# Sticky  Genetics questions you were afraid to ask...



## Ssthisto

Just another "ask any question, no matter how silly it may seem" thread. To start off with, I'll ask and answer the absolute basics - so that they're here at the top of this thread 

*What makes my animal look different to a normal?*
Each animal has dozens or hundreds or thousands of pairs of genes - think of these as being like paired seats on a train. Each pair of seats (called a "gene locus") is reserved for a specific "family" of traits, which can affect everything from colour and pattern to size, shape, temperament and health. For example, you might have a pair of seats reserved for the "Amelanistic family". If there are mutant gene alleles at the Amelanistic locus, you might get an animal that is "not normal" at the Amelanistic locus - and that might give you an animal that doesn't look normal at all.

*What does "Het" mean?*
"Het" is short for "Heterozygous" - and it means that the two genes of a specific pair are different. In recessive genes, this usually means that the animal looks normal, but carries one copy of the code to produce the recessive gene morph. In dominant and codominant genes, however, an animal can also be "het" for the gene - they just don't look like a normal. They still only carry one copy, and can produce animals that do not carry their trait.

*What does "recessive" mean?*
Traits have varying amounts of dominance to each other - some genes override the physical appearance of others. For example, in most species, Amelanistic is recessive to "not amelanistic". This means that an animal with even one copy of "not amelanistic" looks normal; only an animal with two copies of Amelanistic will be visually amelanistic.

*What does "Dominant" mean?*
A dominant trait is a trait that you only need one copy of the gene to look like the morph (for example, "Not-Amelanistic" is dominant to "Amelanistic") - and an animal with two copies of the trait looks exactly the same as an animal with only one copy.

*What does "Codominant/incomplete dominant" mean?*
A codominant/incomplete dominant trait is a trait that has three distinct "looks". "Not Mack Snow" looks like a normal leopard gecko, and carries no copies of the Mack Snow gene. "Mack Snow" has a distinct look, reducing the yellow pigmentation to a minimal amount, and often introduces pattern changes; it carries one copy only of the Mack Snow gene. And "Super Snow" is another look again, a white gecko with black spots in a linear pattern and solid black eyes; they carry two copies of the Mack Snow gene. If a trait looks different depending on whether you have one or two copies of the gene, it is a codominant or incomplete dominant trait.

*What does 50% het or 66% het mean?*
These are just a way of saying "This animal MIGHT carry a hidden recessive gene." If an animal is 50% het, this means it had one parent who was het for a trait; there's a 50/50 chance that this animal inherited that trait. It could also be a normal with no trait at all. If an animal is a 66% het, this means both parents were het for a trait - there is a 2 in 3 chance that this animal inherited the trait, and a 1 in 3 chance it did not. 
The only way to know whether you have a genuine het is to do breeding trials - even one visual trait animal turns your 50%/66% het into a 100% het.

*Is it possible to get an "invisible het" for a dominant or codominant morph?*
In a word, no. If you are buying morphs - particularly if you're spending a lot of money - be aware of what genes are dominant or codominant in your chosen species. A normal-looking animal probably doesn't carry a dominant or codominant trait. There are some exceptions - for example, adult Mack Snows, depending on the lines, can look a lot like normals. Some Pastel Royals do not look like anything unusual. In these cases use your judgement and ask to see the parents of the animal; get a written guarantee from the seller that you are purchasing the genetics you think you are.


----------



## Corny-Dawny

Hi,
Are there any dominant corn snakes genes?

Dawn


----------



## HABU

so how do you get a snake that glows in the dark?...... like those new glow fish?


----------



## Tops

HABU said:


> so how do you get a snake that glows in the dark?...... like those new glow fish?


In theory it would be possible. They have done it in labs with rats, pigs and chickens by altering the genetic makeup. Its been done in the UK and china that I know of. Its done through the introduction of a gene from a jellyfish though due to cost issues and practical implications im not sure we will be getting 'glowing' corns any time soon. (apparently its for disease research but i reckon they did it because they thought it would look cool)


----------



## paulh

A lot of good stuff here.

Some points:
1. In my opinion, it would be better to use dominant, codominant, or recessive mutant gene rather than dominant, codominant, or recessive trait.

2. For the last point, hidden hets for a dominant mutant, the actual answer is "sometimes, for some mutant genes". But then we are getting into variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance. The rest of the answer is good.

3. Needs explanation of wild type. What is the difference between non-albino and non-Mack snow? None; both are the same thing -- wild type or normal.

Will get back to this later.


----------



## lukendaniel

Same As You Do The Fish Lmao Inject Them With Glow In The Dark Crap And Them Fish Are Not New They Gave Been Out A Couple Of Years 


Luke


----------



## CBR1100XX

Interesting info have made it a sticky.


----------



## intravenous

Tops said:


> In theory it would be possible. They have done it in labs with rats, pigs and chickens by altering the genetic makeup. Its been done in the UK and china that I know of. Its done through the introduction of a gene from a jellyfish though due to cost issues and practical implications im not sure we will be getting 'glowing' corns any time soon. (apparently its for disease research but i reckon they did it because they thought it would look cool)


The gene is for Green Fluorescent Protein (original huh :razz:?).



> Same As You Do The Fish Lmao Inject Them With Glow In The Dark Crap And Them Fish Are Not New They Gave Been Out A Couple Of Years


Unfortunately yes, a lot of funny coloured fish are made by injecting dye under their skin...not nice .


----------



## Ssthisto

Corny-Dawny said:


> Hi,
> Are there any dominant corn snakes genes?
> 
> Dawn


Well, other than the "not-mutant" gene at every gene locus (which are generally dominant) I don't know of any PROVEN dominant genes.

There is a chance that the "Buff/Orange/Hyperxanthic/Xanthic" gene that's been discovered in Germany is a dominant gene - this gene enhances the yellow colours in the animals and thus far, crosses of a Buff (Normal + Xanthic) have produced Buffs and Normals, crosses from a Buff to an Orange (Amel + Xanthic) have produced Buffs, Normals, Oranges and Amels. This would imply that the animals are not rootbeers or creamsicles, because you'd expect the Amels from that cross to be yellow too. 

PaulH - You've got good points on all but the last one... but the reason I phrased it the way I did is because it's possible to be normal for one trait at the same time as the animal is "not-normal" for another. A "not-mack snow" who is "albino" is not wildtype/normal visually  I use "Not(mutant)" to describe this so that I can make it clear that each mutant gene has its own corresponding not-mutant gene.


----------



## paulh

Ssthisto said:


> PaulH - You've got good points on all but the last one... but the reason I phrased it the way I did is because it's possible to be normal for one trait at the same time as the animal is "not-normal" for another. A "not-mack snow" who is "albino" is not wildtype/normal visually  I use "Not(mutant)" to describe this so that I can make it clear that each mutant gene has its own corresponding not-mutant gene.


I come at it from the other side -- there is a normal or wild type gene for every locus. Mutant genes may occur at one or more loci. We ignore all the normal genes at their loci to focus on the mutants, but we have to keep the existence of all the normal genes in the back of our minds. A "not Mack Snow" doesn't just look like a normal leopard gecko. It IS a normal leopard gecko. Because the genes at the Mack snow locus are specified to be normal, and no mutant gene was specified. As all unspecified genes are assumed to be normal, this non-Mack snow gecko must be a normal.

Part of the completed file should be an explicit declaration that all genes are normal except those that are specified to be mutant. Otherwise you'd wind up having to do a complete genotype specification, like Tremper albino not-Mack snow not-patternless not-Bell albino ... normal, where ... includes thousands of loci with normal genes.

*What makes my animal a normal?*
When geneticists use the word "normal", they use it as a synonym for "wild type" or "standard type". Wild type is defined as
1. the most common phenotype (the observable physical characteristics) in the wild population
2. the most common allele (version of a gene) at a given locus in the wild population. Every locus has its unique wild type allele. In contrast, there may not be a mutant allele known for a given locus.

When an animal has every locus populated with wild type or normal genes, the animal's phenotype is the wild type phenotype.

