How do you know...?

[kc261]

I strongly believe it is important to NEVER teach something incorrectly. Simplify when needed, but never to the point of being incorrect. Which is why, on the 1st page of this thread, before the whole debate started, I posted an attempt to explain both the scientifically correct meaning of het/heterozygous, AND how the term is usually used in the BP hobby.

Het is short for heterozygous. It is a genetic term. You probably know that genes come in pairs. Het means that in a particular pair of genes, there are 2 different ones. For example, one is normal and one is the gene for albino. In talking about BPs, people usually use het to mean a snake is het for one of the recessive traits, and the result is that the snake appears normal, but carries the genetics to produce that recessive trait.

Technically, a mojave (and many other BP morphs) is het. If a snake had 2 mojave genes, it wouldn't appear mojave anymore, it appears leucistic. But usually BP people won't use the term het when talking about co-dom morphs.

It is kind of sad that when Ctrlfreq starting trying to correct the simplified to the point of being wrong explanations that were posted, he got it wrong also.

Heterozygous means you carry one normal and one active allele for a particular gene. Dominant and Co-dominant genes both produce visible mutations in their heterozygous form.

No. Heterozygous has NOTHING to do with which genes are carried, only that a pair has 1 each of 2 different things. They could be normal, or not.

the fact is....heterozygous ONLY means that the two alleles present are not the same. It doesn't matter what the two alleles are, as long as they're different. It doesn't matter if one is simple recessive and the other is dominant, or if it's more complex than that. "hetero-" means different and "homo-" means the same (think heterosexual, homogenized, homophone, etc...)

HOWEVER..."het" (not "heterozygous") in the snake community pretty much does mean "normal with 1 allele for a recessive trait" because there's generally a name already for the heterozygous co-doms, and there's no distinction for the heterozygous vs. homozygous forms of the dominant traits.

Thank you! Someone else finally gets it right! Also another attempt to explain both the scientifically correct meaning, and the way it is used in the BP community.

Baby Steps...if you start telling someone who has no idea about genetics..."Heterozygous means you carry one normal and one active allele for a particular gene. Dominant and Co-dominant genes both produce visible mutations in their heterozygous form."...it will simply go right over their head.

It's easier for me and others to grasp the little words Later on when I feel like studying deeper in to the more technical genetic terms and how they work, then I will keep it in my own mind unless i'm talking to someone who is on the same level and understands genetics the way i do.

but when someone wants to know what a het is, I just give them an answer they might be able to grasp. If they're really that interested and want to learn more, then I'm sure they will

First of all, I want to make this clear before I start that any anger that shows through is not directed at Nathan, but rather at my daughter's teachers and public schools in general that seem to think teaching something that is WRONG is ok if they think they kids aren't advanced enough for the right answer yet.

No no no! If it is easier to "grasp little words", fine. But do not oversimplify to the point of being incorrect! That is just horrible and it makes it harder to learn the correct answer later. You cannot assume people will go off and find more in depth answers when you have given them an answer that is presented as being final and definitive. You have basically told them there is no point in going in search of more in depth stuff.

Now, I think there is nothing wrong with "a Het means it carries one half of the genetic code needed to produce a visual mutation" IF it also comes with some sort of explanation along the lines of "usually when talking about BPs..." or "enough to get you by for now" so that the reader understands that the answer is a simplification and may not apply in all circumstances. That invites them to ask more questions or search for in depth explanations if they want.

Really, I don't think BP morph genetics need to be simplified. There is nothing in them that I did not learn when I was first introduced to genetics in 7th grade. Dominant, recessive, co-dominance/incomplete dominance, punnett squares, the meaning of the the odds and the fact that the odds are not guarantees. All of it. 7th grade. In fact, I'd guess that part of why so many people find genetics confusing is NOT because it is a hard subject, but because of all the incomplete and sometimes incorrect information that is floating around.

People complain about how "kids these days" don't know how to do math. I'll tell you why! My daughter has been marked wrong on a math test for writing that .33 = 33/100 She was "supposed to" say that it equalled 1/3. But it DOESN'T! Her answer was the technically correct one. And if any of you want to argue with me that it is close enough, then I'll happily give you 3 piles of .33 million dollars, and you can give me a million dollars back.

Also, on a recent homework assignment, she was supposed to list the 3 factors that determine what life forms can be found in a particular part of the ocean. I can list at least 6. Temperature, salinity, currents, depth, light, what other life forms are found there, etc. Most of those are really at least 2 things, for example temperature is not just current temperature, but how much it fluctuates, depth is not just how deep you are, but also how much further it is until you hit bottom. Yet she is being taught that there are 3 things. Would it really be harder for the teachers, or harder for the kids to understand, if they said "these are the 3 most important; there are others but you don't need to worry about them right now"?

So, please try to post correct answers. DO NOT oversimplify to the point of being incorrect.