What is he smoking?

[Masonic]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkS]

well, I see a cinnamon, a sterling and a normal, no Mojave in there. Clearly the guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Is he just showing these off or trying to sell them?

[Masonic]

Showing them off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[calmolly1]

Everybody has to learn. We weren't all born knowing genetics and it's really hard to find good information. I even paid for a $65 book to try to learn this stuff and haven't seen hide nor hair of it. So it looks like a good learning opportunity to me. Even if he doesn't believe you at first maybe he will look it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Masonic]

Turns out it was a joke and I took the bait. It sounded and look legit at first to me. Wanted to teach someone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PitOnTheProwl]

I could have told you from the admin list on that group................. wouldn't even waste my time there.

[Masonic]

Well I know they mess around a lot on there but I never know when someone is serious or not. I just like to pass knowledge on when I can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BallPythonGuy007]

Owalreptiles.com has a genetics calculator everybody

[kaitala]

There is a lot of genetic stuff that seems to slip past most in the herp world. Incomplete vs CoDominance is one of them. There is no mention of incomplete dominance at all in the reptile world. With the multitude of morphs, it would be another never ending discussion about which are incomplete vs codom, so we have to accept that codom is the term.

Another stumbling block is that people prove the "codoms" before they prove "super" forms. Therefore, a Mojave is "het for BEL", which is a more accurate description than "mojave". (I have to qualify the last statement as I suck at visually identifying some of the single allele forms of codoms. Some mojos that proved out just looked like abnormal normals to me)

Just don't get frustrated. Many times, people ARE serious about their "het for Mojave". Do your best to nudge them to the science, but remember the old adage about leading a horse to water....

[Deltaball]

so we have to accept that codom is the term.

I would like to present an argument in favor of keeping the term 'codom'.

As a newbie to balls I am pleased by your statement and wish others would be as gracious as you to allow us hobbyists to use the word codom and not keep telling us to use incomplete dom.
I understand that scientifically codom may not be the correct term, but the term or word 'incomplete' does not make any logical sense.

For example - I know that if I breed a codom to its codom, I will get a super. But I will never get a super if I breed a dom to its dom, or a dom to a codom. A dom will only produce 50% dom's and a codom will only produce 50% codom's. Supers will produce 100% codom's and ALS (acts like super) will produce 50/50 codom's.
Simple, easy to remember.

Now when I consider the term incomplete, I get confused.

If a pastel is an incomplete dom, then how does a spider get to be called a dom, when both produce the same 50% ratio of babies morphs when bred? Surely the spider or pin is no more 'dominant' than a pastel or butter. How does their inability to produce a super make them not incomplete dom's but dom's? For the spider, pin, etc are as incomplete as the pastel, butter etc. morph ratio wise when bred.

When an incomplete dom is bred with a like incomplete dom to produce a super, do we then call that super a 'complete dom'? Using complete to complement incomplete?
Cos right now if we insist on using the term incomplete dominance without dropping the term dominant, we end up with incomplete dominant, dominant and complete dominant and no idea where to place the ALS.

When you breed an incomplete dom like a pastel to another incomplete dom like a butter, you don't get a super, that is, no complete dom, for when their supposedly 'complete dom' baby is bred to a normal, one will get 25% normal babies. Showing that when two unlike incomplete dom's are bred together, they produce incomplete dom's and not complete dom's. A case of 1+1 does not equal 2. Rather its like 1x1=1. (even this is not accurate, for incomplete dom's the morph ratio should be 50% normals and not 25% normals).

With ALS an 'incomplete' 'complete' dominant baby?, one will get a 1x1=2 (all morphs) and not a 1x1=1. I could go on with what confuses me about the term 'incomplete', but I think you get the picture.

I admit that my confusion stems from not having the genetic knowledge to understand the in's and out's of what the term incomplete dominance means, which is why I suspect people like me prefer the term co-dominance. Which causes less questions and confusion in the head than the term incomplete. Especially when I hear that some incomplete dom's are actually genetically speaking real codom's and not incomplete dom's. Simply replacing the term codom with the term incomplete dom is not accurate for all morphs and just creates the same mislabeling error as we currently have from a different angle.

With all the ball morphs we currently have and their infinite morph potential, we need to keep it simple for us hobbyists. Basically, codom, dom, super and ALS, work well together to keep ball genetics understandable in our heads based on what we see and not on what their DNA is scientifically classified as.