Proving Dominant Traits

[OhhWatALoser]

Your free to believe whatever you like but this stuff is not magical or even mysterious and there is a reason why nobody breeds spider X spider or Pin X pin etc. You are also making the assumption that everyone has always been honest, which most people realize has not been the case either.

nobody breeds dominant traits because of the time/money/proving out/ect. for a morph that looks exactly like the het. It's alot easier to breed two pastels together and say thats a homozygous pastel. All a homozygous dominant trait does is give you genetic powerhouse, but phenotypes is what makes money, as a big breeder, what are you going to go after? It only makes sense.

Hiding behind the "we dont know" is a tad convenient, as with a lethal gene that dies early in development, the proof you demand would be impossible to get. Over the years when this argument comes up I usually find it a amusing that those who argue that Spider is dominant avoid doing that pairing in their own collections.

yup we are hiding behind something... instead of assuming, how dare we. Ultra sound and follow egg development, if it dies early you will see it. It's not impossible, just difficult, time consuming, and a lot of record keeping. Also whos arguing it's dominant? Thats never been proven.

We now have a whole group of genes, that when paired result in severely damaged or dead combos (spider, woma, hg woma, sable, champ etc) and of these the spider is by far the MOST damaged in heterozygous form. So even though we know that the spider gene is clearly lethal in several combos, AND there is a complete lack of any evidence for a viable homozygous form. I guess I dont understand your relentless optimism on the subject.

Its no optimism or anything, I want evidence before we say something is fact, so far the evidence is lack of evidence. I'll stick with the truth of we don't know.

On the issue of Dominant genes, I hardly think the "daddy" gene counts as it looks normal in both heterozygous and homozygous form. On the congo, can you even define what a "congo" looks like.... me neither.
Your then left with one supposed homozygous pin when there should certainly be many more than one. call me a skeptic I guess.

het daddys and normals from the same clutch are easy to pick out, at least it was in the one clutch I saw. Subtle no doubt, I could never look at a snake and say, yes that is het daddy, but they are different. As for congo, brighter, and more yellow than a normal. Again it may be subtle, but still a dominant trait. You're grasping at straws to prove your point if you ask me... I'm sorry yes, there is dominant traits in the ball python world... OMG!

My thoughts on that as well with BHBs claim is it could've been a money game as well. Brian found the original pin and proved it out. It would be better for business to find a "dominate" trait, rather than another lethal homozygous. I'll email brian and ask him why he hasn't proven out another homozygous. It is more likely that a) ONE survived as Homozygous or b) he did hit those odds of all pinstripes.

See above.... time, money, space, females, for animal that looks exactly the same... yea im on repeat.

And like Nick Said, we can't hide behind we don't know, because we do, we see clutch reports, and if someone somewhere had hit the homozygous version we would know! its not 1/16 chance, its 1/4 when you breed the two together, Brian at BHB Im positive has breeding data for pin to pin with what only ONE possible case that it proved out to be possibly homo? What about the other clutches from that individual? Why only quote one clutch? That's odd because Brian would breed multiple generations out of that because he could produce a TON of pins easy. . . So forgive my speculation on the matter, not trying to insult anyone with this topic, this is high school level thought concepts, we just need to think of it realistically.

your not thinking of this as a business person, phenotypes sell. BTW if you didn't notice.... he does sell a ton of pins easy. Maybe here is another point you guys are missing. Ok I make my homozygous pinstripe, awesome. Now I want to mix it with another morph... the whole proving out process starts all over again, only way you can guarantee it is homozygous, is to breed 2x already proven homozygous together. so you can't mix in other morphs without starting the entire LONG process over again. again phenotypes sell. It's not like a normal het x het, theres a long process everytime.

Also concerning your het odds, how many people breed het pied to het pied and end up with usually a pied in the first generation of the cross? The probability seems off in your table . . . Not exactly sure what your were trying to prove out, because if you know anything about probability each egg is independent, it rolls its own dice, you have the same probability of getting every egg Homo or every egg Het or every egg normal. SAME. But each egg has the same variable of probability, 25%, 25%, 50%, so your chart does little to prove anything . . .

the chart is breed a het to a normal, 50% chance each egg. and what are the chances of missing 50% 5 times? 10 times? 15 times? 20 times? 25 times? 27 times? refer to the chart and my above posts.