What are Pieds? (Jinx)

[asplundii]

makes sense. so i guess my question now would be.. if WT phenotype het clowns were indistinguishable from their 100% WT counterparts, yet one was able to pick out pastel or YB het clowns from other pastel, YB, or whatever non-hets, would you then consider the clown mutation incomplete dominant or recessive?

Hey Creepin,

The argument is that the het Clowns are distinguishable from their WT siblings, just that in an otherwise WT background the difference is subtle enough that it might be missed by those with the untrained eye. And yes it is still considered inc-dom because that designation applies to the “three-phenotype rule” as it relates to the allele pair regardless of the background.

Actually I understand genetics quite a bit more than most people here.

I do fortunately understand quite a bit about genetics. I also do not rely on wiki for my knowledge.

No, you do not understand genetics, you only think you do. Really, you know just enough about genetics to think you know what you are talking about and that is just getting you in to trouble. Everything you are saying proves that you have a fundamental lack of understanding about how genetics works.

And yes, you are relying on Wiki because you keep citing that as the source of your knowledge.

You say they are and it is commonly accepted so, but this does not make it so. Again I refer you to look into other animals such as mice, fish or even birds. Maybe what we are really dealing with is transheterozygotes

Yes, please do look at piebaldism in other species… Know what you will find? That in other species that exhibit the trait it is incomplete-dominant. And the same thing applies for leucism.

My proclaiming came into this because it IS a discussion on such things. And for the simple reason that it IS fact that Albinos, Clowns, Hypos and even Pieds are recessive.

Albinos? Yes (with the possible exception of that one allele Brant mentioned.) Hypos? Sure. Clowns? Looks like they may be inc-dom, maybe not, I still think some work needs to be done. Pieds? Inc-dom all the way.

But all of that is beside the point. The point I was making is that you come in here and say that none of us know what we are talking about and that we just need to shut up and quit making things worse when you are the one who is spouting off wrong/incorrect information because you are misinformed and highly overconfident in your own knowledge. We are not the ones making things worse.

What makes them recessive is that their het phenotype is the normal wild type appearance and their hom phenotype is the said morph appearance.

Except that Pieds hets have an altered phenotype when in heteroallelic form and a second phenotype when in homoallelic form which makes them incomplete-dominant. Their het phenotype is not WT.

Actually it is only visible when it is Homozygous.

Oops, typo. My fingers and brain seem to have miscommunicated. I can own my mistake though. However, my example citation makes it clear what I meant

This is a poor way to try and describe a dominant phenotype as Albino is a proven recessive trait.

I am not talking about the Albino allele I am talking about the WT allele at the tyr locus. Yes, Albino is recessive, I said that in the example right above this. But something is only recessive in relation to another allele, in this case the WT allele. So actually this is the perfect example because it shows how a dominant genetic trait works; one copy or two copies, the phenotype is the same.

I feel that this also is a bad example to use, as I feel that the whole BEL complex is being over simplified.

You can feel whatever you want, it does not change the truth. The BluEL complex is not being “over simplified” here but if you do not like it then substitute the BlkEL allele group. Or SuperBlack allele group. Or the StripeBack allele group. Or the Pastel allele group. Or the Paint allele group. Or the Chocolate allele group. Or Enchi. Or Orange Dream... They all behave the same; one copy of the mutant gene gives phenotype A and two copies of the mutant gene gives phenotype B. The very definition of incomplete-dominance.

I am not sure how anyone could claim they are recessive. And yet you do...

A clown male to a normal female will result in the babies having 1 WT gene and 1 Clown gene. Those babies will NOT look like a clown. They may have "markers" but they DON'T look like a clown. Hence clown is a recessive trait. It is not EXPRESSED in the het form. Like I said just because you can possibly see a marker doesn’t make it not a recessive trait. Not to mention more than one locus that can affect the appearance of an animal.

[QUOTE=BHReptiles;2075317]No one is saying that the clown gene is expressed as a clown in a het clown animal. What we're saying is that the clown GENE causes a slightly different phenotype than just a plane wild type animal. That phenotype won't be that of a clown animal, but it will be slightly different in the sense that if you were to put 10 normal babies in a tub with one of them being "het clown", just based on how the animal looks, you can pick out that "het clown" with pretty good accuracy.[QUOTE]

Just so BHR.

This whole argument that “het Clown has to look like a Clown” or “het Pied has to look like a Pied” proves they are recessive once again highlights your lack of understanding of genetics. For something to be recessive the het has to have a phenotype no different than the WT. Pied hets do have a phenotype different than WT. All Pied hets. Clown hets also appear to have this difference. The point being that because there is a different phenotype, however subtle, that is proof that they are not recessive. The heteroallelic does not have to look like the homoallelic, in point of fact it cannot because then it would be a strictly dominant gene. And no one is saying that

I to question everything. If I don't know the answer to something I will ask others who do and will also research it.

If you did question everything, then you wouldn't be saying things along the lines of "Just accept that pied and clown are recessive." That's not questioning at all...that's simply conforming to the current paradigm.

I could not have said it better myself BHR

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.

Ummm… No… Most of the genes we work with are inc-dom. There are, as yet, no proven dominant morphs and no proven co-dominant morphs.

Let me add... How about the NERD theory on Granites "attaching" to Hidden Gene Woma? Could this really be true and if so, I could see the Leopard/Pied thing in the same realm of becoming "attached", or they are just Allelic like some have proven them to be, or the original Leopards had already "attached" the pied gene, causing them to be what they are now.

This is another great case of misinterpretation getting perpetuated along. Genes cannot “attach” to one another. Granite and HGW are not attached and the belief that the “neck-spot” proves an HGW is also a Granite is fallacious.

I don't know, but what I do know is that we still have MANY years of figuring this stuff out... like the whole Banana "sex-link" issue... it boggles my mind... there is still much to figure out, holistically.

I think the issue with banana / coral glow is properly figured out by now, it just sits on the sex-determining chromosome pair. "ww" is a male and "wz" is a female. If all the "w"s in your BP carry the coral glow gene, you get a visual coral glow. It sits on the "w", and the presence of a "z" makes your python female. Basically its like a recessive, except in females you get one for free. So male coral glows are a bit harder to produce and a bit more powerful, and you can get pairings where in the offspring all males look normal and all females are visual coral glows. Its not too difficult really.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

Please follow your own words here:

When it comes to genetics, i doubt anything coming from NERD unless properly proven out by others as well. And hidden gene woma, i dont know, a weird gene with a lethal super that has the wobble.

Banana/CG are not, in any way, shape or form sex-linked. I really do not have the time to go in to all the nitty-gritty on it but draw out the Punnett squares and you will see that the actual breeding results do not match what we should see of a sex-linked trait. I am not saying there is not something weird going on with Banana/CG but it is not sex-linked!