What are Pieds? (Jinx)

[Mike41793]

Jinx brought this up in another thread and mentioned he doesn't believe pieds are recessive, and are instead codom, with the super form being a pied. (He informed me he didn't come up with the idea nor does he claim it as his own original thought).

Anyways, jinx, please explain in full detail what you meant, because i wanna make sure i understand. I think you have an excellent point. Another thing that I've heard being discussed is that leopards are allelic to pieds and all leaopards are het pied. I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Does that mean that maybe leopards are the "het pied" morph that produces the super form pied...?

I'd love to here peoples thoughts on these topics!

Also, just to note, i'm not calling jinx out with this thread or anything haha. I just used him because hes the one that brought it up in another thread. Also, i put his name in the title because he's in a different time zone than 99% of us so i wanted to make sure he saw it.

[bfirecat]

Very interesting, time to follow this

- - - Updated - - -

Very interesting, time to follow this

[satomi325]

I'm in the same boat with the Clown gene. I don't think its recessive at all. It changes a lot of morph hets. Cleans them up and/or makes them brighter. Not to mention the pattern changer in some.


Anyway, I think pied certainly has some codom traits. They do interesting things to morphs. Take the pewter Het pied for example. The Het pied gives the pewter a washed out look. Even your Cinny PH pied is really crazy looking Mike. She's not like any regular cinny.

And according to NERD, all leopards are Het pied. A super leopard is pied. With that mind set, perhaps normal Het pieds are just a lower expression version?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[TessadasExotics]

Just because a het of a morph might make a change or "markers" does not mean it is NOT recesive. These markers are also not 100%. You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring. Same is true hor pieds. Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.



Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

[eatgoodfood]

Just because a het of a morph might make a change or "markers" does not mean it is NOT recesive. These markers are also not 100%. You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring. Same is true hor pieds. Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.



Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

My thought on this is if there is ANY phenotypical difference from a 'normal' to a heterozygous recessive then by definition it cannot be recessive, which is only visible in the homozygous form. I keep seeing pictures pop up of people with het pied animals that look obviously different than a normal, which from my understanding means it cannot be a recessive gene. Maybe the majority you see out there are just low quality animals, and with line breeding there have been higher quality coming out. How often do you see a yellowbellies and other morphs that are difficult to differentiate from normals.

[Pythonfriend]

its mostly semantics i think.

the russo leucistic was first considered recessive, now its called codominant, but the name for that codominant gene is still "het russo".

Names often change over the years, and how we categorize a morph changes just as often. Also in nature there is a gradual scale that goes all the way from codominant/ incomplete dominant to recessive. We just arbitrarily draw a line somewhere in between, but no matter where exactly we draw the line, some morphs will be right on the line so that its arbitrary into what category we put them. Its like trying to divide the human species into tall people and small people.

But then, its all really not a problem as long as we manage to come to an agreement about what we mean when we talk about it.

pied and leopard are two different genes, but they are fully compatible. You could say leopard is a line of pied, where the heterozygous form is very VERY visible on its own. And in oldschool pied the heterozygous form is very subtle. so if you breed a leopard to a 100% het pied, you will get 25% pieds. And these pieds would have one copy of the leopard gene and one copy of the oldschool pied gene, and look just like homozygous pied or homozygous leopard. If you breed one of these pieds to a normal, you get 50% leopards and 50% het pieds.

by the way, in cases where there can be confusion, "homozygous" and "heterozygous" are very useful terms. Here its really black and white without grey areas, either the snake has one copy of a certain gene, or two, or none.

[Coopers Constrictors]

Huh? Any and all Hets have the possibility to do weird things to other mutations, but that is all...

Leopards are IN FACT allelic with Piebalds. Therefore, all Leopards are basically Het Pied.

Pieds and Clowns are recessive... Period. I don't know why people are misinterpreting and over thinking proven information that has been around for decades now. Just because they may have the ability to have 'markers' and 'clean things up a bit' DOES NOT make them "codom" (btw... the proper term is Incomplete-Dominant, not codom)

I second the below text...

Just because a het of a morph might make a change or "markers" does not mean it is NOT recesive. These markers are also not 100%. You can not breed a het clown to a normal and with 100% accuracy pull out the het offspring. Same is true hor pieds. Most of the morphs are actually recesive IMO.

Here is wiki: a recessive gene is an allele that causes a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele) and never in a heterozygous genotype.

A het clown does NOT look like a clown. A het pied does NOT look like a Pied. A mojave does NOT look like a BEL. and the list goes on.

[alan1]

Similar thread here - http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forum...d-markers.html

[BHReptiles]

Huh? Any and all Hets have the possibility to do weird things to other mutations, but that is all...

Leopards are IN FACT allelic with Piebalds. Therefore, all Leopards are basically Het Pied.

Pieds and Clowns are recessive... Period. I don't know why people are misinterpreting and over thinking proven information that has been around for decades now. Just because they may have the ability to have 'markers' and 'clean things up a bit' DOES NOT make them "codom" (btw... the proper term is Incomplete-Dominant, not codom)

I second the below text...

Just because something has been around for decades doesn't mean that it's true. Think about the idea that the Earth was flat. That idea was around for centuries. Was it correct? No. Better information came alone with further testing and proved that in fact, the Earth is round.

Now, are all leopards het pied or are pieds and leopards allelic? I don't know. Because of the way the two genes interact with one another, I want to think they are allelic. Think about the genes in the BEl complex or the phantom/mystic/mojave group that makes the potion combos. Those have been proven to be allelic (or accepted to be allelic) and they are acting the same way as as leopard x pied.

What I think needs to happen is that we (as a community) need to do some experimenting to see what all this combo can produce. Right now, it's not understood fully which is why it opens up speculation. With a little time and investigation, I'm sure we can figure out if it's truly recessive, allelic, or if all leopards are het pied.

[RandyRemington]

For at least a decade there have been discussions on the nature of the pied mutation. My 2 bits is that ball pythons don't read text book definitions of cut and dry fully recessive and fully co-dominant mutations and the piebald mutation is somewhere in the middle. I used to call it "recessive with co-dominant tendencies" but now with the leopards being a fully co-dominant pied mutation maybe the older pied allele is co-domain with recessive tendencies; or a subtle co-dominant if you prefer.

I've proven three 25% chance het pied females after following the belly markers through multiple generations. Not a surprise as if you extend the white belly of the best of the classic pied markerd hets up the sides and push the thick black edges onto the back you have a classic pied look so I can easily see the het pied belly as part way to pied.