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

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 528

2 members and 526 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,909
Threads: 249,112
Posts: 2,572,160
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, KoreyBuchanan
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    01-30-2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    73
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts

    Re: Lookng for another morph

    Welcome to the forum
    Chris
    Editor-in-Chief
    www.herpdaily.com
    "A Regular Dose of Reptile Enthusiasm"

  2. #12
    BPnet Veteran DemmBalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-18-2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,874
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 315 Times in 272 Posts

    Re: Lookng for another morph

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamM View Post
    Hey guys, new to the forum here but not new to snakes. Tomorrow I'm heading to the SC show and looking to pick up another BP. Nothing too freaky, I was thinking about a Spider or a Pinstripe, add some dominant traits into my mix. Currently I have 0.1 Piebald, 0.1 Bumblebee, 0.1 Normal, 1.0 Albino and a 1.0 Pastel. Would either of the 2 I mentioned, in your opinion be a good match for my collection combo for breeding? And would you suggest a male or a female?

    Also I'm still unclear as to how the recessive trait works, if I breed my male albino to my female piebald, will it yield all hets or will I get any visuals ie: albino piebalds?

    Sorry for all the questions in one post but as you can tell by my sig I mostly deal in arboreal snakes and what you see is pretty much what you get with the parents.
    Welcome to the forum. Both snakes mentioned in red are codominant, not dominant. Also...I would go with the pin. You can produce your own spiders with the bumblebee.
    -Jordan

    Balls
    0.1 Pinstripe.............................1.0 DH Lavender Snow
    0.2 PH Lavender Albino.............0.1 Bumblebee
    0.1 Pastel PH Ghost..................1.0 Pastel Het Ghost
    0.2 PH Ghost (Twins)................1.0 Cinnamon
    0.1 Het TSK Axanthic................1.3 Mojave
    0.1 Het Albino..........................1.0 Albino PH Pied
    1.1 Het Pied.............................1.0 Dinker
    1.2 Normal...............................1.0 Pastel Lesser

    Boa
    0.1 Super Salmon Het Sunglow


    Check us out at: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Dem...13090085417762

  3. #13
    in evinco persecutus dr del's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-20-2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    24,527
    Thanks
    9,263
    Thanked 6,788 Times in 4,306 Posts
    Images: 93

    Re: Lookng for another morph

    Hi,

    Quote Originally Posted by demjor19 View Post
    Welcome to the forum. Both snakes mentioned in red are codominant, not dominant. Also...I would go with the pin. You can produce your own spiders with the bumblebee.
    Not officially so far as I know - there are rumours of a homozygous spider and homozygous pinstripe - but neither is said to be visually different from the heterozygous form so they are still considered dominant.

    Unless you have read something we haven't seen yet in which case please share?


    dr del
    Derek

    7 adult Royals (2.5), 1.0 COS Pastel, 1.0 Enchi, 1.1 Lesser platty Royal python, 1.1 Black pastel Royal python, 0.1 Blue eyed leucistic ( Super lesser), 0.1 Piebald Royal python, 1.0 Sinaloan milk snake 1.0 crested gecko and 1 bad case of ETS. no wife, no surprise.

  4. #14
    BPnet Veteran cinderbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-20-2007
    Location
    Silver Spring, MD
    Posts
    2,170
    Thanks
    551
    Thanked 480 Times in 363 Posts
    Images: 4

    Re: Lookng for another morph

    http://ballpython.ca/genetics.html

    The text below can be applied to any simple recessive gene:
    piebald, albino, axanthic, genetic stripe, hypo(ghost), lavender albino, caramel albino, etc.

    this page may help you a lot. Pieds, or piebald is a simple recessive mutation. This means, that both parent animals need to have at least one copy of the gene in question to have the possibility of producing offspring that not only carry the gene, but display the trait that it carries.

    Hets, or heterozygous animals, are animals that CARRY the gene but do not display it. They look completely normal. You can not tell which animals in a clutch are hets unless you bred a visual animal (in this case a pied) to a female. ALL the offspring produced would have one copy of the gene (in this scenario it came from dad) so they would be 100% het/heterozygous pied.

    100% hets - animals known to be carrying the questioned gene.

    66% hets - these animals are produced by breeding two 100% hets together. Once they are proved out by breeding, they either ARE heterozygous or NOT heterozygous for the gene in question. This does not mean that 66% of the babies will be pied/carry the pied gene/etc.

    50% or possible hets - these animals are produced by breeding a 100% het animal to a normal animal. The babies have a 50% chance of carrying the gene in question. Like the 66% hets, these guys need to be proven to be het or not by breeding

  5. #15
    BPnet Veteran
    Join Date
    06-09-2008
    Location
    Clermont, FL
    Posts
    709
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked 216 Times in 146 Posts

    Re: Lookng for another morph

    Quote Originally Posted by dr del View Post
    Hi,



    Not officially so far as I know - there are rumours of a homozygous spider and homozygous pinstripe - but neither is said to be visually different from the heterozygous form so they are still considered dominant.

    Unless you have read something we haven't seen yet in which case please share?


    dr del
    I know a few years back, a lot of people incorrectly were calling any mutation with a visually distinct heterozygous phenotype codominant (even if there had not been a homozygous form hatched yet). That poster may have heard them called codominant in the past. Lately though, it's shifted to more of a "dominant until proven otherwise" mentality, which is probably a better way to go about it...
    Russell Lawson

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Russ Lawson For This Useful Post:

    dr del (03-15-2010)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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