guys, calm down.


Maybe you just need to differentiate more between genes andtraits.

You can argue and debate all day, but i think the problem is not to be found in physical reality, the problem is in different imprecise and incompatible descriptions of reality.

There is no difference between a super form and a visible recessive. Its homozygous.

GENES can be absent, or present in heterozygous form, or present in homozygous form. nothing inbetween. If a homozygous form is invisible or absent or lethal, we call the gene dominant. Here you could call genes where the heterozygous form is completely undetectible recessives, but really there is not much of a point to it. Most genes we work with are codominant, some genes are dominant because there is no proven super, a few are recessive because the hets show no markers. But a snake can have each gene 0 times, 1 time, or 2 times.

TRAITS can be incomplete dominant or recessive. Albino is a recessive trait, Ivory is a recessive trait, blue-eye-lucy is a recessive trait, pied is a recessive trait. It doesnt matter that the gene is not recessive here! It just doesnt matter. Albino is a trait, and its described as white/yellow, absence of black pigment. And you need a homozygous or super (remember, these two are the same) to get there. Same for the Ivory. The gene may be clearly codominant, but Ivory is a recessive TRAIT. You need a homozygous super to get it. With pied you need a homozygous recessive to get visual pied, with leopard you need a super leopard to get a pied.

Really, you are fighting meaningless semantics. A deeper knowledge and more precise language causes these meaningless conflicts to simply vanish. You worry about het pieds? think het red axanthic. Visible supers are similar to visible recessives.