Normal X Pastel

[ctrlfreq]

But since the pastel mutation type is co-dominant isn't a super pastel just as much a co-dom as a regular pastel?

The idea that the arrangement of the alleles in a particular animal have any bearing whatsoever on the dominant/recessive nature of the gene in question is in, and of itself, the primary misconception.

I personally think this is just a condition of any breeding hobby though, since heterozygous forms are often found, sometimes years, before a homozygous form is located or produced. Since proving a trait is genetic often takes multiple generations, by the time we locate the homozygous form, we're usually well ensconced in the fallacy of the heterozygous form being, itself, a discreet morph, and thus name the homozygous version something different completely (ie. mojave vs. BluEL, fire vs BlaEL, yb vs. ivory, etc).

[PythonWallace]

I personally think this is just a condition of any breeding hobby though, since heterozygous forms are often found, sometimes years, before a homozygous form is located or produced. Since proving a trait is genetic often takes multiple generations, by the time we locate the homozygous form, we're usually well ensconced in the fallacy of the heterozygous form being, itself, a discreet morph, and thus name the homozygous version something different completely (ie. mojave vs. BluEL, fire vs BlaEL, yb vs. ivory, etc).

That's a big part of the confusing genetics lingo with balls. While all these should technically be called hets for whatever the super is, it takes time to even find out whether or not these new mutations are co-dominant for something, and what the super form, if there is one, will look like. So someone gives these hets their own name before it's ever even know whether it's a dominant or co-dominant trait, and usually before its even known whether the phenotype is genetic or not. Then if it proves out to be a co-dom with a super form, the super usually gets a new name that has little or nothing to do with the name the het was labeled. It would definitely be easier for everyone to understand if either names weren't decided for the hets until a superform was produced and named, or all supers were labeled only as super (whatevers). The current system doesn't bother me, but if we are trying to keep ball python genetics simple to comprehend, we aren't doing the best job.

[LadyOhh]

The current system doesn't bother me, but if we are trying to keep ball python genetics simple to comprehend, we aren't doing the best job.

Amen to that...

[ctrlfreq]

The current system doesn't bother me, but if we are trying to keep ball python genetics simple to comprehend, we aren't doing the best job.

This is where I keep going back to the idea of having some sort of AKC style registry for Ball Pythons. Until the industry comes together and publishes standards for what comprises a morph, and beyond that what makes for a good specimen of a particular morph, the current chaos, and the large number of unscrupulous people willing to exploit it for financial benefit, will continue.

[PythonWallace]

This is where I keep going back to the idea of having some sort of AKC style registry for Ball Pythons. Until the industry comes together and publishes standards for what comprises a morph, and beyond that what makes for a good specimen of a particular morph, the current chaos, and the large number of unscrupulous people willing to exploit it for financial benefit, will continue.

Agreed. Implimenting a standard with a body to oversee everything would also make me a somewhat more comfortable about people making hybrids.

[hoo-t]

OK, since I kinda started all this...

...Yes, I understand that a Pastel is a Het form.

But it is a Het form visually. ...

Also genetically.

...To refer to it as HET Pastel is to imply to the general public that it is normal. Generally speaking, that is the reasoning behind the LACK of using this term, for obvious reasons. ...

I disagree with this. It implies that it is normal to the segment of the general public that doesn't understand genetics, and assumes that the term het only applies to recessive traits, which is not true. Once it is explained that het does NOT mean normal looking, then we can make progress. I think Randy said it best. Heterozygous means an unmatched pair of genes on a particular locus. It has absolutely nothing to do with visual/non-visual. And they exist in recessive, co-dominant, and dominant traits. I also agree with Randy in that if/when spider and pinstripe are proven dominant, understanding that a het spider is still a spider, but not homozygous will be especially important.

The problem I see is that many, many people come on this forum and ask "What do I get if I breed a pastel to a normal?" They don't have a firm understanding of genetics. (Not a dis against you Andrew!!!) When you tell them that there is no such thing as a het pastel, it merely adds to the confusion. Help them to understand that from a genetics perspective, it works the same way with recessive, co-dominant, and dominant. Tell them they must learn which traits are recessive, co-dom, and dom. Then it becomes easy to understand that breeding a pastel to a normal yields 50% normals and 50% pastels. It becomes easy to understand what a 66% probable het is, and why there are no 66% het pastels. And it becomes easy to understand that the normal looking snake that Will Scamu is selling is NOT a het pastel! They can look Will in the eye and say "No, pastel is co-dominant. If it was a het, it would BE a pastel!" To me, avoiding the issue to protect them only serves to make it worse. They still don't understand, and THAT leaves them open for Will.

