Het Piebald, 100%? 50%?

[Kourtneyhk]

Hi folks!

So I recently bought my first ball python at a reptile expo, and bought a little male Het Piebald. I never really thought about whether he was 50% or 100% or 66% or anything, because honestly, I've never considered breeding. I'm just a "bit" of a science nerd, and maybe because its 1:15am, I have myself a little confused

The little container he came in did not specify "percentage" of het piebald. I clearly remember him talking about how one of the snakes he bred was piebald, and he got no piebald offspring, and they were all male so he was really trying to sell them. Now, if one parent was Piebald, this would make the offspring 100% het, correct? Where as if both parents were Het, he could possibly only be 50%?

My little guy has the "black stripe" marker if you buy into that, and like I said, it's more a curiosity thing to me than a genuine "did I get what I paid for" type of thing. Just wanted to see if I had my thoughts in order, assuming that he is 100% Het for Piebald because one of his parents was Piebald.

Thanks for reading my ramblings!
--Kourtney

[JaGv]

you can always try contacting the breeder

[irishanaconda]

visual to normal= babbies 100% het (all look normal but carry the gene)
het to het=babbies 66% het (often times if no visual is produced seller sells them as 50% het if one snake is not proven before)
het to normal= 50% het (out of all the normal babbies half should carry the gene)

[Zombie]

Hi folks!

So I recently bought my first ball python at a reptile expo, and bought a little male Het Piebald. I never really thought about whether he was 50% or 100% or 66% or anything, because honestly, I've never considered breeding. I'm just a "bit" of a science nerd, and maybe because its 1:15am, I have myself a little confused

The little container he came in did not specify "percentage" of het piebald. I clearly remember him talking about how one of the snakes he bred was piebald, and he got no piebald offspring, and they were all male so he was really trying to sell them. Now, if one parent was Piebald, this would make the offspring 100% het, correct? Where as if both parents were Het, he could possibly only be 50%?

My little guy has the "black stripe" marker if you buy into that, and like I said, it's more a curiosity thing to me than a genuine "did I get what I paid for" type of thing. Just wanted to see if I had my thoughts in order, assuming that he is 100% Het for Piebald because one of his parents was Piebald.

Thanks for reading my ramblings!
--Kourtney

Usually when they sell a het pied its 100%, otherwise they say possible het pied. If you remember the name of the breeder you can email and ask...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[rlditmars]

het to normal= 50% het (out of all the normal babbies half should carry the gene)

I don't believe this is an accurate statement. Het to normal would allow every off spring to have a 50/50 chance of carrying the gene. But in this type of pairing, all, none, or some, of the hatchlings could have the recessive gene present.

[OhhWatALoser]

I don't believe this is an accurate statement. Het to normal would allow every off spring to have a 50/50 chance of carrying the gene. But in this type of pairing, all, none, or some, of the hatchlings could have the recessive gene present.

"should", not "will"

[rabernet]

"should", not "will"

Agreed - but the distinction is also important. Many new keepers THINK "will", not "should"

[rlditmars]

Agreed - but the distinction is also important. Many new keepers THINK "will", not "should"

Not to bust chops, but I think the distinction should actually be "could", not "should". No? I think "should" implies that eventually it has to. When the truth is, the probability always exists, but never does have to manifest.

[irishanaconda]

Not to bust chops, but I think the distinction should actually be "could", not "should". No? I think "should" implies that eventually it has to. When the truth is, the probability always exists, but never does have to manifest.

No need to confuse the newbie. Simple question = simple answer

[rabernet]

Not to bust chops, but I think the distinction should actually be "could", not "should". No? I think "should" implies that eventually it has to. When the truth is, the probability always exists, but never does have to manifest.

I can agree with that. And you're not busting my chops - I was actually agreeing with you.