Pairing BEL with Banana glow..

[RXLReptiles]

The simplest het lesser ball python has a lesser gene paired with the corresponding normal gene. Crossing two of these het lessers is one way to produce a homozygous (AKA super) lesser ball python. There are other ways, such as crossing two homozygous lessers. And crossing a homozygous lesser to a homozygous mojave is one way to produce a BEL that is heterozygous because the gene pair is made up of a lesser gene and a mojave gene.

I want to interject one caveat to your final statement, a lesser/mojave BEL is still technically a "het lesser" and "het mojave" animal, but since the genes are allelic, it is still a homozygous BEL ball python, in that on the allele that controls the leucism of the animal there is no longer a "normal" gene. A lesser/mojave BEL animal therefore, as we know, can only pass on either the lesser or mojave gene to it's offspring.

So in a sense any BEL complex gene, whether it be lesser, mojave, or what ever else, is technically just het leucistic. But since we know of more than one leucism complex gene, they were all named individually.

[paulh]

I want to interject one caveat to your final statement, a lesser/mojave BEL is still technically a "het lesser" and "het mojave" animal, but since the genes are allelic, it is still a homozygous BEL ball python, in that on the allele that controls the leucism of the animal there is no longer a "normal" gene. A lesser/mojave BEL animal therefore, as we know, can only pass on either the lesser or mojave gene to it's offspring.

IMO, het lesser and het mojave makes it sound like two independent gene pairs, one made up of a lesser gene and a normal gene and the second made up of a mojave gene and a normal gene. Either lesser/mojave or het lesser/mojave sweems acceptable to me. Best of all is "a gene pair made up of a lesser gene and a mojave gene."

Please reread the definitions of homozygous and heterozygous in my earlier post. Whether a normal gene is present is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the two genes in the gene pair are the same or different.

Part of the quote reads, "A lesser/mojave BEL animal therefore, as we know, can only pass on either the lesser or mojave gene to it's offspring." That is true. A lesser/mojave ball python produces two different types of sperm (or eggs). One type has a mojave gene and the other type has a lesser gene. A het albino ball python also produces two different types of sperm (or eggs). One type has a normal gene and the other type has an albino gene. A homozygous albino ball python only produces one type of sperm (or egg). All have an albino gene. The number of types of sperm (or eggs) tells us whether a gene pair is homozygous or heterozygous. So a lesser/mojave ball python has a heterozygous gene pair.

So in a sense any BEL complex gene, whether it be lesser, mojave, or what ever else, is technically just het leucistic. But since we know of more than one leucism complex gene, they were all named individually.

So a gene pair made up of two Russo genes or two mojave genes is het leucistic? This does not compute.

[paulh]

Here is an exercise with cards that may help put over what I am trying to say.

There are two genes in a gene pair. There are nine genes in the set of alleles designated the BEL complex. Make two identical lists of the nine alleles. These lists are designated List Spade and List Heart. See below. Take a pack of cards and separate out the ace of spades and the cards numbered 2 through 9 of spades. Do the same with the ace and 2 through 9 of hearts. Shuffle the spade cards and spread them out face down on your left. Shuffle the heart cards and spread them out face down on the right. Draw a spade card at random, draw a heart card at random and look at them. These make a gene pair. If the numbers on the two cards are the same, then the gene pair is homozygous. If the numbers on the two cards are different, then the gene pair is heterozygous. Replace the cards in the appropriate set and repeat. If no homozygous gene pairs have been drawn after ten gene pairs, reduce the two lists to the same three or four cards (genes). The 2, 4, and 6 cards would be a good set of three, and the 2, 4, 6, 8 cards would be a good set of four.


List Spade
Bamboo = spade ace
Butter/Lesser (platinum) = spade 2
Mocha = spade 3
Mojave = spade 4
Mystic = spade 5
Normal = spade 6
Phantom = spade 7
Russo = spade 8
Special = spade 9

List Heart
Bamboo = heart ace
Butter/Lesser (platinum) = heart 2
Mocha = heart 3
Mojave = heart 4
Mystic = heart 5
Normal = heart 6
Phantom = heart 7
Russo = heart 8
Special = heart 9

[RXLReptiles]

IMO, het lesser and het mojave makes it sound like two independent gene pairs, one made up of a lesser gene and a normal gene and the second made up of a mojave gene and a normal gene. Either lesser/mojave or het lesser/mojave sweems acceptable to me. Best of all is "a gene pair made up of a lesser gene and a mojave gene."

Please reread the definitions of homozygous and heterozygous in my earlier post. Whether a normal gene is present is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the two genes in the gene pair are the same or different.