In other words, each creature has dozens or hundreds or thousands of pairs of genes -- think of these as being like paired machines on an assembly line. Each pair of machines can do only one or a few things before passing the product on to the next station in the line. If each pair of machines works normally, as it is expected to work, what rolls of the end of the assembly line is the normal product of the line.

*What makes my animal look different to a normal?*
Going back to the assembly line analogy, if at least one pair of machines malfunctions, the product that comes off the end of the line is not what was expected. The product has an abnormal or mutant phenotype even though most of the machines in the assembly line are working normally. 

Your animal has one or more mutant genes that do not function the way a normal gene does. The mutant gene blocks or diverts a biochemical assembly line, which produces a mutant phenotype.

*How many genes are needed to make a normal leopard gecko and a Mack snow leopard gecko?*
Leopard geckos undoubtedly have many thousands of genes, even though we don't know exactly how many. The simplest answer is that all of the normal leopard gecko's genes are required to make it. And all of the Mack snow leopard gecko's genes are required to make it. The minimum difference between the genes of a normal and a Mack snow leopard gecko is one -- a Mack snow gecko has a Mack snow mutant gene where the normal gecko has a normal gene. All the other genes in the Mack snow gecko either are or are assumed to be the same as the corresponding genes in the normal gecko. Because there are so many normal genes, we ignore them to focus on the mutant genes.


----------



## Ssthisto

paulh said:


> I come at it from the other side -- there is a normal or wild type gene for every locus.


Good point - though to me it's quite obvious you and I both have a thorough ... 'grokking' of how genetics works, overall. 

It's not so straightforward for everyone, which is why it's useful to remember that for every morph-producing gene there is a "not-morph" gene too. It should be self-evident, but even I need reminding sometimes!



> In other words, each creature has dozens or hundreds or thousands of pairs of genes -- think of these as being like paired machines on an assembly line. Each pair of machines can do only one or a few things before passing the product on to the next station in the line. If each pair of machines works normally, as it is expected to work, what rolls of the end of the assembly line is the normal product of the line.
> 
> *What makes my animal look different to a normal?*
> Going back to the assembly line analogy, if at least one pair of machines malfunctions, the product that comes off the end of the line is not what was expected. The product has an abnormal or mutant phenotype even though most of the machines in the assembly line are working normally.


That is a marvellous analogy. And it also explains things like the different strains of albino in leopard geckos - if the Tremper Machines are not working quite right, you'll get a Tremper Albino, but if the Bell machines aren't working right, you'll get a Bell Albino. Which leads neatly into:

*I bred my (this named) Albino/Anery to my (that named) Albino/Anery. Why did I get all normals?*

Because, despite the similarities in the names of the morphs, they're different genes completely and work in different ways. An Anerythristic A is no more like an Anerythristic B (Charcoal, at least in corns) than an Anery A is like an Amelanistic; a Tremper Albino is not the same thing as a Bell Albino.

In the second generation, you could get homozygous animals - and indeed animals who are homozygous for BOTH genes.... but it would be pretty difficult to prove out that this is what you have.

They'd probably be fairly difficult to distinguish from a specific morph - they're likely to look like one or the other - this is because of the way Albinism and the other colour/pattern morphs work. Albinism is a failure to produce melanin.

Now, call "Driving to the Store" equivalent to "Able to produce Melanin Correctly". "Can't find my keys" is one reason I might not be able to drive to the store; "No petrol in the car" is another; "My car's been stolen" is another again. Different stages of the "going to the store" process that can go wrong. Now, there are also several stages at which melanin production can go wrong, and it's a pretty good bet that each strain of albinism is due to a different stage going wrong.

But if you can't get to the store because "Car's been stolen" ... it doesn't matter whether you have your keys or not OR whether there was petrol in the tank - because the failure to get to the store is rooted in "Car's stolen."

So, depending on which step of the melanin production is broken 'first' - that's what the albino is likely to look like. Carry this on to the other colour morphs, where erythrin or xanthin are not produced correctly, and you're likely to get similar results. There is currently some evidence that Anerythristic in corns 'breaks' the xanthin/erythrin production sooner than Caramel does - a homozygous caramel, homozygous anerythristic looks like an Anerythristic.


----------



## eeji

Ssthisto said:


> There is currently some evidence that Anerythristic in corns 'breaks' the xanthin/erythrin production sooner than Caramel does - a homozygous caramel, homozygous anerythristic looks like an Anerythristic.


does this mean the two genes are somehow linked, or going back to the production line, the two genes both work on a _different_ section of 'erythrin', with the snake going through the 'Anery machine' before the 'Caramel machine'


----------



## Ssthisto

It's more likely that the erythrin production relies on the Anerythristic machine to work first, THEN the Caramel machine - and if the Anery machine is broken, it doesn't matter whether the Caramel one is or not as far as the physical look of the snake goes.

Especially since a homozygous caramel, homozygous Anery can produce Anery if, say, bred to a snow (and those Anery would be het Caramel and amel) and caramel if bred to, say, a Butter (and those caramels would be het anery and amel).


----------



## intravenous

Another way to look at (same theory, different analogy) it is that most genes code for enzymes and enzymes convert one product to another so say that:

*product A* goes to *product B* goes to *product C* goes to *erythrin

*you would call this an erythrin pathway and an enzyme will control each step in this pathway. So lets say there are three enzymes involved:

*enzyme 1 *- converts product A to B

*enzyme 2* - converts product B to C

*enzyme 3* - converts product C to erythrin

Each of these enzymes is coded for by a different gene (the wild type of each gene) and these genes could be anywhere in the genome, they don't need to be next to each other or on the same chromosome (i.e. not linked).

Now lets say that the wild type form of the anery gene codes for enzyme 1 and the wild type form of the caramel gene codes for enzyme 3. If enzyme 1 is broken (i.e. both copies of the gene are mutant anery) then the whole pathway is blocked. It doesn't matter if you have wild type caramel because it never gets that far. And vice versa if you have wild type anery and mutant caramel the pathway is still blocked.


----------



## paulh

Ssthisto said:


> Good point - though to me it's quite obvious you and I both have a thorough ... 'grokking' of how genetics works, overall.


Yes, that was pretty obvious by the time I read three of your posts. 

Feel free to use the assembly line analogy whenever you wish. the same goes for everyone.


----------



## Voodoo Royal Morphs

Het albino x het albino gives you a chance of 50% normal 50% albino i think but what will normal x het albino give you just normals het albino or is there a tint tiny chance you would get an albino ?


----------



## Ssthisto

There is a tiny, tiny chance - but it is SO tiny it is... well, you're as likely to win the jackpot in the lottery. Basically, if you DID get an albino, what it means is that your normal is in fact a normal het albino - but wasn't sold as such. Possible, but very unlikely.

Normal X Het Albino will produce some genetic normals who are not het albino at all and some visual normals who are het albino; you can't necessarily tell which are which. 

Normal het Albino X Normal het Albino will not give you 50/50 odds; it will give you 25% visual albinos, 50% Normal het Albinos and 25% Normal non-hets - the visual normals are what are called "66% het albinos".


----------



## Voodoo Royal Morphs

Ssthisto said:


> There is a tiny, tiny chance - but it is SO tiny it is... well, you're as likely to win the jackpot in the lottery. Basically, if you DID get an albino, what it means is that your normal is in fact a normal het albino - but wasn't sold as such. Possible, but very unlikely.
> 
> Normal X Het Albino will produce some genetic normals who are not het albino at all and some visual normals who are het albino; you can't necessarily tell which are which.
> 
> Normal het Albino X Normal het Albino will not give you 50/50 odds; it will give you 25% visual albinos, 50% Normal het Albinos and 25% Normal non-hets - the visual normals are what are called "66% het albinos".


cheers Ssthisto was planning on breeding my normal male and wondered if i breed him with a het female what the chance of any visual morph would be.


