Possible super pinstripes

[Domepiece]

who says it doesn't happen? there is zero data to make any conclusion off of. So the answer is we don't know whats going on with the spider. Also I don't have any idea what the spider gene has to do with the pinstripe gene? Should we talk about how pastels work also? is that relevant? I dont understand your logic.



there nothing to suggest lethal besides rumors. Everything about the spider gene is inconclusive because we have next to no information. Only good piece of data I have seen is this.... http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...=1#post1847606 which im still hoping they post their final results, but with what they gave us.... it is still inconclusive, but interesting.





just a point to bring up, if it is lethal, it will not be classified as dominant anymore

Let me get this straight. So when it works in your favor and helps your opinions its ok to bring up other mutations but when others do it to make their case its irrelevant and off topic? so hows this work then, your just the genetic genius, your always right, everybody else is wrong? theres just no dominant genes? Fact is you dont know and as far as I can tell neither does anyone else and unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise its all speculation. This is realworld genetics application and how they have been working, not theorhetical genetics babble. your all over the place, get a grip

[justinmann17]

There is a discussion on another forum which there is a picture of a super spider. Not sure if I can post a link.

[OhhWatALoser]

Let me get this straight. So when it works in your favor and helps your opinions its ok to bring up other mutations but when others do it to make their case its irrelevant and off topic? so hows this work then, your just the genetic genius, your always right, everybody else is wrong? theres just no dominant genes? Fact is you dont know and as far as I can tell neither does anyone else and unless there is hard evidence to prove otherwise its all speculation. This is realworld genetics application and how they have been working, not theorhetical genetics babble. your all over the place, get a grip

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a discussion on another forum which there is a picture of a super spider. Not sure if I can post a link.

post it

[TessadasExotics]

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -



post it

The problem is, is that you are combining two different versions of what Dominance is. In the Ball python breeders world a dominant morph snake looks exactly the same in its het form as it does in its homo form. The only difference is that it would only reproduce itself, NO NORMALS.(in its homo form) Where as a co-dominant form has one visual look for its "het" form and a different look for its Homo form. It also produces NO NORMALS. (in its homo form)

So far there are really NO Proven dominant forms but we do accept that Spiders, Pinstripes and some others as dominant as they show no super homo form.

by this standard a congo in its homo super form would look exactly the same but would never produce a normal.

[OhhWatALoser]

The problem is, is that you are combining two different versions of what Dominance is. In the Ball python breeders world a dominant morph snake looks exactly the same in its het form as it does in its homo form. The only difference is that it would only reproduce itself, NO NORMALS. Where as a co-dominant form has one visual look for its "het" form and a different look for its Homo form. It also produces NO NORMALS.

So far there are really NO Proven dominant forms but we do accept that Spiders, Pinstripes and some others as dominant as they show no super homo form.

daddy gene is undeniably dominant, unless you want to call ralph davis a liar.
the first congo imported was homozygous, unless you want to call vin russo a liar.
the pinstripe was proven by statistics, unless you want to call bhb a liar.
not like other unproven "dominant" morphs such as spider and a host of others, which have an unknown homozygous form

All cases of snakes looking the same in het and homo form. I'm not combining any version of dominance, im actually trying to separate the known dominant from the unproven "dominant".

[justinmann17]

http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...Spider-Results
I think there is one more picture floating around I will try to drum up.

[TessadasExotics]

All cases of snakes looking the same in het and homo form. I'm not combining any version of dominance, im actually trying to separate the known dominant from the unproven "dominant".

So then show me ONE proven dominant. Because not one ball python has ever been proven to be a "dominant" trait. That is that it looks exactly the same in its "het" form as it does in its homo "super" form and produces no normals.
You can't use the "its homo form is lethal" either. That is purely guessing and is not proof.
Just face it. Spiders are considered dominant in the trade just as are pinstripes. It's just a label that has been put on them because they are not codominant and they show no other form but their own. The terms that we use in this hobby are not accurate. They are just words that loosely tries to describe what’s going on. It's simple laymen genetics that everyone can follow and understand without being a genetic professor.

[OhhWatALoser]

http://www.reptileradio.net/reptiler...Spider-Results
I think there is one more picture floating around I will try to drum up.

All I can say really is wow. Evidence pointing in two different directions now, always interesting. thanks for the link.