Part of the quote reads, "A lesser/mojave BEL animal therefore, as we know, can only pass on either the lesser or mojave gene to it's offspring." That is true. A lesser/mojave ball python produces two different types of sperm (or eggs). One type has a mojave gene and the other type has a lesser gene. A het albino ball python also produces two different types of sperm (or eggs). One type has a normal gene and the other type has an albino gene. A homozygous albino ball python only produces one type of sperm (or egg). All have an albino gene. The number of types of sperm (or eggs) tells us whether a gene pair is homozygous or heterozygous. So a lesser/mojave ball python has a heterozygous gene pair.


So a gene pair made up of two Russo genes or two mojave genes is het leucistic? This does not compute.

I see where your confusion came from, I'll clarify my above statement.

I'm referencing the fact that while the lesser/mojave BEL animal is both het lesser and het mojave, since they are allelic pairs that the animal could also be considered a homozygous leucistic animal because if it were to be bred either the lesser gene or the mojave gene that gets passed on is still a leucism complex gene, whether it be the lesser half or the mojave half.

So for example, let's take the variable out and use a super lesser, it is homozygous lesser or a "BEL" and will pass on lesser no matter what. So any offspring will be "het lesser" or "het leucistic".

But if we take that "het lesser" and breed it to a "het Mojave" it can still produce a BEL. So while the lesser/mojave BEL may be "het lesser" and "het mojave", it is still a homozygous leucistic animal.

So a double lesser, or any other double BEL complex gene, would still be homozygous lesser, or whatever gene, but they are also homozygous leucistic animals.

It's confusing because once you start adding allelic pairs to genetics it surpasses your card exercise in complexity. While the cards example still works, an allelic lesser/mojave BEL animal is both a double het for it's respective individual genes, as well as homozygous for the allelic combination that those 2 genes make.

[Danger noodles]

Hey jellybeans, it’s easier to just pair them and see what comes out. No arguments on what’s what, lol

[Jellybeans]

Hey jellybeans, it’s easier to just pair them and see what comes out. No arguments on what’s what, lol

True

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

[paulh]

I see where your confusion came from, I'll clarify my above statement.

I'm referencing the fact that while the lesser/mojave BEL animal is both het lesser and het mojave, since they are allelic pairs that the animal could also be considered a homozygous leucistic animal because if it were to be bred either the lesser gene or the mojave gene that gets passed on is still a leucism complex gene, whether it be the lesser half or the mojave half.

So for example, let's take the variable out and use a super lesser, it is homozygous lesser or a "BEL" and will pass on lesser no matter what. So any offspring will be "het lesser" or "het leucistic".

But if we take that "het lesser" and breed it to a "het Mojave" it can still produce a BEL. So while the lesser/mojave BEL may be "het lesser" and "het mojave", it is still a homozygous leucistic animal.

So a double lesser, or any other double BEL complex gene, would still be homozygous lesser, or whatever gene, but they are also homozygous leucistic animals.

In a breeding problem, we must identify ALL the genes in the parental gene pairs, either explicitly or implicitly. "Lesser/mojave" explicitly identifies the genes in one parent. "Het albino" implicitly identifies the gene pair as containing an albino gene and the corresponding normal gene (albino/normal); there is no other choice. With "het lesser", there are plenty of possible choices for the non-lesser gene in the pair. But the commonest pairing is lesser/normal, and that choice parallels the identity of the "het albino" gene pair.

In a breeding problem, we must identify ALL the genes in BOTH parental gene pairs. There is no gene named leucistic in the complex. So there is no such thing as a het leucistic gene pair. And no such thing as a homozygous leucistic gene pair. Each unique gene (either independent or in a complex) should get a unique name. (It didn't happen with lesser AKA butter, but unique designations are the ideal.) Naming the lesser, mojave, Russo, etc. genes all the same is saying they are not unique genes. That would get a rather violent negative reaction from the ball python community.

At best we can say that the mating in the quote is lesser/lesser mated to unknown/unknown. If the unknown/unknown parent is a lesser/lesser, then all the babies are lesser/lesser (homozygous). If the unknown/unknown parent is a lesser/unknown, then half the babies are expected to be lesser/lesser (homozygous) and half the babies are expected to be lesser/unknown (heterozygous). Only if one or both of the genes in the unknown/unknown gene pair is a normal gene will there be het lesser babies. All other possible offspring will be lesser/unknown (heterozygous).

It's confusing because once you start adding allelic pairs to genetics it surpasses your card exercise in complexity. While the cards example still works, an allelic lesser/mojave BEL animal is both a double het for it's respective individual genes, as well as homozygous for the allelic combination that those 2 genes make.

It's confusing because you are mixing appearance with the actual identity of the genes.

By definition, homozygous and heterozygous refer to gene PAIRS. A double het means two gene pairs that are heterozygous. A lesser/mojave BEL has only one heterozygous gene pair. A lesser/lesser gene pair and a lesser/mojave are different gene pairs having the same location because they are in the same gene complex.