Why I think we need unproven dominant

[Pythonfriend]

interesting, not much new for me here, but its interesting to hear that the super pinstripe had been proven out. I believed pinstripe would be like spider, with a mysteriously missing super form.


For me, whats most important above all else when judging a gene is: Does the super-form exist and is it healthy?

not a criticism of your post, but i dont like the guide you linked: http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...Basic-Genetics i dont like it, because i consider every single graphic to be a bit misleading. it looks a bit like 2 chromosomes, but two genes hit one chromosome, really strange, but then you realize that the long strands are supposed to be the whole genome of the snake and the little colored circles get distributed, also really strange. In fact chromosomes get distributed, genes like albino always sit on the same chromosome. And each BP has each chromosome 2 times. Heterozygous: the two chromosomes in question are different. Homozygous: the two chromosomes both have the gene in question.

But you did a good job. I wonder if it catches on, or maybe it will evolve into slightly different categories. like: recessive, codominant, nice dominant, problematic/questionable dominant.