Proving Dominant Traits

[interloc]

That doesnt make sense to me. I would think it would be 25% normal, 25% cinny, 25% bp, 25% 8 ball...

That makes sense. Because the super would can only pass on one gene to the babies. And if both bp and cinny are acting on the same gene then it makes perfect sense.



Sent from my poo fone using Tapatalk

[reptileexperts]

A cinny x bp will give you a 25% chance at the super form which is an 8 ball. An 8 ball bred to a normal will give you 50% cinny and 50% bp. (according to WOBP).

That doesnt make sense to me. I would think it would be 25% normal, 25% cinny, 25% bp, 25% 8 ball...

If you breed any super to a normal, you will never get a normal, because they will contribute on of the dominate genes, be it the C or BP gene from the super. The reason this is is because they are located on the same loci (location on the chromosome) so when it goes through its events and the chromtids are formed, it can ONLY pass on one of the genes, not both. It's different than if you take a Caramel Jaguar and bred it to a normal you would get 25% Caramel Jags because both of these genes are true co-dominates with the Homo Jag being lethal homo.

[Mike41793]

If you breed any super to a normal, you will never get a normal, because they will contribute on of the dominate genes, be it the C or BP gene from the super. The reason this is is because they are located on the same loci (location on the chromosome) so when it goes through its events and the chromtids are formed, it can ONLY pass on one of the genes, not both. It's different than if you take a Caramel Jaguar and bred it to a normal you would get 25% Caramel Jags because both of these genes are true co-dominates with the Homo Jag being lethal homo.

Yea but my point is that the cinny and bp are two diff morprhs yet they can make a super that produces no normals. Idk how much they differ then if thats obviously the case.

[Anatopism]

I can't believe incomplete dominance hasn't been brought up yet.

Edit:

I will contribute to the discussion by just compiling past conversations -

Discussion on homozygous spider

The world's eyes are opened! to the truth that is incomplete dominance

[reptileexperts]

Incomplete dominance: inheritance in which an active allele does not entirely compensate for an inactive allele

Pastel is incomplete dom as a reference point

[WingedWolfPsion]

The answers to the poll are not relevant, because it's impossible for anyone to accurately answer it.

1) No one knows exactly what's happening with the spider gene. We know that spiders and normals are produced from a spider X normal or spider X spider breeding. We know that no 'super' form has been produced--there are no homozygous spiders. We do not know why.

2) The percentage is the chance per egg that the animal will be something. It's not the percentage of the clutch that will be something. (For example, if you breed a pastel to a normal, each egg has a 50% chance of being a pastel--this doesn't mean half of the clutch will be pastels. It's only a chance. The first clutch I produced contained 13 eggs, and 11 of them hatched into pastels, with only 2 normals!)

The only way to solve this would be to get as many spider breeders as possible to start keeping statistics on their spider X spider clutches--detailed ones.
These should include the number of eggs in each clutch that go bad (if any), and the number of spiders versus normals that hatch. The larger the quantity of information we have, the closer we'll get to the true probability, which may reveal whether the super-spiders die in the egg, or are mysteriously absent with all breedings producing 50/50 chance per egg.

The problem is, people rarely breeder spider X spider. It's far from uncommon to lose an egg or two during incubation, so folks would tend to ignore it. Because it's a percentage chance per egg, of course some spider X spider clutches would have all good eggs, even if it IS homozygous lethal.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Yea but my point is that the cinny and bp are two diff morprhs yet they can make a super that produces no normals. Idk how much they differ then if thats obviously the case.

It's because they are two different mutations of the same gene (basically--yes, I know it's more complicated than that, but this will help make it understandable).

If you breed a cinnamon to a normal, it can pass on either the cinnamon gene, or the normal gene, right? The baby will then get a normal gene from its mother as well--she can only pass on a normal gene, because she has 2 of them. The baby gets one set of genes from mom, and one from dad--now it has a pair.

If you breed a cinny to a black pastel, and the cinny passes on its morph gene, and so does the black pastel, then the baby has one cinny morph gene, and one black pastel morph gene...but those two genes are in the same spot, so even though they are different mutations, the baby does not have a normal copy of that gene--just two different mutant copies, get it?

So when you breed it, it can only pass on one mutant copy, or the other mutant copy, because it doesn't have a normal copy.
As a result, each baby has a 50% chance to be cinnamon, and a 50% chance to be black pastel. It can't be both, because it only inherits one copy of that gene from the bp/cinny super.

Now, if you have a bumblebee, it has one copy of a pastel gene, and one normal gene in one spot, and then one copy of a spider gene, and normal gene in a DIFFERENT spot. So, it can pass on a pastel gene or normal gene in one spot, and a spider gene or normal gene in the other spot. Because they aren't mutations of the same gene, it can pass both the pastel and spider gene to its offspring, so it can have bumblebee offspring.

[Nick Mutton]

The only way to solve this would be to get as many spider breeders as possible to start keeping statistics on their spider X spider clutches--detailed ones.
These should include the number of eggs in each clutch that go bad (if any), and the number of spiders versus normals that hatch.