...Why not just call it a Pastel. Really.........

I have no problem calling it a pastel. Its only when someone says its not a het, that I jump in and get myself in trouble.

Steve

[addsdad]

yellowbelly = het ivory as is pastel = het superpastel as is mojave/lesser = het blue eyed lucy.

Is that not correct?

[hoo-t]

yellowbelly = het ivory as is pastel = het superpastel as is mojave/lesser = het blue eyed lucy.

Is that not correct?

Yeah, but I'm kinda with Randy when he says that its not really correct to say het super pastel. The name of the trait is pastel, not super pastel. To me, super is a descriptive term to say that it is homozygous. So to say het super pastel would be similar to saying het homozygous pastel. So, in my mind a pastel is heterozygous for the pastel trait, or a "het pastel". Then there's Opal, another name for super pastel. So a pastel = het Opal.

Yellowbelly/Ivory opens a whole different can of worms. What's the name of the trait? Yellowbelly or Ivory? It almost seems like two different names for the same trait. Yellowbelly = het Ivory. Ivory = homozygous Yellowbelly.

Steve

[PythonWallace]

Yeah, but I'm kinda with Randy when he says that its not really correct to say het super pastel. The name of the trait is pastel, not super pastel. To me, super is a descriptive term to say that it is homozygous. So to say het super pastel would be similar to saying het homozygous pastel. So, in my mind a pastel is heterozygous for the pastel trait, or a "het pastel". Then there's Opal, another name for super pastel. So a pastel = het Opal.

Yellowbelly/Ivory opens a whole different can of worms. What's the name of the trait? Yellowbelly or Ivory? It almost seems like two different names for the same trait. Yellowbelly = het Ivory. Ivory = homozygous Yellowbelly.

Steve

I think the homozygotes should all be called supers for whatever the heterozygous animal is, because of mutations like the mojave, lesser, butter, yellowbelly, goblin, etc. If one guy is selling a BEL for $2,500 and another guy is selling a BEL for $2,800, people might thing they are getting a better deal with the cheaper one, not knowing that the cheaper one os a super mojave while the more expensive one is a super butter. If everything was labeled a heterozygous goblin or a homozygous goblin or super goblin, things would be easier for a lot of people, and it would reduce scams and misleading ads. If anyone tries selling a het for a co-dom and it looks normal, they are obviously lying. In general, people should know better than to buy a het for pastel or het for spider if the animal is obviously a wild type animal. Het means the animal carries one copy of the mutated gene. Doms and co-doms show that in the phenotype. Homozygous means the animal carries both copies of the gene. In recessives this is the visual, and in co-doms it's the super form. Anyone buying these animals to breed should already know this.

[hoo-t]

I think the homozygotes should all be called supers for whatever the heterozygous animal is, because of mutations like the mojave, lesser, butter, yellowbelly, goblin, etc. If one guy is selling a BEL for $2,500 and another guy is selling a BEL for $2,800, people might thing they are getting a better deal with the cheaper one, not knowing that the cheaper one os a super mojave while the more expensive one is a super butter. If everything was labeled a heterozygous goblin or a homozygous goblin or super goblin, things would be easier for a lot of people, and it would reduce scams and misleading ads. If anyone tries selling a het for a co-dom and it looks normal, they are obviously lying. In general, people should know better than to buy a het for pastel or het for spider if the animal is obviously a wild type animal. Het means the animal carries one copy of the mutated gene. Doms and co-doms show that in the phenotype. Homozygous means the animal carries both copies of the gene. In recessives this is the visual, and in co-doms it's the super form. Anyone buying these animals to breed should already know this.

Excellent post, Jake! I was thinking about this last night, only from a different angle. I was thinking that everything should be named based on the homozygous form. Its already the case with recessives, and to a much lesser extent, co-doms, ie Opal and Ivory. I think if the pastel and yellowbelly names were dropped, and the heterozygous animals were simply called het Opal and het Ivory, there would be much less confusion. Spiders and Pinstripes would fall into place as well (assuming they're proved dominant). But, as you said, the blue eyed leucistics present a problem with that. Probably doesn't matter, though, because the names are in place and are probably going to stick!

In any event, I think discussions like this one are incredibly valuable. The people who don't understand the genetics can come away with a much more thorough understanding.

Steve