----------



## Ssthisto

The only way to get a visual morph is if you breed him to a codominant or dominant morph - spiders, pastels and mojaves leap to mind. And then, it's because the FEMALE is donating the morph gene, not the male 

Also: I am desperately envious of your pinstripe - if he'd been a she, you could have gotten pinstripes from your normal male, too


----------



## Voodoo Royal Morphs

Ssthisto said:


> The only way to get a visual morph is if you breed him to a codominant or dominant morph - spiders, pastels and mojaves leap to mind. And then, it's because the FEMALE is donating the morph gene, not the male
> 
> Also: I am desperately envious of your pinstripe - if he'd been a she, you could have gotten pinstripes from your normal male, too


i already have breeding plans for him. but i want to get some breeding exsperince before i start to breed with my exspensive morphs.


----------



## madaboutreptiles

*Plasma Breeding options*

Well it looks like I may be getting some Plasma and Hypo Plasma corns at the september hamm show.....I will be reserving them this week.

What are other morphs I can put too the plasma's to maybe get something interesting?????

:no1:


----------



## mjackson222

Hi just about to introduce a female hypo jungle to my mack snow pastel. What are the possible outcomes?? Also if my female high yellow is ready in time what would be the outcome of her and the pastel??

Any help would be apprectiated
Cheers


----------



## rachel132002

Plasmas are lavender bloods so basically anything you'd like a mix of - lavenders always look good mixed with hypo or patterns - mot/stripe and bloods make amazing combinations with practically any morph.

Rach


----------



## shaolinmaster

Advice needed Guys. From a beginner!

If I buy a 100% Het Albino Royal (Male). Is he only 100% het albino because he has sired some albino offspring? If so and I put him with a 100% het female how would I know if the offspring were hets or would i only now after breeding? 

Thanks


----------



## amanda75

shaolinmaster said:


> If I buy a 100% Het Albino Royal (Male). Is he only 100% het albino because he has sired some albino offspring? If so and I put him with a 100% het female how would I know if the offspring were hets or would i only now after breeding?


100% het *could* be because he's fathered albinos, although then he'd probably have had 'proven' added to his description by whoever's selling him, so it's more likely that it's because one of his parents was a visual albino.

two 100% het albino royals mated together gives each egg - 

25% chance of being normal
50% chance of being het albino
25% chance of being visual albino

there's no way of telling hets and normals apart (other than growing them up and test mating them!) so the visually normal offspring would all be classed as 66% poss. het.


----------



## Ssthisto

mjackson222 said:


> Hi just about to introduce a female hypo jungle to my mack snow pastel. What are the possible outcomes?? Also if my female high yellow is ready in time what would be the outcome of her and the pastel??
> 
> Any help would be apprectiated
> Cheers


Is it a Mack Snow or is it a Mack Pastel? These are two totally different genes - related, discovered by the same person, but they don't work the same way. A Mack Snow bred to your Hypo will make some normals, some hypos, some mack snows and some hypo mack snows. A Mack Pastel bred to your hypo would produce some normals, some hypos, some Mack Pastels and some Hypo Mack Pastels. The difference comes when you breed a mack Pastel to a mack Snow - you will NEVER get Super Snows out of this combination (and there's no "Super Pastel" either). 

Your high yellow will produce normal/high yellows and Mack whatever-yours-is.


----------



## mjackson222

It is a mack snow pastel. Thanks for putting it bluntly for me I have been looking into it and the further I got into looking the more confused I got myself due to the mack snow pastel being a dominant gene.
Cheers anyway


----------



## Ssthisto

mjackson222 said:


> It is a mack snow pastel. Thanks for putting it bluntly for me I have been looking into it and the further I got into looking the more confused I got myself due to the mack snow pastel being a dominant gene.
> Cheers anyway


Is it a Mack Snow (that's the codominant gene that makes Super Snows in a double dose) or a Mack Pastel (that's the dominant gene that doesn't have a super) ?

Calling it a "Mack Snow Pastel" implies it is both a Mack Snow AND a Mack Pastel... which I have never heard of though I cannot imagine it's "impossible".


----------



## Hardwicki

Hi guys

I am toying with the idea of possibly breeding Royal Pythons.
I currently have a normal 06 male and it wont be for a good while yet but can anyone explain how dominant, recessive genes etc work. Someone tried to explain but made a mish mash of it and now i'm really confused. 

For example if i was to breed my normal male with: -
a mojave,
a albino,
a spider 

or any of the above as hets (normal with mojave het) what would the out come be. It is much different to corn breeding it seems.

Thanks for any help.:blush:


----------



## Ssthisto

Hardwicki said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I am toying with the idea of possibly breeding Royal Pythons.
> I currently have a normal 06 male and it wont be for a good while yet but can anyone explain how dominant, recessive genes etc work. Someone tried to explain but made a mish mash of it and now i'm really confused.
> 
> For example if i was to breed my normal male with: -
> a mojave,
> a albino,
> a spider
> 
> or any of the above as hets (normal with mojave het) what would the out come be. It is much different to corn breeding it seems.
> 
> Thanks for any help.:blush:


Ok. 

In Royal Pythons, albino is a *recessive*. This means that one copy of the Albino gene (plus one copy of "not albino") looks exactly the same as no copies of the Albino gene. It takes having two copies of Albino to look visually albino. If you bred your normal male to an Albino female you would get all normal-looking offspring who are het for the albino gene. If you bred your normal male to a het albino female, you'd get all normal-looking offspring who MIGHT carry the albino gene - but there's no way to tell visually.

Now, so far, Spider appears to be *dominant*. This means that one copy of the Spider gene (plus one copy of "not spider") looks exactly the same as TWO copies of the Spider gene. There's no way to tell visually whether you have a one-copy heterozygous spider or a two-copy homozygous spider - but if it doesn't LOOK like a spider it doesn't carry the gene at all - there is no "invisible het". If you bred your normal male to a Spider female you'd reasonably expect at least some Spiders in the first generation; if you ever got a normal offspring, you know that your Spider female is a "het" Spider - she only carries one copy of the gene, and also carries one copy of the normal not-spider gene.

Mojave is a *co/incomplete dominant* gene. This means there's three distinct "looks" - if it's got no copies of Mojave, it is normal; if it has one copy of Mojave (AKA *het* Mojave) it is a visual Mojave, and an animal who has two copies of Mojave is a Super Mojave - a visually white/pale snake with a sort of smudgy pattern on the head. If it doesn't look like a Mojave or a Super Mojave it doesn't carry the Mojave gene at all - there is no "invisible het". If you bred your normal male to a Mojave female, you'd reasonably expect some Mojaves in the first generation; if you bred your normal male to a Super Mojave female, you would get all Mojave offspring in the first generation.


----------



## Hardwicki

Ssthisto said:


> Ok.
> 
> In Royal Pythons, albino is a *recessive*. This means that one copy of the Albino gene (plus one copy of "not albino") looks exactly the same as no copies of the Albino gene. It takes having two copies of Albino to look visually albino. If you bred your normal male to an Albino female you would get all normal-looking offspring who are het for the albino gene. If you bred your normal male to a het albino female, you'd get all normal-looking offspring who MIGHT carry the albino gene - but there's no way to tell visually.
> 
> Now, so far, Spider appears to be *dominant*. This means that one copy of the Spider gene (plus one copy of "not spider") looks exactly the same as TWO copies of the Spider gene. There's no way to tell visually whether you have a one-copy heterozygous spider or a two-copy homozygous spider - but if it doesn't LOOK like a spider it doesn't carry the gene at all - there is no "invisible het". If you bred your normal male to a Spider female you'd reasonably expect at least some Spiders in the first generation; if you ever got a normal offspring, you know that your Spider female is a "het" Spider - she only carries one copy of the gene, and also carries one copy of the normal not-spider gene.
> 
> Mojave is a *co/incomplete dominant* gene. This means there's three distinct "looks" - if it's got no copies of Mojave, it is normal; if it has one copy of Mojave (AKA *het* Mojave) it is a visual Mojave, and an animal who has two copies of Mojave is a Super Mojave - a visually white/pale snake with a sort of smudgy pattern on the head. If it doesn't look like a Mojave or a Super Mojave it doesn't carry the Mojave gene at all - there is no "invisible het". If you bred your normal male to a Mojave female, you'd reasonably expect some Mojaves in the first generation; if you bred your normal male to a Super Mojave female, you would get all Mojave offspring in the first generation.


