Is a Pinstripe co-dom or dom?

[Jay_Bunny]

Ah ok. I understand now. Thanks everyone for the help!

[bait4snake]

Question... so a homozygous pinstripe looks just like a heterozygous pinstripe? Has this been proven yet (like spider... but don't want to open that can of snakes)?

[West Coast Jungle]

Question... so a homozygous pinstripe looks just like a heterozygous pinstripe? Has this been proven yet (like spider... but don't want to open that can of snakes)?

I think a super pin would have been discovered long ago if the possibility existed.

[Brimstone111888]

Question... so a homozygous pinstripe looks just like a heterozygous pinstripe? Has this been proven yet (like spider... but don't want to open that can of snakes)?

Theortically it should. I *think* don't take me to literally on this that BHB had a homo pin or though he did. It looked different when it hatched, but grew into a normal looking pin. Not sure if it ever proven or not.

I believe it is pretty much in the same boat as a spider with regards to genetics.

[Inferno]

It genetics it is incomplete dominate. Meaning that it still produces the normals offspring. A true dominate gene would have no super form (i.e require two copies of the gene to produce all morphed animals) and produce all morphs.

In short it is dominate or as dominate as we have seen in ball pythons

incomplete dominant would be a half pinstiped half normal looking animals by the genetic deffinition of incomplete dominance.

i had a good answer about this from adam as it was a question i put to him but i wont quote him ill let him reply as its the best answer ive had so far from any breeder.

[littleindiangirl]

incomplete dominant would be a half pinstiped half normal looking animals by the genetic deffinition of incomplete dominance.

i had a good answer about this from adam as it was a question i put to him but i wont quote him ill let him reply as its the best answer ive had so far from any breeder.

That's correct, an incomplete dominant is a co-dom in our terms. While we do not know if a "super" pin can exist, the best we can do is call it a dominant trait with no difference between the homozygous or heterozygous form.

[bait4snake]

Gotcha. Which means a vast majority pinstripes are Het Pinstripe, or rather Het normal (since normal is recessive to pinstripe), so when bred to a normal, you have a 50% chance of producing a homozygous recessive normal, lol.

Sorry to throw that in there, just felt like being difficult.

[GirDance]

A gene can't be recessive to another gene, that's not how genetics works it's either recessive or it's not period. One can become visible and over-ride the 'normal' because 'normal' is actually an expression of all alleles in combination. There comes variation when one allele expresses a different trait, that trait can be co-dom (requires only one copy from one parent) or recessive (requires two copies from both parents) to produce a visible variation.

The whole 'dominant' part in morph genetics is applied exactly as you would co-dom, except that when the allele is homozygous (two copies) they look the exact same as when it is het (one copy), and to distinguish you would only be able to tell by the fact that all hatchlings express the same mutation. Whereas most co-dom gene combinations in the homozygous form take on a different expression of the mutuation (BEL, Ivory, Super Pastel etc) so you know they are homozygous just by looking at them.

[hoo-t]

It genetics it is incomplete dominate. Meaning that it still produces the normals offspring. A true dominate gene would have no super form (i.e require two copies of the gene to produce all morphed animals) and produce all morphs.

In short it is dominate or as dominate as we have seen in ball pythons

Not quite. Within ball python breeders' terminology, the difference between dominant and co-dominant only concerns the APPEARANCE of the het vs homozygous animals. The results of breeding remain the same. Assuming that pin is dominant, a heterozygous animal would produce 50% pin and 50% non-pin, and a homozygous animal would produce 100% pin. The het and the homo would appear the same.

The reason there is so much confusion about whether pins (and spiders) are dominant is that there is really no way to PROVE it. There would have to be a super form to confirm co-dominant. If dominant, you could become more and more confident that you have a homozygous animal through repeated breedings producing 100% pins, but you couldn't definitively say that it IS homozygous.

Steve

[littleindiangirl]

The reason there is so much confusion about whether pins (and spiders) are dominant is that there is really no way to PROVE it. There would have to be a super form to confirm co-dominant. If dominant, you could become more and more confident that you have a homozygous animal through repeated breedings producing 100% pins, but you couldn't definitively say that it IS homozygous.

Dominant does not mean it is homozygous! Dominant plainly means that the animals with at least one copy of pin will be phenotypically pins, or rather be actual pins.

Pins may not be homozygous. So far, all the pins produced end up being heterozygous pins because not 100% of the offspring are pins, which with mendalin genetics is the way it should work out if they were homozygous.

That is where your definition is a little off. You shouldn't say dominant, rather homozygous or heterozygous like you did sorta in your first paragraph.

Dominant genes are expressed whether they are heterozygous or homozygous. (1 copy)
Recessive genes are only expressed when they are homozygous. (2 copies)