» Site Navigation
1 members and 597 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,912
Threads: 249,117
Posts: 2,572,189
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, coda
|
-
BPnet Veteran
Is this right?
Some times I feel like I will never get all this genetic stuff straight in my head. Just to make sure I'm on the right track...
Mojaves are co-dominant.
BELs are the super form.
Mojave x Normal= 50% Mojos, 50% Normals (het for nothing since there is no het mojo)
Mojave x Mojave= 50% Mojo, 25% BEL, 25% Normal.
BEL x Normal= 100% Mojo.
BEL x BEL= not sure on this one. All BEL? All Mojos?
Snake breeding is complicated business.
-
-
Re: Is this right?
Pretty much right on. The only thing I would say differently is that ALL Mojaves ARE hets. Heterozygous doesn't mean normal looking gene carrier, it just works out that way with recessive morphs. Heterozygous really means having an unmatched pair of genes at whatever location you are talking about. With co-dominant morphs the hets are visible morphs. A mojave has one mojave mutant version of the lesser/mojave/phantom/Vin Russo/mocha whitesnake complex gene and one normal version of that same gene so it is truly a het. Because it doesn't look normal and the homozygous mojave looks different the mutation is classified as co-dominant.
Also, as long as the BEL you are talking about was produced bye mojave X mojave (could be a combo with another mutant version of this same gene like lesser) then you are right on about BEL X normal producing 100% mojave.
And a BEL bred to another BEL would produce 100% BEL because there would be no normal copies of this gene between the two parents so none of the offspring could get even one normal version to even be just mojave much less normal.
-
-
BPnet Veteran
Re: Is this right?
Awesome, thank you. So basically a Mojo is a visual het of BEL. I knew that in the back of my head but I keep thinking normal looking when I think het, I need to break myself of that, lol.
What I really meant by "no het mojo" was that there are no hets for the mojo morph itself. Which is correct, right?
Incidentally, are all normals produced by a co-dom to co-dom pairing just 100% normal?
-
-
BPnet Veteran
Re: Is this right?
 Originally Posted by spix14
What I really meany by "no het mojo" was that there are no hets for the mojo morph itself. Which is correct, right?
Incidentally, are all normals produced by a co-dom to co-dom pairing just 100% normal?
Correct
and
Correct!
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|