Um right...this is way more complicated than i thought it would be....:blush:


----------



## Ssthisto

What about it is particularly complicated, Vicky? As long as you remember that there are four rules, you can work out genetics for anything - from pythons to poodles to peas. 

*Dominant *genes look the same whether you have one copy ("het") or two; only a no-copy animal looks different.
*Recessive* genes only show themselves if you have two copies; one copy ("het")looks the same as no copies.
*Codominant* genes have three different visual appearances - no copies looks different to one copy ("het") looks different to two copies ("super").

And *selectively bred traits* are made up of combinations of the other three gene rules, but no single gene has been isolated that controls that appearance. 

Once you understand the rules, all you need to know is which rule any visual trait refers to and you can work out predictions based on that rule. 

You just lucked out picking three royal python genes that corresponded to each of the three major rules - "high gold" in royals is probably a selectively bred trait.


----------



## leejay

*is there such a thing as a het spider (ball python)*

if you bred a spider ball python to a normal for arguments sake we got 10 eggs
5 visual spiders
5 normal looking pythons

are the normals normal or are they het for spider????:blush:


----------



## Young_Gun

leejay said:


> if you bred a spider ball python to a normal for arguments sake we got 10 eggs
> 5 visual spiders
> 5 normal looking pythons
> 
> are the normals normal or are they het for spider????:blush:


The normals will be normals, no difference in genetics to a Normal x Normal clutch.


----------



## Ssthisto

leejay said:


> if you bred a spider ball python to a normal for arguments sake we got 10 eggs
> 5 visual spiders
> 5 normal looking pythons
> 
> are the normals normal or are they het for spider????:blush:


Nope, the normals are non-carriers.

Your SPIDERS are in fact the het for spider (there is no possible way they can be homozygous because they didn't have two spider parents)... because Spider is a dominant gene.


----------



## leejay

Ssthisto said:


> Nope, the normals are non-carriers.
> 
> Your SPIDERS are in fact the het for spider (there is no possible way they can be homozygous because they didn't have two spider parents)... because Spider is a dominant gene.



thanks a lot Ssthisto
explained so i understand it as well : victory:


----------



## Kathryn666

Can someone please tell me what I will get from a snow female and Anery male, hets unknown. I am thinking Anery's but not too sure.

Edit, sorry meant to put this in the corn sticky below !!


----------



## simmi85

got confused on pages 1 and 2 the bit about royals made more sense great thread!! 'ssthisto do u fancy giving me a idiots course in genetics?? lol '


----------



## Buriram

paulh said:


> *What makes my animal a normal?*
> When geneticists use the word "normal", they use it as a synonym for "wild type" or "standard type". Wild type is defined as
> 1. the most common phenotype (the observable physical characteristics) in the wild population
> .


I have always included behaviour in the phenotype too as is the tradition with most wildlife geneticists in mammalian / primatological circles - is this done in herpetological circles too?


----------



## Moosey

proper stupid question but (Royals):

het axanthic male x normal female = ?

het axanthic male x het spider female = ?


thankyouuu =]


----------



## Ssthisto

MissMoose said:


> proper stupid question but (Royals):
> 
> het axanthic male x normal female = ?
> 
> het axanthic male x het spider female = ?
> 
> 
> thankyouuu =]


OK. First, if you have the "het spider" female.... does she LOOK like a Spider? If not... she isn't het Spider at all. Sorry, but she's a normal. Spider, being a dominant trait, means that animals that carry the gene at all (whether het or homozygous) show the trait.

Now, to do your crosses, I'm going to do a couple of letter definitions:

*X* is for "Normal-not-Axanthic" which is the dominant trait of the Axanthic pair.
*x* is for "Axanthic" which is the recessive trait of the Axanthic pair.
*S* is for "Spider" which is the dominant trait of the Spider pair.
*s* is for "Normal-not-Spider" which is the recessive trait of the Spider pair.

So, a Het Axanthic male crossed to a normal female can be shown as:

*Xx* crossed to *XX*

In half of the breedings, the male will pass on his *x *trait, but the female can only EVER pass on an *X* trait - you have the following possible results:

*X *(from dad) *X *(first X from mum)
*X* (from dad) *X* (second X from mum)
*x* (from dad) *X* (first X from mum)
*x *(from dad) *X* (second X from mum)

All the babies have at least one X (normal-not-Axanthic) gene, so they'll all look normal. And because you can't tell whether they're carrying the gene or not, they're all "50% possible het" Axanthic - there's a 50% chance in each baby that they did inherit Dad's Axanthic gene. Unfortunately, the only way to find out for sure is to breed them to a known Axanthic carrier - ideally, a visual Axanthic.

Now Het Axanthic X Heterozygous Visual Spider would be expressed as:

*Xx ss* crossed to *XX Ss*

This is because Spider and Axanthic do not share the same gene pair; you've got to write out each one separately.

Here you've got a 50% chance of Mum passing along her Spider gene; you've got a 50% chance of Dad passing along his single Axanthic gene.

From here I wouldn't actually do a punnett square or work out the letters individually - I'd just think "50% of 50% is 25% therefore there's a 25% chance per egg I'll get a Spider het Axanthic." (if Spider was a recessive trait, the chance would be lower, by the way) There's also a 25% chance per egg you'll get a complete normal carrying neither trait at all.

Again, you won't know which of the babies are het Axanthic because it doesn't show - but you WILL know which of the babies are heterozygous Spider because they'll look like Spiders!

And a Het Axanthic X Normal-Looking animal from Spider Ancestry would be shown as:

*Xx ss* crossed to *XX ss*

As you can see there is no dominant Spider gene to pass on - all of the crossings produce normal-non-Spiders. It's essentially the same cross as het Axanthic to Normal.


----------



## Moosey

cheers mate =]


----------



## repkid

What would a SHCT x a Mack snow create?


----------



## Ssthisto

Hypos and Mack Hypos.


----------



## repkid

Ok thanks. I just wanted to know incase my dad doesnt let me get a super snow leo to breed with the mack snow.


----------



## repkid

I was wondering if my mack snow was really a mack snow due to the fact that instead of having white on its back it has yellow on its back?

brad


----------



## freekygeeky

the whiter ones are the ''''bettter ones''' 
and the yellowy ones are the ''not so good macks'' personalyl though i have both and i love both lol



repkid said:


> I was wondering if my mack snow was really a mack snow due to the fact that instead of having white on its back it has yellow on its back?
> 
> brad


----------



## repkid

Are mack super snows and super snows the same thing? If not then whats the difference?


----------



## Ssthisto

A Mack Snow is an animal who is heterozygous ("het" - has only one copy) for the Mack Snow gene.
A Super Snow is an animal who is homozygous (has two copies) of the Mack Snow gene.


----------



## PSGeckos

Ssthisto said:


> A Mack Snow is an animal who is heterozygous ("het" - has only one copy) for the Mack Snow gene.
> A Super Snow is an animal who is homozygous (has two copies) of the Mack Snow gene.


I know this is going off on a tangent a bit but this is what i thought and have read about the Enigmas being heterozygous and homozygous, so surely there then must be a super form of the Enigma???:crazy::hmm::hmm:


----------



## boywonder

PSGeckos said:


> I know this is going off on a tangent a bit but this is what i thought and have read about the Enigmas being heterozygous and homozygous, so surely there then must be a super form of the Enigma???:crazy::hmm::hmm:


macks are CO DOMINANT therefore homozygous (super) snows look different to heterozygous snows

enigmas appear to act fully dominant and have no super form ( none to date anyway)


----------



## PSGeckos

boywonder said:


> macks are CO DOMINANT therefore homozygous (super) snows look different to heterozygous snows


YES i know that, and 'CODOMINANT' is short for incomplete dominant.



boywonder said:


> enigmas appear to act fully dominant and have no super form ( none to date anyway)


So why are people producing 50% Enigmas, 50% non Enigmas???