You will never get those statistics of course because almost nobody breeds Spider x Spider because its lethal!

There has never been a single ball morph thats proven to be Dominant, EVER.

There are several lethal genes however, but since that is generally bad for business, they simply call them "dominant"

If spiders or pins were actually dominant there would be quite a few homozygous animals floating around at this point, but there are none.

I know that there are many here who really want to believe that people are honest about these things, but one need not look far to see ample evidence to the contrary.

How long was the spider Nuero issue kept secret?
How long did it take for people to admit that female caramels are nearly sterile
How about female Deserts? there are still people selling them in KS as a good "investment"

the truth is that when morphs have negative side effects, the response is almost always to suppress the information to keep the money rolling in.


Sad but true.

Nick

[reptileexperts]

Thanks for Chiming in Nick, our conversation recently got my mind rolling on the genetics stuff, and it really needs a better scientific approach so that more people are familiar with what they are breeding and generating.

And the poll is to simply see where people fall in a mindset of their understanding, why its a poll, not just a straight quesion with a proper answer.Look at the results and you'll see people are still voting 75% which is obviously not the case, and is the argument for this topic to be posted.

[OhhWatALoser]

Some things on my mind after skimming this thread.....

Spider is lethal eh? prove it.... that's right no one has yet. So can we stop saying it's lethal and just say the truth.... we just don't know (OMG THE HORROR!!!). At least until we have something other than "I don't see one", get some data together. "but it's hard to get data and I don't want to waste my precious females, time, rack space, and money".....that doesn't prove anything, so we still don't know.

So poll answer is assuming we know whats going on with the spider gene. If it's a dominant gene, then it is 75%. If it's lethal then it's 66% (we truncate numbers in this hobby).

Also no one proved out a dominant trait? Well for starters BHB did years ago, Pinstripe is dominant. 27 eggs all pinstripes... unless you want to believe that brain hit the 1/134,217,728 odds that a het pinstripe did it. So theres a 0.0000007% chance pinstripe is not dominant... If that's not proof, tell me what is.

Vin russo imported a homozygous Congo. So it only took him a few breedings to prove that his original animal was homozygous.

Ralph davis proved out the daddy gene, we all know breed a platinum to a platinum, you get 3 possible outcomes, homozygous lesser, het lesser/het daddy, homozygous daddy. well he hit on the one that wasn't a BEL or platty... so whats left? homozygous daddy, that looks just like the heterozygous daddy.

also to the OP this was my solution....

Unproven Dominant

You might be asking "Why have I never herd of this?" That would be because I made it up. I feel there is a need to differentiate between dominant morphs and the ones that are on the waiting list, which I call unproven dominant. A dominant morph has a visual change in the heterozygous form and the exact same change in the homozygous form. I define an unproven dominant as a morph having an unknown homozygous form. It might be a Incomplete Dominant/Co-Dominant morph that just hasn't proved out yet. It also could be a dominant morph. So what does it take to prove a dominant morph is in fact a dominant morph? I only know of two ways, statistics and complexes.

We will start with breeding a Pinstripe to another Pinstripe. The offspring statistically will be 25% Homozygous Pinstripe, 50% Heterozygous Pinstripe, and 25% Normal. Now since Pinstripe is a dominant morph, the homozygous and heterozygous forms look exactly the same. We are unable to tell them apart, so what we have is all the Pinstripes being 33% possible homozygous. 25% homozygous to 50% heterozygous which is a 1:2 ratio or 33% homozygous:66% heterozygous.

Now unlike possible recessive hets which can be proven out through producing visuals, we need to use statistics to prove homozygous dominant morphs. When the homozygous Pinstripe is bred, it will always produce Pinstripes. Once there have been enough eggs of all Pinstripes to call it something other than luck, you have proven it homozygous. One normal offspring will quickly prove the animal to be heterozygous. How many eggs you need to see is completely up for debate, but to give you the odds of a heterozygous Pinstripe producing all Pinstripes, here is a little chart.

Chance of heterozygous producing all morphs
I'm not sure where the community wants to draw the line, but things are looking good after 15 eggs if you ask me. To sum it up, it takes a lot of time, resources, and good record keeping to prove a single gene to be dominant.

If the unproven dominant gene is part of a complex, it can easily be proven by breeding two of the same complex morphs together. For example Daddy Gene is part of the same complex as Lesser Platinum. A Daddy Gene and Lesser Platinum sitting together makes a Platinum. Breed two Platinums togther and your left with straight forward odds 25% BEL, 50% Platinum, and 25% Homozygous Daddy Gene. Each of them are entirely different looking morphs, BEL being an all white snake with blue eyes, Platinums looking like hypo Lesser Platinum, and homozygous Daddy Gene looking just like the heterozygous Daddy Gene. All you have to do is hit that 25% chance and it makes it easy to say that the Daddy Gene is dominant.

also if this turns into arguing scientific terms vs terms used in the hobby, I'm just stating now I will not be participating. Feel free to search previous threads about mine and many other hobbyist opinion on it.