Quote Originally Posted by ColinWeaver View Post
What if I told you that using the term "codominant" isn't really correct and we should all be referring to animals that have a "super" form as 'incomplete dominant'?

Incomplete dominance is when two genes combine and present themselves equally (pastel + black pastel makes black pewter for instance). If the genes were codominant the animal would be partially pastel and partially black pastel (think about the way a black and white cow looks, that's codominance).

A pastel (in the common use of the term) doesn't look the way it does because it's a pastel. It looks the way it does because you are seeing a blending together of the 'normal' gene and the pastel gene. That's why it's darker and less impressive than the super (homozygous) form. A "super pastel" as you all know is the double expression of the pastel gene. This is also one of the reasons why an animal like a bumble bee is so yellow compared to a normal pastel. The yellow of the pastel gene is combining (competing) with less color from the normal spider coloration (the golden colors of the spider gene in between the dark spidering). Moreso, look how green a pinstripe is compared to a spider. That's why a lemon blast isn't as impressive as a bumble bee. Yellow + gold = rockin' yellows. Yellow + green = not so much.

It's a little late in the race to try and change the language used in the biz so I roll with it. Ball python breeders know what each other are saying when we use terms like dominant, co-dominant, super and simple recessive.
Thanks for that Colin. I actually thought that there wasn't anyone out there anymore that knew what Incomplete dominance was. Like you, I know what they mean, but snicker when people haven't taken the time to at least read the definition of genetic terminology to understand what they are talking about.

Excellent post.