----------



## boywonder

coz a heterozygous enigma only has one copy of the enigma gene to pass so its a 50% chance that he could pass the enigma half of the pair and a 50% chance of passing his normal half

a homozygous enigma has two copys of the enigma gene and either one passed on wil result in visual het enigma offspring, eg 100% enigmas


----------



## PSGeckos

boywonder said:


> coz a heterozygous enigma only has one copy of the enigma gene to pass so its a 50% chance that he could pass the enigma half of the pair and a 50% chance of passing his normal half
> 
> a homozygous enigma has two copys of the enigma gene and either one passed on wil result in visual het enigma offspring, eg 100% enigmas


 
Yeh, thats what i was getting at, exactly what Ssthiso said about the Macks, all i was commenting on is why no super form for the Enigmas!

Normal x Enigma (one mutated allele present) yields half Normal, half Enigma (one mutated allele present) offspring.
Normal x Enigma (two mutated alleles present) yields all Enigma (one mutated allele present) offspring.
Enigma (one mutated allele present) x Enigma (one mutated allele present) yields 1/4 Normal, 1/2 Enigma (one mutated allele present), 1/4 Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring.
Enigma (one mutated allele present) x Enigma (two mutated alleles present) yields 1/2 Enigma (one mutated allele present), 1/2 Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring.
Enigma (two mutated alleles present) x Enigma (two mutated alleles present) yields all Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring.


----------



## Ssthisto

I would not use the term "Super" to refer to a homozygous dominant - simply because it's come to mean "different appearance in a homozygous COdominant" to people. 

There may well be homozygous Enigmas out there - though few and far between since people don't have to breed an Enigma to another Enigma to get more Enigmas.


----------



## boywonder

PSGeckos said:


> Yeh, thats what i was getting at, exactly what Ssthiso said about the Macks, all i was commenting on is why no super form for the Enigmas!
> 
> Normal x Enigma (one mutated allele present) yields half Normal, half Enigma (one mutated allele present) offspring.
> Normal x Enigma (two mutated alleles present) yields all Enigma (one mutated allele present) offspring.
> Enigma (one mutated allele present) x Enigma (one mutated allele present) yields 1/4 Normal, 1/2 Enigma (one mutated allele present), 1/4 Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring.
> Enigma (one mutated allele present) x Enigma (two mutated alleles present) yields 1/2 Enigma (one mutated allele present), 1/2 Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring.
> Enigma (two mutated alleles present) x Enigma (two mutated alleles present) yields all Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring.


there is no visual differences between a heterozygous enigma and a homozygous enigma, therefore no way to determin which offspring from enigma x enigma are homozygous, in the attatched quote, from vms it states that het enigma x het enigma = 1/4 homozygous enigmas, so you could have bred, and sold a homozygous enigma already, there is no way to determin which are het or hom without test breeding though so someone may well have got a bargain from you lol


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> A Mack Snow is an animal who is heterozygous ("het" - has only one copy) for the Mack Snow gene.
> A Super Snow is an animal who is homozygous (has two copies) of the Mack Snow gene.


 So are they the same thing because I've been looking around and all I can find is mack super snows.


----------



## Ssthisto

No, they're not the same thing. They share the same genetic trait in different "strengths".

A Mack Snow has normal patterning, normal eyes and reduced yellow colouring. A poor quality Mack Snow can be mistaken for a normal as an adult.
A Mack Super Snow has solid black eyes, the spots are in lines down the gecko's back and has NO yellow colouring. You shouldn't ever be able to mistake a Super Snow for a normal.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> No, they're not the same thing. They share the same genetic trait in different "strengths".
> 
> A Mack Snow has normal patterning, normal eyes and reduced yellow colouring. A poor quality Mack Snow can be mistaken for a normal as an adult.
> A Mack Super Snow has solid black eyes, the spots are in lines down the gecko's back and has NO yellow colouring. You shouldn't ever be able to mistake a Super Snow for a normal.


Sorry, I was asking if a mack super snow and a super snow are the same thing... Not a mack snow and a mack super snow.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## PSGeckos

boywonder said:


> there is no visual differences between a heterozygous enigma and a homozygous enigma, therefore no way to determin which offspring from enigma x enigma are homozygous, in the attatched quote, from vms it states that het enigma x het enigma = 1/4 homozygous enigmas, so you could have bred, and sold a homozygous enigma already, there is no way to determin which are het or hom without test breeding though so someone may well have got a bargain from you lol


Well this will throw a spanner in the works, we've just learnt from someone else who breed Enigma x Enigma that the got a non Enigma out of the pairing..... So where does that leave it??


----------



## Ssthisto

That means that NEITHER Enigma was homozygous for the Enigma gene.

They're both heterozygous Enigmas, and that time they passed on the 25% chance of BOTH of them passing their "Not-Enigma" copy.


----------



## boywonder

PSGeckos said:


> Well this will throw a spanner in the works, we've just learnt from someone else who breed Enigma x Enigma that the got a non Enigma out of the pairing..... So where does that leave it??


if you read through your post with the copy/pasted bit from vms about enigma outcomes you'll see it says 


PSGeckos said:


> "Enigma (one mutated allele present) x Enigma (one mutated allele present) yields 1/4 Normal, 1/2 Enigma (one mutated allele present), 1/4 Enigma (two mutated alleles present) offspring"


in simpler terms 
heterozygous enigma x heterozygous enigma =
25% normals
50% heterozygous enigmas
25% homozygous enigmas

or 1 in 3 enigmas from that pairing would be a ****

i remember early on in the season you had bred enigma x enigma before it was known to possibly amplify issues. and the first enigmas to hatch had balance problems and circling, but all the later clutches were fine, maybe the super form (homozygous) are the ones that circle? did you keep either of them? maybe a test breeding to a non enigma bell female could prove this out? 
the morph certainly deserves its name :mf_dribble: they sure are an enigma


----------



## repkid

Hi
What would a SHCT x Hypo reverse stripe create???

Brad


----------



## Ssthisto

Hypos and super hypos, some of which might have aberrant patterning.


----------



## Issa

Ok whats the deal with the 2 strains of boa (Sharp and Kahl), why can't they be successfully mixed as on paper it appears no more complicated and mixing 2 recessive genes. No doubt its been tried before unsucessfully, have there ever been any sucessfull breedings mixing the 2 strains? Would it possibly work trying to mix the hets (and then sibling backbreeding) rather than working with 2 visuals and doing the same? Everywhere I seem to look for info seems to focus on either strain, I've found next to nothing info wise about people whom have worked with both and tried to cross breed.


----------



## Ssthisto

Issa said:


> Ok whats the deal with the 2 strains of boa (Sharp and Kahl), why can't they be successfully mixed as on paper it appears no more complicated and mixing 2 recessive genes.


It ISN'T more complicated than mixing two recessive genes.



> No doubt its been tried before unsucessfully, have there ever been any sucessfull breedings mixing the 2 strains? Would it possibly work trying to mix the hets (and then sibling backbreeding) rather than working with 2 visuals and doing the same? Everywhere I seem to look for info seems to focus on either strain, I've found next to nothing info wise about people whom have worked with both and tried to cross breed.


The problem isn't that they "don't mix" - it's that in the second generation you'd get a bunch of albinos which could be any one of three possibilities: Sharp (het or not het Kahl), Kahl (het or not het Sharp) or Sharp/Kahl. You might not be able to visually distinguish which was which (depending on which mutation 'breaks' the production of melanin first) and therefore you have a bunch of animals that are albino, certainly, but what KIND? The only reliable way to find out what you have would be breeding trials - and with a female, proving her homozygous for both traits (or noncarrier for one or the other trait) would take years.

Since Sharp albinos are more valuable, it's more profitable and sensible to breed Sharp to Sharp or het Sharp and not waste one on a (Kahl or Kahl possible het Sharp or possible Kahl/Sharp) breeding.


----------



## Issa

Ssthisto said:


> Since Sharp albinos are more valuable, it's more profitable and sensible to breed Sharp to Sharp or het Sharp and not waste one on a (Kahl or Kahl possible het Sharp or possible Kahl/Sharp) breeding.


