» Site Navigation
0 members and 1,515 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 76,049
Threads: 249,209
Posts: 2,572,699
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Mikvik
|
-
Registered User
Re: What are Pieds? (Jinx)
 Originally Posted by Royal Hijinx
You know, that is a great question. There is a lot of concentration on the railroad tracks, but I will tell you that many are ID'd in a clutch just because they are "different". Hopefully some one else who has a better working knowledge of this than I do will chime in here.
As for eliminating the morph as recessive, all that is needed is for the het Pied to be visually DIFFERENT from the non-het Pieds in the clutch. As brant mentioned, sometimes you really need to see a snake with its clutch mates to pull it out as different. IF you can do this it is NOT recessive.
Also, as stated before, the subtlety of the morph can make this difficult, especially if one is not looking for it.
You can't 'create' a morph or identifying one with just saying it's 'different' and that's all you got :/ For it to be labeled, or be re-labeled, you need to pull out some info on how to positively identify a het, WHAT makes it different, and understand WHY it is, and why some other hets are not. So far, even after eleven pages, no one knows what makes some hets have markers and some don't.
This kinda remind me of a friend who says that the coloration 'Tuxedo' in cats is a breed. All black and white cats. Because they look like each other.
From what I can see the het pied that looks 'different' look indeed 'different' even from other het pieds, and that's the problem. There is no way to classify them better than het pied, or possible het pied if you do not know the parents, breed them yourself, or have their siblings to compare with. Since you can't predict how different it will look, or predict IF it will have any markers at all, it is not a 'visible' gene morph on more than occasionally, and even in those cases it's not proven that it's not because of something else.
Every snake is different, every pattern differs if just a little. There are probably hundreds of variations on normals for example. If you take one of those, and match it with a normal that looks like it, you can create a morph if you're lucky and they carried some traits that were dominant, but you can't do the same with het pieds. You can't predict them, and you can't count on them having markers or count on them to affect any other morph in a specific way.
I think it's best to leave it the way it is actually :/ Because what have not been proven should not be re-named, just because some people think it should.
And 20 years experiance on three guys....that's on avarage what... 6.6 years per head? That's like 6-7 breeding seasons on average per person then. I'm sorry, but that's not all that impressive, I've seen 70 year olds that didn't know anything about anything they are doing - age and time spent on something does NOT guarantee that you have learned all you can learn and it does NOT guarantee that you can see, or do, something better than someone who have been doing the same for lesser amount of time.
I quote myself, just for you;
"Until something is proven by more than your own experience overconfidence in your own ability will only do you harm, and close any paths in your mind to be open for new ideas."
Last edited by bunnykit; 05-22-2013 at 07:00 AM.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|