- - - Updated - - -

So then show me ONE proven dominant. Because not one ball python has ever been proven to be a "dominant" trait. That is that it looks exactly the same in its "het" form as it does in its homo "super" form and produces no normals.
You can't use the "its homo form is lethal" either. That is purely guessing and is not proof.
Just face it. Spiders are considered dominant in the trade just as are pinstripes. It's just a label that has been put on them because they are not codominant and they show no other form but their own. The terms that we use in this hobby are not accurate. They are just words that loosely tries to describe what’s going on. It's simple laymen genetics that everyone can follow and understand without being a genetic professor.

I've explain bhb 1-023i492309854i times now, so I dont know what the problem is. you want a picture? https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...A-nd0QG-voCoAg looks something like that. if you cant trust the guy giving the information, thats your choice. it was proven though, you just don't believe it.
talk to vin russo about his import congo, I would give you the link to the story, but he revamped his website. but you probably wouldn't believe him either.
and unless the current model of genetics needs rewritting, the fact that a platty x platty produced a het daddy looking animal is proof.

if a homo form is lethal, its not dominant, end of story. Spiders are dominant because theres no proven homozygous, or what i would call unproven dominant. if the homozygous spider is lethal, it will no longer be called dominant.

[Domepiece]

My favor? explain to me how I benefit from this at all? Why do I keep answering your same questions in every thread about this? I don't want others taking your non-acceptance of this as fact, because evidence points in the other direction.

I'm explaining conclusions based off of evidence, that is it. Spider has nothing to do with pinstripe, how could it? I linked to data I have seen about the spider, do you know of anything else to draw a conclusion from? I don't so as far as I can see, anything said about the spider gene is inconclusive, unless you have more to add? can we move on to the topic at hand? wait no we can't.

I see repeat claims of there being no super doms, There are 3 known, I am simply bringing up that it is a false statement. So it is relevant. There being super congos and daddy genes doesn't prove anything about pinstripe, they all got proved out on their own. ok now we move on.

Pinstripe on the other hand, we have a case where someone breed a pin to a pin and a male offspring from that pairing produced 27 pinstripes in a row. If you want to call brian a liar thats fine, but through statistics that proves a homozygous pinstripe with leaps and bounds. Do you have any other evidence of someone attempting to prove a homozygous pin, besides this thread? do you have any other data to draw a conclusion from? looks like pinstripe is a simple dominant mutation and there absolutely nothing special or mysterious about it. Your blood type works the same way. AO=A AA=A OO=O. PN=P PP=P NN=N its basic, why is this so hard to accept?

If you don't accept the evidence thats your choice, but you have no arguement that there is no homozygous pinstripe, but still choose to say its the truth despite there being no evidence of it. Where are the multiple cases of people trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing? Show me the hard evidence.

I'm not a genetics genius, i'm just not afraid to move forward and make conclusions without needing someone else to tell me how it is. I'm not ignorant of the current model of genetics and open to new information. With that I draw my own conclusion with the current information at the time and use a little common sense and logic. I dont fall into the "what I want to be true" I just look at what I got, draw conclusion. If that's "theoretical genetics babble", I'm good with that. When A=B and B=C, i'm not afraid to say A=C.

- - - Updated - - -



post it

When exactly have you kept answering any of my questions about anything? If the evidence points in any direction regarding super pins its that they dont exist. Lol, pretty sure I said nothing of anyone trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing. and yes thats exactly what I do I make things up in my head that I want to be true and then base my arguements upon those facts When all is said and done it is just obvious you have nothing better to do and you are a know it all, that is very clear from they way you present your arguements and the way that you attack others on this forum with your "superior" intellect (just saw another post of you trying to make someone look stupid for their question) . get a life. I'm done bothering with you, you are obviously lacking in many ways.

[OhhWatALoser]

When exactly have you kept answering any of my questions about anything? If the evidence points in any direction regarding super pins its that they dont exist. Lol, pretty sure I said nothing of anyone trying to prove out homozygous pins and failing. and yes thats exactly what I do I make things up in my head that I want to be true and then base my arguements upon those facts When all is said and done it is just obvious you have nothing better to do and you are a know it all, that is very clear from they way you present your arguements and the way that you attack others on this forum with your "superior" intellect (just saw another post of you trying to make someone look stupid for their question) . get a life. I'm done bothering with you, you are obviously lacking in many ways.

right here http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...s-Spider-Morph the thread where you had most of this information presented to you.

trying to prove out a homozygous pin and failing would be your evidence, which I dont see. lack of evidence is not evidence, especially when there is no evidence of even trying.

So with nothing left, you insult me. I love the internet

- - - Updated - - -

by this standard a congo in its homo super form would look exactly the same but would never produce a normal.

vin russo already stated his congo female only produces congos, so yes this is correct.