Actually I wasn't really looking at it on a profit basis. More curious on what they'd look like tbh. Would it be a slightly odd mangling of both strains or something else entirely? Do you know if its been done before?


----------



## Ssthisto

They would almost certainly look like whichever strain "breaks" the melanin production first. I don't know which one that is - which one breaks the process before the other.

You'd be unlikely to get a 'something new' out of it.


----------



## repkid

What would a Mack snow x reverse stripe albino and blanco 100% het diablo blanco create?

Also what is the difference between a blanco and a diablo blanco?

Thanks,
Brad


----------



## haydoms

*punnet squares*

I keep trying but i can't get the hang of this.....

say i breed the following:

A stripe het B 

with

A type het AB type stripe

what would the punnet square look like and does it make any difference what the colour traits are (e.g. is anery more dominant than amel or caramel or whatever) 

if that makes any sense...

cheers


----------



## Ssthisto

haydoms said:


> I keep trying but i can't get the hang of this.....
> 
> say i breed the following:
> 
> A stripe het B
> 
> with
> 
> A type het AB type stripe
> 
> what would the punnet square look like and does it make any difference what the colour traits are (e.g. is anery more dominant than amel or caramel or whatever)
> 
> if that makes any sense...
> 
> cheers


It doesn't quite make sense, no...

If you've got a Stripe het Trait B and breed it to a Het Stripe Het Trait B, you can get stripes (50% chance per egg) and Trait B (25% chance per egg) - and a 12% chance per egg of getting Trait B Stripes.

Generally speaking, most traits that have been named and tested out are on different loci - they're not directly related to each other as such, and don't interfere with or 'overwrite' each other, because they're stored in different places.

There are exceptions (Amel and Ultra in corns are on the same gene pair; if you have one that carries two copies of Amel it absolutely cannot be carrying Ultra, if you have one that carries a copy of Amel and a copy of Ultra it is an Ultramel) and there are cases where it LOOKS like a trait is "dominant to" or overwriting another, but isn't... for example, an Anery Caramel looks like an Anerythristic. This is because "anery" breaks the normal red/orange/yellow pigment production process before Caramel has a chance to break JUST the red/orange bit. 

I must admit I don't use punnett squares - I prefer to just work out the raw percentage chances by working out whether something has one or two copies of this, one or two copies of that, one or two copies of the other...


----------



## haydoms

yeah i re-read it and didn't understand what i'd put :bash:

ok i'll try and make it simpler hows about

amel het butter stripe
with
amel stripe het caramel 

i finally got the bit that butter is amel (A) mixed with caramel (AB) well i think thats right.

the bit i can't get in the punet or percentages is where i put the stripe...


----------



## Ssthisto

Better to express it as:

Amel is *aa*, not-amel is *A** - either AA or Aa
Caramel is *cc*, not-caramel is *C** - either CC or Cc
Stripe is *ms/ms*, not-stripe is *M** - either MM, M/ms or M/m

Therefore, an Amel het butter stripe is *aa Cc M/ms*
An Amel Stripe het caramel would be *aa ms/ms Cc*

You'd draw your punnett square on that basis - or work out that you will get ALL *aa* Amels (because nobody has an *A* to give - only *a*), that you've got a 50% chance per egg to get visual *ms/ms* stripes (and all of them will be het stripe *M/ms* at a minimum) and that you have a 25% chance per egg to get visual *cc* Caramels, 50% chance per egg of getting *Cc* het caramels and a 25% chance per egg of getting *CC* not-het-caramels.

Then you just work out what the chances are that each option is combined with the others - a 25% chance of getting a caramel is combined with a 50% chance of getting a stripe (so what's one-fourth of 50%? it's 12.5% - so that's your chance per egg of producing a Butter Stripe - and works out to roughly one in 8.)


----------



## repkid

Hi,
Is there any chance someone could tell me what a Super snow x RAPTOR would create please.

Thanks,
Brad


----------



## Ssthisto

Snows het albino and eclipse, which may have yellow staining and aberrant patterning.

IMO it is sort of a waste of two good selectively bred morphs - the point of a snow is that it is black and WHITE not yellow; the point of the RAPTOR is that it is ORANGE. Combine the two and you lose the defining feature of BOTH morphs.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> Snows het albino and eclipse, which may have yellow staining and aberrant patterning.
> 
> IMO it is sort of a waste of two good selectively bred morphs - the point of a snow is that it is black and WHITE not yellow; the point of the RAPTOR is that it is ORANGE. Combine the two and you lose the defining feature of BOTH morphs.


 Okay thanks for the info and i can see where you coming from with the waste.

Seeing as you are sooooooooooooo good with genetics, I got some more questions for you :lol2:

SHCT x RAPTOR?
SHCT x Bell albino and bell albino het tremper.
SHCT x Reverse stripe


Jeez if you charged people for these questions you'd be a million aire!

Thanks youuuuuuuuuuu!!!!


----------



## repkid

Anyone???:2thumb:


----------



## Ssthisto

repkid said:


> SHCT x RAPTOR?
> SHCT x Bell albino and bell albino het tremper.
> SHCT x Reverse stripe


All of them would get you Hypos (because Super Hypo is homozygous codominant hypo).

The RAPTOR cross would get you hypos het Albino and Eclipse; they may show aberrant patterning and enhanced orange colouring.

The Bell Albino crosses would produce Hypos het Bell Albino; the second one would have a CHANCE of being het Tremper, but you won't know which ones are and which ones aren't.

The last one will produce Hypos that may have aberrant patterning.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> All of them would get you Hypos (because Super Hypo is homozygous codominant hypo).
> 
> The RAPTOR cross would get you hypos het Albino and Eclipse; they may show aberrant patterning and enhanced orange colouring.
> 
> The Bell Albino crosses would produce Hypos het Bell Albino; the second one would have a CHANCE of being het Tremper, but you won't know which ones are and which ones aren't.
> 
> The last one will produce Hypos that may have aberrant patterning.


 Thanks again!

Your a legend!!!:no1:


----------



## repkid

Probably last question but what would you breed to a SHCT if you could breed anything and what would it create?

How about a sunglow x SHCT?

Thanks Again Ssthisto!


----------



## Ssthisto

A Sunglow isn't a bad choice - you'll get hypos or super hypos het albino.

Generally, the only thing I'd put to a SHTCT is another superhypo tangerine carrottail to enhance the selective breeding that's gone into that line. Why 'dilute' the trait by mixing it with other things when they're beautiful because someone's spent the time matching the most tangerine animals with the best carrot tail to each other to get your lovely orange gecko to start with? A GOOD Sunglow is essentially a SHTCT... plus albino. Which makes it even more orange.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> A Sunglow isn't a bad choice - you'll get hypos or super hypos het albino.
> 
> Generally, the only thing I'd put to a SHTCT is another superhypo tangerine carrottail to enhance the selective breeding that's gone into that line. Why 'dilute' the trait by mixing it with other things when they're beautiful because someone's spent the time matching the most tangerine animals with the best carrot tail to each other to get your lovely orange gecko to start with? A GOOD Sunglow is essentially a SHTCT... plus albino. Which makes it even more orange.


 Okay thank you!


----------



## repkid

How do you keep breeding them SHCTs though as surely if you bred the siblings it'd be inbreeding right? So how do you safely breed a line?


----------



## Ssthisto

Yes, it's inbreeding.

No, it's not as problematic as you might think it is as long as you NEVER breed an animal that is less than perfectly healthy - no kinked tails, no slow growers, no weedy ones that don't thrive. You would ALSO need to stop breeding any animals that DID throw babies who were any of those things - because they carry the traits, no matter how healthy they might look.

The other thing you'd do is bring in outside blood every couple of generations; you'd find the best and brightest examples of unrelated SHTCTs you could get your hands on.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> Yes, it's inbreeding.
> 
> No, it's not as problematic as you might think it is as long as you NEVER breed an animal that is less than perfectly healthy - no kinked tails, no slow growers, no weedy ones that don't thrive. You would ALSO need to stop breeding any animals that DID throw babies who were any of those things - because they carry the traits, no matter how healthy they might look.
> 
> The other thing you'd do is bring in outside blood every couple of generations; you'd find the best and brightest examples of unrelated SHTCTs you could get your hands on.


