i love this thread. i can see both sides of the argument, but i'm kind of on the fence. keep in mind, i'm a "reader" without much first hand experience in hets (yet).. but i do read. a lot. i just don't have the luxury of saying i've been in the game for a few decades. not because i havent wanted to, it's just that i wasn't conceived until the late 80s, so for me, it is a physical impossibility.

for those of you with more first hand experience arguing that these genes are not recessive: i completely understand where you're coming from on your side of the debate.. but one thing i've noticed, especially with clown and hypo "hets," is that the "het" animals are much more apparent when they also carry other incomplete dominant traits. the pastel het clowns or enchi het hypos are easier to pick out from their non-het clutch mates.. in the picture snakesrkewl posted, there seems to be a drastic difference, but those animals carry the yellowbelly gene as well. it is my understanding (granted i am a mere "reader") that the wild type looking hets are just that: of the wild type phenotype.. and for a gene to be considered incomplete dominant (completely eliminating all other variables such as other genes), when it carries only one of the genes, you don't have a wild type phenotype. i understand that many people claim they can pick out pastel het clowns, but i havent seen this claim made with "normal" het clowns, at least not often.. but it's also a good possibility i haven't read enough. can WT phenotype clown or hypo hets be picked out with any sort of accuracy? if so, then we shouldn't consider them a WT phenotype at all, and if not, would they not still be considered recessive since a WT looking snake that is het for the gene still has a normal phenotype, regardless of how that single gene may affect the appearance of a snake that already has a not so normal phenotype?