ALS - Acts Like Super

[TessadasExotics]

Acts Like Super, ALS, is the best/most accurate term to use that does not confuse other people.

[Annarose15]

Acts Like Super, ALS, is the best/most accurate term to use that does not confuse other people.

That assumes other people know what "super" means. Otherwise, it's still just another bp-specific term that has to be explained.

[OhhWatALoser]

So I understand all that. But the term "allelic" by itself is a generic term that mean "having to do with alleles" and you've defined allele quite fine I think. But just using the word "allelic" to me does not adequately describe the "Acts Like Super" behavior. Dominant is an allelic behavior. So is Recessive which was your example.

When someone says "this morph is recessive" we know what that means. When someone says "this is the Super/Homozygous for of this morph" we know what that means. Allelic covers all of the these. So if a new morph comes along how would know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic"?

Sure, "Act Like Super" is silly but no one else has come up with anything else that I know of. So there needs to be a more specific word or phrase to describe to behavior of "this 2 gene parent will produce offspring that all have either gene A or gene B but not both."

I think you have a misunderstanding of what allelic is, as you said it is relating to alleles, here is the simple google definition of allele: One of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome. The reason you can get either gene A or gene B but not none or both is because they are on the same place on the chromosome, that place is known as the locus.

Dominant and Recessive are classifications based on the phenotype (looks) of the animal in heterozygous (het) and homozygous (super) form, usually when compared to the wild trait (normal). It has nothing to do with alleles at all. Lesser and mojave are found on the same locus, albino and candy are found on the same locus, them being co-dom or recessive has nothing to do with it.

The trade already had a non-technical term, called "being compatible". Being compatible = allelic = being on the same locus = Acts like super. All describing the exact same thing.

[paulh]

So I understand all that. But the term "allelic" by itself is a generic term that mean "having to do with alleles" and you've defined allele quite fine I think. But just using the word "allelic" to me does not adequately describe the "Acts Like Super" behavior. Dominant is an allelic behavior. So is Recessive which was your example.

When someone says "this morph is recessive" we know what that means. When someone says "this is the Super/Homozygous for of this morph" we know what that means. Allelic covers all of the these. So if a new morph comes along how would know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic"?

Sure, "Act Like Super" is silly but no one else has come up with anything else that I know of. So there needs to be a more specific word or phrase to describe to behavior of "this 2 gene parent will produce offspring that all have either gene A or gene B but not both."

If a new morph comes along, we would not know how the gene works if someone just said "it's allelic".

Here is how we would know that how toffino works. Toffee and albino are alleles. The toffee mutant gene is recessive to the normal allele. The albino mutant gene is recessive to the normal gene. The albino mutant gene is codominant to the toffee mutant gene. A toffino snake has a toffee mutant gene paired with an albino mutant gene.

A snake can have one of the following gene pairs:
2 normal genes -- snake is normal and looks normal
toffee mutant gene and normal gene -- snake looks normal
albino mutant gene and normal gene -- snake looks normal
two toffee mutant genes -- snake has toffee appearance
two albino mutant genes -- snake has albino appearance
albino mutant gene and toffee mutant gene -- snake has toffino appearance.

Here is how we would know that how lesser and mojave work. The lesser and mojave mutant genes are alleles. The lesser mutant gene is codominant to the normal allele. The mojave mutant gene is codominant to the normal gene. The lesser mutant gene is dominant to the mojave mutant gene.

A snake can have one of the following gene pairs:
2 normal genes -- snake is normal and looks normal
lesser mutant gene and normal gene -- snake is a lesser platinum
mojave mutant gene and normal gene -- snake is a mojave
two lesser mutant genes -- snake is a blue-eyed leucistic (BEL)
two mojave mutant genes -- snake is nearly white with some pigment on top of head and neck.
lesser mutant gene and mojave mutant gene -- snake is a BEL, like a snake with two lesser mutant genes

Plug the genotypes into a mating and apply the appearances to the offspring for any mating you care to make.

[TessadasExotics]

Here is how we would know that how lesser and mojave work. The lesser and mojave mutant genes are alleles. The lesser mutant gene is codominant to the normal allele. The mojave mutant gene is codominant to the normal gene. The lesser mutant gene is dominant to the mojave mutant gene.

Actually the Lesser and Mojave mutated alleles are dominant to the normal wild phenotype. It only takes one copy of the mutated allele to overide the wild type allele. One copy of either lesser or mojave will make a lesser or mojave. Same goes for all "codominant" and "dominant" morphs.
Lesser is not dominant to Mojave.

