It seems to be avoided that there is a possibility that no slugs would be generated, that a matter of non-fertilization could occur in some cases blocking egg development. . .

Again guys, the point of this discussion was to touch a topic that doesn't seem to get much touching. When we deal with genetics we tend to over simplify the situation and this leads to ambiguity in the community that leads to a poor understanding of what's really going on with snake morphs. Some morphs can be quite easy to understand like in the case of recessive genes where we understand perfectly that this follows simple dominance genetics. Things that we lump as dominate though are not being defined within proper reason. We can call any gene that shows up or even "blends" dominate, as long as the phenotype can be observed on any given animal that contains the gene. But other than a dominate gene, we can not call it a simple "dominate" trait. The purpose was to encourage people to draw lines with what we can, and can not understand so that we can have the "many eyes effect" on the problem and come to a conclusion based on the available information. Need I remind the community that as in chemistry, sometimes zero is a significant number, and in Biology, sometimes 0 has meaning. For us to have zero homozygous spiders / pinstripes in the ball python community, we can safely conclude that these animals are not capable of producing homozygous offspring, it is safe to assume that it is lethal in it's homozygous form. Does this make the definition of Dominant false? Well, Yes and No, does it qualify it as Co-dominate? Again, yes and no. It all depends on how we define each term within the community.

This thread is not meant to be a war on breeders who lie and misrepresent facts, but is more of a war on the language we use to define new morphs. Whether or not we use this language to benifit new morphs coming into the community or not is another story. Perhaps one should only refer to morphs as the genes they contain instead of lumpng them as a heridability type. Dominant Genes just mean that the trait is shown with one copy of the gene, it may or may not look different with 2 copies, that's beyond the scope of dominant gene, recessive just means that it is hidden in the presence of a dominant gene on the same loci, because recessive traits are so easy to understand, I don't fear any ambiguity to their languag .

So lethal, infertile, non-producing, a myth, godzilla, bigfoot, whatever, let the lack of evidence stand as evidence for the case against defining a trait as dominant, and let breeders acknowledge the presence of fatal genes, or at least "non-existent homozygous" forms. Will it take work, sure! Will it pay off? Probably not . . . But hey, it's part of the experience, after all I started breeding reptiles to learn and enjoy the hobby, now I get to breed for a profit, but it doesn't mean I can stop learning or enjoying it. Take that to the bank and recieve your two cents . . . or don't . . .