 So aslong as they are definately thriving and are in top tip condition/health you can breed siblings. Can you breed mother to son and father to daughter? Obviously when the babies are at the right weight? And also say if you wanted to specifically work on getting Big % carrot tails how would you do it?


----------



## repkid

Bumpy:whistling2:


----------



## repkid

Silly question but wanted to get it out the way.

What is the difference between a bell and tremper albino?

Thanks,
Brad


----------



## Ssthisto

There are different ways to get the same visual effect (no black pigment) - sort of like there's several different ways to get "Car won't start."

Bell Albino "breaks" the process of making black pigment in one way (sort of like "Car won't start because I lost the car keys")
Tremper Albino "breaks" the process of making black pigment in another different way (sort of like "Car won't start because the starter motor is broken").

The end result is the same - an albino-looking gecko (or a car that won't start)... but the cause is different. Which is why breeding a Bell Albino to a Tremper albino will produce normals (the baby gets "here's the car keys" from the Tremper albino; it gets "working starter motor" from the Bell albino.)


----------



## repkid

Hi 

Just out of interest what are enigmas and phantoms in the way or recessive, double recessive, dominant, or co - dominant?
Thanks


----------



## Ssthisto

Enigma is a dominant trait.

Phantom if I understand it correctly is essentially Hypo Albino TUG Snow; if that's the case it is the combination of a Dominant trait (TUG Snow), a codominant trait (Hypo) and a recessive trait (Albino).


----------



## repkid

Will a macksnow x macksnow create 100% super snow or 50% super and 50% mack?

And will a Super snow x macksnow create 100% supers?


----------



## Ssthisto

Nope on both counts.

Mack snow is het for the mack snow gene (a super snow is homozygous). 

Therefore, a pair of hets will produce some normals (25% chance per egg), some Mack Snows (50% chance per egg) and some super snows (25% chance per egg).

Now, a super snow will ALWAYS pass on Mack Snow; crossed to Mack you have a 50% chance per egg of Macks and 50% chance per egg of Supers.

The only way you can guarantee 100% supers is to breed a Super to a Super.


----------



## funky1

What an exhausting but interesting thread you`ve started! Repkid, you have more questions then Magnus Magnussun - you must be a sponge! 
Ssthisto - you have the patience and knowledge of a saint!:lol2:


----------



## TCReptile

Ok i have a headache now but think I might be there...

If for example I have *X* which is het for x and I breed him with *X* which is also het for x I would get;
*XX*, xx, Xx and xX but at what %? 
Also would this change for dominent genes? ie if the x was dominant would the % increase and if *X* was dominent would i get no xx?

Sorry to be pain!

C


----------



## Ssthisto

Ok, if you have an *X* het for *x* that's expressed as *Xx*. Breed that to another one and you have the following chances:

25% chance of *X* from dad and *X* from mum = *XX*
25% chance of *X* from dad and *x* from mum = *Xx*
25% chance of *x *from dad and *X* from mum = *Xx*
25% chance of *x *from dad and *x* from mum = *xx*

Because we've expressed it that way, we KNOW that *X* is dominant or codominant (that's what a capital letter means in genetic notation) and that *x* is recessive. 
*XX *is "homozygous dominant *X*" 
*Xx* is "heterozygous dominant *X*, heterozygous recessive *x*" - AKA "het* x*". 
*xx* is "homozygous recessive *x*" - AKA "Visual *x*"

Dominant doesn't mean you won't see morphs coming from it - it just means it HIDES a recessive if they're carried.

If you wanted to express codominants, you would probably need superscript notation (which this forum won't do) or to use two-letter genetic combinations.

Say *X* is wild type and *Xa* is codominant to wildtype (note the capital letter - it's still a flavour of *X*), while *x* is recessive to both.

An *XX* will be wildtype. So will an *Xx* - because *X *is dominant to *x*.
An *xx *will be a visual *x* - it will have a different look to the *XX *or *Xx* animals.
An *X/Xa* will show a different visual appearance to either of the above, though - it would have aspects of 'wildtype *X*' look and aspects of '*Xa*' appearance.
An *Xa/Xa* will have yet another visual appearance (if it's codominant - this would be called a "*Super Xa*")
And an *Xa/x* would look like a "*Super Xa*" too


----------



## TCReptile

Thanks Ssthisto i think i'm getting there...
C


----------



## repkid

funky1 said:


> What an exhausting but interesting thread you`ve started! Repkid, you have more questions then Magnus Magnussun - you must be a sponge!
> *Ssthisto - you have the patience and knowledge of a saint!*:lol2:


 I would deffo agree!

And another question :lol2:. By the time I learn these leo genetics I probably wont need to know them because I will know every possible outcome from everything after all these questions. 


Super snow x SHTCTB?

Thanks Sshisto


----------



## Ssthisto

Yellow-stained hypo Mack snows


----------



## TCReptile

Ssthisto said:


> Nope on both counts.
> 
> Mack snow is het for the mack snow gene (a super snow is homozygous).
> 
> Therefore, a pair of hets will produce some normals (25% chance per egg), some Mack Snows (50% chance per egg) and some super snows (25% chance per egg).
> 
> Now, a super snow will ALWAYS pass on Mack Snow; crossed to Mack you have a 50% chance per egg of Macks and 50% chance per egg of Supers.
> 
> The only way you can guarantee 100% supers is to breed a Super to a Super.


Ok silly question but why don't they just call the Super Mack snows, Mack snows and the Mack Snows het fors as isn't that what they are? Or am I being dumb?


----------



## Ssthisto

TCReptile said:


> Ok silly question but why don't they just call the Super Mack snows, Mack snows and the Mack Snows het fors as isn't that what they are? Or am I being dumb?


Because herpers use the word "het" incorrectly 9 times out of 10 to mean "invisibly carrying a recessive trait". You tell someone that you have a het Mack Snow and they tell you you can't have one because it's a codominant trait (and then get upset when you tell them your het mack snow will produce some normals when bred to another het mack snow... because they think that if it's visually not normal, it MUST be homozygous for the trait it carries!)

Also, "Super whatever" is the shorthand for "homozygous codominant".

In addition, most of these codominant morphs are named for what people see first - the heterozygous form. Then the homozygous, when it finally appears, winds up being "super het". 

Would be confusing too (at least with royal pythons, who have one gene locus that appears to have six different gene flavours) if the flavours were all called "het leucistic" instead of given their individual flavour names (Mojave, Phantom, Lesser, Russo Lemon Line, Butter, Mystery Dilute) ...


----------



## TCReptile

I think i'll just stick to bearded dragons... they're much less confusing :lol2:


----------



## GlasgowGecko

When constructing a pseudogene phylogeny of the cpDNA intron region trnL-trnF, why is it more parsimonious to assume chimeric copy formation than simple copy loss?

never fail to make myself laugh...

Andy


----------



## intravenous

GlasgowGecko said:


> When constructing a pseudogene phylogeny of the cpDNA intron region trnL-trnF, why is it more parsimonious to assume chimeric copy formation than simple copy loss?
> 
> never fail to make myself laugh...
> 
> Andy


I don't believe there is a plant section on here :Na_Na_Na_Na:. As far as I'm aware reptiles don't have chloroplasts :roll:.


----------



## GlasgowGecko

intravenous said:


> I don't believe there is a plant section on here :Na_Na_Na_Na:. As far as I'm aware reptiles don't have chloroplasts :roll:.


Well aside from the fact it is posted in the genetics section, in the "questions you were afraid to ask" thread where reptiles are only implied and not specifically delimited...
And the fact that the actual problem transends species AND organelles, It was infact a joke (shock horror!), the joke being, its a pretty tough question to answer.

Feel free to have a go at answering though....