[OhhWatALoser]

Actually the Lesser and Mojave mutated alleles are dominant to the normal wild phenotype. It only takes one copy of the mutated allele to overide the wild type allele. One copy of either lesser or mojave will make a lesser or mojave. Same goes for all "codominant" and "dominant" morphs.
Lesser is not dominant to Mojave.

They are not dominant to the normal, we know this as their homozygous form is a BEL, the lesser as we know it is a cross between the lesser and normal alleles, one does not dominant over the other.

The Lesser BEL is all white
The Lesser/Mojave BEL is all white
The Super Mojave is not.

Thus Lesser is dominant over mojave

[TessadasExotics]

They are not dominant to the normal, we know this as their homozygous form is a BEL, the lesser as we know it is a cross between the lesser and normal alleles, one does not dominant over the other.

The Lesser BEL is all white
The Lesser/Mojave BEL is all white
The Super Mojave is not.

Thus Lesser is dominant over mojave

LOL all codominant or dominant morphs are dominant to the wild type. If a Lesser is bred to a normal, all of the offspring that caries that lesser allele are going to be a lessers. Same is said for all of the ball python morphs in existence. Simple as that.
Lesser is not dominant over mojave. I have absolutely no idea how you can even come to that conclusion.

[OhhWatALoser]

LOL all codominant or dominant morphs are dominant to the wild type. If a Lesser is bred to a normal, all of the offspring that caries that lesser allele are going to be a lessers. Same is said for all of the ball python morphs in existence. Simple as that.
Lesser is not dominant over mojave. I have absolutely no idea how you can even come to that conclusion.

I'll be correct and say all the incomplete dominant morphs are incomplete dominant with the normal, all dominant morphs are dominant to the normal and all recessive are recessive. why is this? because what we classify a gene is, is compared to the normal.

Incomplete dominant (co-dom in the bp world) has 3 different phenotypes. Back to the lesser

2x Normal = Normal
Normal and Lesser = Lesser
2x Lesser = BEL

So looking at this information it is quite obvious that lesser does not dominant over the normal allele, because when the normal allele is not present the phenotype changes. The lesser we identify is the combination of the lesser and normal allele, its not JUST the lesser allele, as that would be a white snake with blue eyes. Incomplete dominance. not dominant.

Now for lesser mojave, we are not comparing them to normal, just each other.

2x Lesser = white snake
Lesser and Mojave = white snake
2x Mojave = grey head

So we have the same phenotype with Homozygous Lesser and Lesser/Mojave, The Mojave gene has no baring on the phenotype. Thus Lesser dominants over Mojave. This in no way effect their relationship with normal, which is incomplete dominance for both

So that how I came to that conclusion, I suggest you refresh on your classifications, what you are spreading is just misinformation.

[TessadasExotics]

I'll be correct and say all the incomplete dominant morphs are incomplete dominant with the normal, all dominant morphs are dominant to the normal and all recessive are recessive. why is this? because what we classify a gene is, is compared to the normal.

Incomplete dominant (co-dom in the bp world) has 3 different phenotypes. Back to the lesser

2x Normal = Normal
Normal and Lesser = Lesser
2x Lesser = BEL

So looking at this information it is quite obvious that lesser does not dominant over the normal allele, because when the normal allele is not present the phenotype changes. The lesser we identify is the combination of the lesser and normal allele, its not JUST the lesser allele, as that would be a white snake with blue eyes. Incomplete dominance. not dominant.

Now for lesser mojave, we are not comparing them to normal, just each other.

2x Lesser = white snake
Lesser and Mojave = white snake
2x Mojave = grey head

So we have the same phenotype with Homozygous Lesser and Lesser/Mojave, The Mojave gene has no baring on the phenotype. Thus Lesser dominants over Mojave. This in no way effect their relationship with normal, which is incomplete dominance for both

So that how I came to that conclusion, I suggest you refresh on your classifications, what you are spreading is just misinformation.

Sorry but you are the one spreading misinformation. Technically speaking the wild type phenotype is considered Dominant. Both the het and homo look the same. Co doms, in all living things, do not have 3 phenotypes.

You need only one dominant allele to express a dominant trait. Lesser is dominant to normal, or it could be that normal is dominant to lesser. Either way. If you breed a lesser to a normal you are going to get lessers and normals. If the hatchling gets one lesser allele from one parent and another normal allele from the other parent, that baby is going to be a lesser. The lesser allele is dominant over the normal allele. Simple fact.

Your theory on lesser and mojave is also incorrect.

[Coleslaw007]

Tessadas, I'm starting to wonder, do you actually believe this crap or do you just have fun trolling?

Sent from microwave using Tapatalk 2