normal ball + norml ball = albino (is this possible?)

[kc261]

Damn I've made a bigger mess of this than I thought . You are right, I was right the first time... but I'm going to keep my mouth shut and let someone that knows what there talking about... do the talking:

http://users.adelphia.net/~lubehawk/...!/inccodom.htm

Hey, that's one of the pages I posted! I thought it was pretty good too.

I had it right the first time, but screwed it up when I decided to double check. I did a quick google search, and the first site I came up with (http://www.cccoe.net/genetics/codominant.html) has it backwards... so I lost faith in myself and did a switcheroo .

That site is messed up. Kinda sloppy with typos and such too. I emailed the guy (who I think is a 7th grade teacher) and basically said he should be embarrassed because he wouldn't accept that kind of work from his students.

That being said... the term "co-dominant" is pretty much used interchangeably with incomplete dominance in ball pythons. Although, from a scientific standpoint that's clearly erroneous. Given that information, I can't think of a single "real" co-dominant mutation, except perhaps the het BEL's you spoke of. In reality, all of the "co-dominant" mutations are actually incomplete dominant.

But now curiosity has me, so I'm trying to think of a truly co-dominant ball python morph.

I understood that with BPs people are pretty much using co-dom for both. It was most of a mental exercise to learn something new.

We should have a contest to see who can come up with a true co-dom morph first!