Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 620

0 members and 620 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,905
Threads: 249,105
Posts: 2,572,114
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Pattyhud
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    BPnet Veteran jhall1468's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-04-2005
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Images: 4

    Re: normal ball + norml ball = albino (is this possible?)

    Quote Originally Posted by kc261 View Post
    Are you sure you had it backwards the first time? After I posted my reply I was getting kind of excited that maybe I understood it and went and googled it, and based on the pages I looked at, I thought I was understanding which means you had it right the first time. Either that or I'm just lost beyond belief.
    I had it right the first time, but screwed it up when I decided to double check. I did a quick google search, and the first site I came up with (http://www.cccoe.net/genetics/codominant.html) has it backwards... so I lost faith in myself and did a switcheroo .

    That being said... the term "co-dominant" is pretty much used interchangeably with incomplete dominance in ball pythons. Although, from a scientific standpoint that's clearly erroneous. Given that information, I can't think of a single "real" co-dominant mutation, except perhaps the het BEL's you spoke of. In reality, all of the "co-dominant" mutations are actually incomplete dominant.

    But now curiosity has me, so I'm trying to think of a truly co-dominant ball python morph.
    Justin Hall

  2. #22
    BPnet Veteran
    Join Date
    09-14-2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,250
    Thanks
    170
    Thanked 703 Times in 538 Posts

    Re: normal ball + norml ball = albino (is this possible?)

    Quote Originally Posted by jhall1468 View Post
    Damn I've made a bigger mess of this than I thought . You are right, I was right the first time... but I'm going to keep my mouth shut and let someone that knows what there talking about... do the talking:

    http://users.adelphia.net/~lubehawk/...!/inccodom.htm
    Hey, that's one of the pages I posted! I thought it was pretty good too.

    Quote Originally Posted by jhall1468 View Post
    I had it right the first time, but screwed it up when I decided to double check. I did a quick google search, and the first site I came up with (http://www.cccoe.net/genetics/codominant.html) has it backwards... so I lost faith in myself and did a switcheroo .
    That site is messed up. Kinda sloppy with typos and such too. I emailed the guy (who I think is a 7th grade teacher) and basically said he should be embarrassed because he wouldn't accept that kind of work from his students.

    Quote Originally Posted by jhall1468 View Post
    That being said... the term "co-dominant" is pretty much used interchangeably with incomplete dominance in ball pythons. Although, from a scientific standpoint that's clearly erroneous. Given that information, I can't think of a single "real" co-dominant mutation, except perhaps the het BEL's you spoke of. In reality, all of the "co-dominant" mutations are actually incomplete dominant.

    But now curiosity has me, so I'm trying to think of a truly co-dominant ball python morph.
    I understood that with BPs people are pretty much using co-dom for both. It was most of a mental exercise to learn something new.

    We should have a contest to see who can come up with a true co-dom morph first!
    Casey

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1