Quote Originally Posted by SaintTawny View Post
This isn't strictly true, when you think about the way that gene codes are repurposed in different areas of the body. Take this imaginary situation for example: Imagine that an egg was produced that was homozygous for the spider gene, but showed no visual difference from the heterozygotes we're all familiar with. We would properly call that a dominant gene. Now if that egg failed to hatch, and others like it were proven to be not viable, but the partially developed embryos showed no visual difference from similarly developed heterozygotes, we could still properly call it a dominant gene. I'm of the opinion that enough evidence exists to prove that the same allele that causes the spider mutation also somehow impairs coordination and causes wobble. This one allele can cause changes in the scale pattern AND a deficiency in some protein at the same time, which would make the two inseparable. We wouldn't call it co-dom/inc-dom if this allowed heterozygotes to survive using their single "normal" allele, but was fatal to homozygotes due to complete lack of production of that necessary protein.

If we're going to get picky about the use of the term dominant vs. co-dominant, I think we should reserve the word Super for homozygotes of co-dominant genes. The phrase "Super Pinstripe" makes it sound like a super pastel, or super mojave, where there is a visual difference between het and homo.
I am using laymen terms, A dominant trait would actually be defined as showing the same phenotype. A Phenotype is defined as an observable characteristic or trait and basically includes anything not called genotype.

As for the use of the term "super." Most people seem to use it as a snake that does not throw normal offspring.