Quote Originally Posted by coldbloodaddict View Post
Het is not just used to describe recessives. so that is not a good way to explain it.

Pastels are Hets too but they don't look like Normals...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
no, pastels are not hets. pastels are heterozygous for pastel, but they are not hets. they are pastels.

het is only used for recessives.

scientific term || every day term
heterozygous axanthic || het axanthic
homozygous axanthic || axanthic
heterozygous pastel || pastel
homozygous pastel || super pastel

if the homozygous form is called a super, then the heterozygous form carries the same name, just without super. so there are no super albinos, and no het pastels. if you say "het pastel", you strongly imply that super pastels dont exist, and that a breeding of a pastel to a normal would result in a clutch that is uniform and consists of het pastels, so it just doesnt make much sense. people will be reminded of the guys that try to sell normals as "het spider" on craigslist.

when you want to talk science, write it out and say "heterozygous". and only ever use "het" when its about a recessive. just like you only use "super" when its about a homozygous incomplete dominant.