Genetics confusion

[wax32]

It is....

Oh, lol

[wax32]

You know how all this gets so messed up when talking about "co-doms"? It's because in lot of cases the "het" is discovered first... and is named something cool, like mojave, cinnamon, pastel, etc.

THEN, a super (or homo) is made and we call that either a super "insert morph here" or sometimes a whole NEW name (no continuity here). Think, yellow belly/ivory and mojave/super mojave.

With recessives we usually get the "super" first and name that: albino, clown, genetic stripe.. etc. Then it's natural to call a het a het!

It would be nice if we discovered the super co-doms first so that a super mojave would have been just called a mojave, and the snake we know and love as a mojave would be called a het mojave. That is SORT'VE what happened with the Lesser Platinum... the super came first: The Platinum, aka Platty Daddy. If Ralph would have named the lesser "het Platinum" instead of "lesser platinum" we would be GOLDEN! (Yes, I know, 2 lessers do not a Platinum make... just like 2 het pumas don't make a puma!)

[lizzy_troy]

I know this thread is ANCIENT, but since it is something I was searching for, I'd like to throw in my $0.02, in case others come across this thread in a search.

The way I understand it is that heterozygous Phenotype naming works backwards from the recessive pairing, whereas heterozygous Phenotype naming works forwards for dominant/co-dom. You have Het Albino working towards Albino (homo), and you have, for example, Yellowbelly (het ivory) working towards Super Yellowbelly (Ivory homo).

I hope that's a correct understanding that's not confusing...

[paulh]

Genes are named from the abnormal appearance that they produce. So direction is always appearance (phenotype) first followed by name of gene, identity of the genes in a gene pair (genotype) and classification as a dominant, codominant or recessive. There is no naming problem as long as one gene is dominant to the other (recessive) gene. The problem is twofold: many herpers do not distinguish between the phenotype and the genotype and many ball python mutant genes are codominant to the corresponding normal gene.

For example, albino is the phenotype that named the albino gene. Everyone assumes that everyone else knows that the albino gene is recessive to the corresponding normal gene. Therefore the albino phenotype occurs only when there are two albino genes in the gene pair (homozygous albino genotype). And the normal phenotype occurs when there is a normal gene and an albino gene in the gene pair (heterozygous albino genotype). The normal phenotype also occurs when the genotype is homozygous normal.

In this case, albino is phenotype. Het albino is genotype which is used to distinguish the more valuable normal-looking snakes from the less valuable normal-looking snakes.

The pinstripe gene is dominant to the corresponding normal gene. The same pinstripe phenotype occurs when the genotype is homozygous pinstripe or heterozygous pinstripe. The normal phenotype only occurs when the genotype is homozygous normal.

Pinstripe is only phenotype. It would have to be modified with either homozygous or heterozygous to get the genotype.

Post 43 in this thread gives some of the problems naming a gene when it is a codominant.

[amanda528]

Paulh lesser is not a het gene. It's coDOMINANT which means it's going to show. Here are your het genes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JLC]

Paulh lesser is not a het gene. It's coDOMINANT which means it's going to show. Here are your het genes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paulh is not wrong. The term "het" doesn't indicate whether or not a morph is going to "show". All "het" means is that one gene within a pair of genes is different from the other. One is normal, and one is altered in some way.

Because albino is a recessive trait....when one gene is albino and the other gene is normal...the animal LOOKS normal, but can be called "het albino."

In the same way, a "lesser" gene is just one of the pair...the other gene is normal. If you have two lesser genes at the same pair, then you get a blue-eyed leucistic. Therefore, it is equally correct to call a lesser ball python "Het blue-eyed leucistic".

Yellowbelly = het ivory

And so on...

Homozygous means "the same"....the pair of genes are the same. Albino, pied, BEL, ivory....they're all homozygous examples of their morph, regardless of whether they are considered recessive or co-dominant.

Heterozygous means "different"...the pair of genes are different. One is normal and one is altered. Het albino, het pied, het BEL (lesser), het ivory (yellowbelly)....all equally correct ways to describe them.

[amanda528]

JLC I've NEVER seen a "het" lesser. And I get all my information from BIG breeders. Lesser is dominant. There is a lesser and a super lesser AKA BEL. There is not a "het" lesser. So next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanda528]

http://www.royalconstrictordesigns.c...ython-genetics


True genetic explanation. NO WHERE IS THERE A THING ABOUT HET LESSER. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanda528]

Eric Allen make sure you put the right words when you edit my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JLC]

JLC I've NEVER seen a "het" lesser. And I get all my information from BIG breeders. Lesser is dominant. There is a lesser and a super lesser AKA BEL. There is not a "het" lesser. So next.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never once said "het lesser". Read it again.

My facts are fine. I'm seriously confused about the obvious anger this topic has brought out in a couple of individuals though. WHY so angry about it?

I also didn't say that it was COMMON PRACTICE to call a lesser a het BEL...just that it COULD BE DONE, and still be an accurate description of the genetics going on.

In the past, it WAS common practice to call a yellowbelly "het ivory"....same type of situation.

"Lesser" is just a NAME of a morph. "Het BEL" is a description of the genetics involved.