different' and that's all you got :/ For it to be labeled, or be re-labeled, you need to pull out some info on how to positively identify a het, WHAT makes it different, and understand WHY it is, and why some other hets are not. So far, even after eleven pages, no one knows what makes some hets have markers and some don't.

This kinda remind me of a friend who says that the coloration 'Tuxedo' in cats is a breed. All black and white cats. Because they look like each other.

From what I can see the het pied that looks 'different' look indeed 'different' even from other het pieds, and that's the problem. There is no way to classify them better than het pied, or possible het pied if you do not know the parents, breed them yourself, or have their siblings to compare with. Since you can't predict how different it will look, or predict IF it will have any markers at all, it is not a 'visible' gene morph on more than occasionally, and even in those cases it's not proven that it's not because of something else.

Every snake is different, every pattern differs if just a little. There are probably hundreds of variations on normals for example. If you take one of those, and match it with a normal that looks like it, you can create a morph if you're lucky and they carried some traits that were dominant, but you can't do the same with het pieds. You can't predict them, and you can't count on them having markers or count on them to affect any other morph in a specific way.

I think it's best to leave it the way it is actually :/ Because what have not been proven should not be re-named, just because some people think it should.

And 20 years experiance on three guys....that's on avarage what... 6.6 years per head? That's like 6-7 breeding seasons on average per person then. I'm sorry, but that's not all that impressive, I've seen 70 year olds that didn't know anything about anything they are doing - age and time spent on something does NOT guarantee that you have learned all you can learn and it does NOT guarantee that you can see, or do, something better than someone who have been doing the same for lesser amount of time.

I quote myself, just for you;

"Until something is proven by more than your own experience overconfidence in your own ability will only do you harm, and close any paths in your mind to be open for new ideas."

[Royal Hijinx]

Ok... and my point about the 20 years merely had to do with the fact this idea is not coming from folks who do not have a proven track record of researching and making decisions. We would not hold the degrees we have without some level of proficiency at this. Does it make us better than anyone, of course not. You are looking for a point that was not being made.

Also, bunnykit, would you do us all the favor of formally introducing yourself in the introductions (i.e. not this thread). Fair to know who is calling us out, and actually a requirement of most internet forums. If I missed this intro I apologize in advance, but a search of your 11 posts did not show one.

Also, the fact that a het Pied can make a Pied DEFINES the morph, not the markers for picking one out. Simply, the fact that the visual outcome is changed in the het Pied form, eliminates it from being simple recessive. So we have a morph that makes Pieds that cannot be simple recessive...

Back to the original question. Is Pied a recessive trait? If not, what is it.

Answer: It appears that it is not recessive.

The "do not change it until you have scientific proof" argument is invalid. There is enough proof out there to say that Pied is most likely NOT recessive. This was the main point of my last set of posts, and really the crux of this thread.

This leaves is it Dom, Co-Dom or Inc-Dom?

It is NOT Dominant, that is obvious and agreed upon.

So far, there are NO co-dominant morphs in ball pythons.

So that leaves incomplete dominant. It fits this description well enough that there is zero need for new terms to describe it.

Incomplete Dom may not be the the absolute perfect answer (hard to find in science in general), but it is surely the BETTER answer. We should always be looking for the better answer.

[bunnykit]

Also, bunnykit, would you do us all the favor of formally introducing yourself in the introductions (i.e. not this thread). Fair to know who is calling us out, and actually a requirement of most internet forums. If I missed this intro I apologize in advance, but a search of your 11 posts did not show one.

The "do not change it until you have scientific proof" argument is invalid. There is enough proof out there to say that Pied is most likely NOT recessive. This was the main point of my last set of posts, and really the crux of this thread.

Incomplete Dom may not be the the absolute perfect answer (hard to find in science in general), but it is surely the BETTER answer. We should always be looking for the better answer.

I have another quote for you then, it suits you and us all in this thread very well in all aspects;

“We learn more by looking for the answer to a question and not finding it than we do from learning the answer itself.” - Lloyd Alexander

Also another thing that is interesting, and relate to my earlier post in this thread is that there was this famous racing horse, I can't remember his name atm, but he was red with a white blaze. They made clone foals from his dna, trying to see if they could re-create the famous race horse that was their 'original'.
This is not a made up story, google can probably help you find it.
Anyhow, they cloned the horse, they were 100% genetically identical to each other and their dad, however this is what caught MY eye;
The blaze in the foals foreheads were all different. Their genes were exactly the same, but they looked different.
With other words, it would, in theory be nothing genetically different going on in a visible het and one without markings, it's all within the range of possibilities.
That is why I am saying that genetics are way more complex than some people would like to believe. The end result affected by so many factors, I don't think we will ever map them all down.

And honestly no, I have not made an introduction, nor do I see the overwhelming need to make one. I'm here, we're talking, it's online. Knowing what country I'm from, my gender (although that one is not hard to guess), my age or other circumstances is only to please the curiosity of other people so that they think they know who you are, when in fact they do not. It would not benefit my purpose here, nor would it benefit our conversations.

But just because you asked so nicely, I can pull a small resume; I am called Bunnykit. I own a spider ball python. I breed animals and I train animals. I have worked with recessive traits before in most animals that I breed. I am not too good with the names of it all since english is not my native language, I only know that bit in my native tongue, but what I would question is not the genetics of the animals since this is yet to be proven properly, but rather the arrogance of people claiming to know all about it.

Can you prove your point properly? I say you can not. You have a good theory, there MIGHT be something that you and those other people are about to find out, but many of those have come and come undone before, so as for now it is just so; a theory.
Will a piebald be a piebald with two piebald genes? Yes, it will. Can you see a visual difference in all hets? No, you can not. This makes it score in as recessive as far as I can tell.
Only in SOME cases are there visual changes in the het offspring, and those cases have not been proven out to not have something else influencing the end result. To aim it down to one gene, or to try and simplify the pattern of relevance and the genetic ripple effect is not a good method of proving a theory.

Two genes working together can create something completely different, I do believe that butter/lesser, Mojave/Mojave, Mojave/lesser etc came up before. Those are different morphs that ends up with a completely different end result. And yes, before you start flaming about them being visible traits from the beginning, if that was your reaction you are missing my point. One gene can influence another, and yet paired up with something else have no effect. The ball pythons we have in captivity, and the morphs that have been created, some of them are bound to react to each other, even the recessive ones, since I do believe that some of them work with the same genes.

As I said, I think that "Expressed recessive" or "Randomly expressed recessive" but still "recessive" is good, because that's what it is. It's not hard to think that there might be different piebald variations, and that some in combinations with another set of genes will give some visual changes... but to pull the whole mutation over one edge and to try and re-label it just because it COULD be, because of something that you see in something you want to see it in.... I'm sorry but no.

Until there is a line with 100% visible het offspring I don't think any labels will change, because until then it is not expressed, it's repressed, hidden, in more cases than it is not.