Andy


----------



## Ssthisto

Well, Andy, I did have to go and look up some of those words... can you tell me if I've got the gist of it basically right AND a roughly correct answer given that I'm a web designer and not a geneticist? If I've misunderstood, please PM me an explanation - I'm not at all "up" with some of these terms and anything that will teach me more would be very much appreciated.

-------------



GlasgowGecko said:


> When constructing a pseudogene phylogeny of the cpDNA intron region trnL-trnF, why is it more parsimonious to assume chimeric copy formation than simple copy loss?


It makes more logical sense (and is the simplest explanation) when you are trying to explain how closely related a group of orchids are - by looking at "junk DNA" strands that no longer appear to code proteins within a specific location - to state that it is more likely that the "repeats" at this location are due to abnormal creation of repeated code, rather than the loss of code in between the repeats. This is the more logical explanation because mispairing during the DNA replication stage (AKA "mutation") happens more often than outright DNA loss during the DNA replication stage.


----------



## GlasgowGecko

Hey SSthisto,

I actually wrote this question, because I hadn't seen this sticky before (good job by the way) and needed a little light refreshment from my daily grind... of pseudogenes.... Yes, my daft idea of a joke. But seeing as you are pretty hot on many genetic topics I was prepared to be surprised by your answer.

Intron regions, which you are right in saying do not code for proteins, are not under selection, which makes them ideal for phylogeny studies. A pseudogene is a copy or partial copy of a gene that has be copied into an intron (through various processes). Its a bit of a contentious issue as to whether these can be used for phylogeny construction, and whether or not there a single point mutation is more or less likely to occur than the generation of a whole pseudogene copy, which then brings into question how informative they are.

My question then referred to copy loss through intra-molecular recombination, and whether the formation of chimeric copy (a copy formed by two halves of different pseudogene copies) is more likely explanation of "new" copy generation, or whether full copy loss (thus the same copy in a new position) is more parsimonious. The answer is that I don't know. The paper I'm currently working on will suggest copy loss, although through sequence alignment it is possible to suggest chimeric copies.

Andy


----------



## Ssthisto

Thank you, Andy, for further explanation 

I still don't FULLY understand it (shows I'm not a geneticist, just that I look at things from a mathematical perspective when it comes down to simple genetic traits and see the inheritance as a series of four relatively simple rules) but I appreciate your trying to explain it


----------



## GlasgowGecko

It is a pretty complicated, and I do feel a little bit childish for putting it up now, it wasn't meant to attempt to outsmart anyone.

Andy


----------



## eeji

GlasgowGecko said:


> When constructing a pseudogene phylogeny of the cpDNA intron region trnL-trnF, why is it more parsimonious to assume chimeric copy formation than simple copy loss?
> 
> never fail to make myself laugh...
> 
> Andy


Because coco-pops and milk make a bowl full of fun?

(I'm not a genetecist either, can you tell?!  )


----------



## intravenous

GlasgowGecko said:


> Well aside from the fact it is posted in the genetics section, in the "questions you were afraid to ask" thread where reptiles are only implied and not specifically delimited...
> And the fact that the actual problem transends species AND organelles, It was infact a joke (shock horror!), the joke being, its a pretty tough question to answer.
> 
> Feel free to have a go at answering though....
> 
> Andy


Yes, I guessed you were having a laugh :razz:. That was my attempt at humour...I obviously fail . On a more serious note though...I know what all those terms mean but who in their right mind would actually know that unless they were a)writing a paper on it or b) researching a paper on it :razz:?

Edit: oh and...evolutionary genetics make me cry :razz:.


----------



## GlasgowGecko

intravenous said:


> Yes, I guessed you were having a laugh :razz:. That was my attempt at humour...I obviously fail . On a more serious note though...I know what all those terms mean but who in their right mind would actually know that unless they were a)writing a paper on it or b) researching a paper on it :razz:?
> 
> Edit: oh and...evolutionary genetics make me cry :razz:.


In answer to your question, A - i'm writing a paper on it.....

Andy


----------



## repkid

Is ivory in pituophis recessive, codom or dom?

If its codom or dom, and I bred to an albino which I'm guessing is recessive to ivory,

Would I get:
50%normal ph ivory and albino
50%ivory ph albino?

And if it's recessive then I would get 
100%normals ph ivory and bull?


----------



## Ssthisto

It looks like "Ivory" in bull snakes may well be a combination trait - "Hypo Whitesided" - both of which appear to be recessive. Breed an Ivory to an Albino and you'd get 100% Normal het Hypo, Albino and Whitesided.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> It looks like "Ivory" in bull snakes may well be a combination trait - "Hypo Whitesided" - both of which appear to be recessive. Breed an Ivory to an Albino and you'd get 100% Normal het Hypo, Albino and Whitesided.


 How does that work?

If it is codom then it only needs one copy to be visual. There's a 50% chance it will pass it on right? So wont it be 25% ivory and 75% normal?


----------



## intravenous

repkid said:


> How does that work?
> 
> If it is codom then it only needs one copy to be visual. There's a 50% chance it will pass it on right? So wont it be 25% ivory and 75% normal?


A "codominant" morph is different from a "combination" morph. As you said if it was codominant then it would only need one copy to be visual and an ivory would produce 50% ivorys and 50% normals. However, a combination morph is a morph that is made up of more than one trait. Ivory is a "combination" morph because it is made up two traits: the "hypo" trait and the "whitesided" trait (I am going by Ssthistos information, I don't personally know anything about bull morphs). In this case both of the traits are recessive.


----------



## repkid

intravenous said:


> A "codominant" morph is different from a "combination" morph. As you said if it was codominant then it would only need one copy to be visual and an ivory would produce 50% ivorys and 50% normals. However, a combination morph is a morph that is made up of more than one trait. Ivory is a "combination" morph because it is made up two traits: the "hypo" trait and the "whitesided" trait (I am going by Ssthistos information, I don't personally know anything about bull morphs). In this case both of the traits are recessive.


 Oh right Ok then.

What would you recommend breeding my albino pinbull to? 

Apart from another albino as I want some different.


----------



## intravenous

repkid said:


> Oh right Ok then.
> 
> What would you recommend breeding my albino pinbull to?
> 
> Apart from another albino as I want some different.


Since albino is recessive, if your animal has no hets, then all you can get is more albinos (unless there are co-dominant or dominant bull morphs and from the quick look I've had I don't think there are any?). If you want something different then you could get a different morph and breed it to your albino producing all normals. If you then bred the offspring together then you would get something different: a combination morph.


----------



## repkid

intravenous said:


> Since albino is recessive, if your animal has no hets, then all you can get is more albinos (unless there are co-dominant or dominant bull morphs and from the quick look I've had I don't think there are any?). If you want something different then you could get a different morph and breed it to your albino producing all normals. If you then bred the offspring together then you would get something different: a combination morph.


Alright cheers for the help.


----------



## repkid

Are lesser platinum and pinstripe royal pythons recessive, codom or dom?


----------



## Blackecho

Co-Dom and Dom respectively.


----------



## repkid

Bred together would create:

25% normal het pinstripe and lesser platty???
25% lesser platty???
25% pinstripe???
25% kingpin???


----------



## Ssthisto

Pinstripe X Lesser Platinum creates:

Normals NOT het pinstripe (a het pinstripe is visually pinstripe because pinstripe is dominant) OR lesser (a het lesser is visually a lesser platinum because lesser platinum is codominant.
Pinstripes NOT het Lesser 
Lessers NOT het pinstripe
Kingpins (het lesser, het pinstripe).


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> Pinstripe X Lesser Platinum creates:
> 
> Normals NOT het pinstripe (a het pinstripe is visually pinstripe because pinstripe is dominant) OR lesser (a het lesser is visually a lesser platinum because lesser platinum is codominant.
> Pinstripes NOT het Lesser
> Lessers NOT het pinstripe
> Kingpins (het lesser, het pinstripe).


Oh yeh my bad. Complete blonde moment :bash:

Thanks.


----------



## repkid

What combination morphs can i create from both spider and mojave royal pythons? And obviously if you could state what other morph it needs to be bred to to create it.

E.g

lesser platinum x pinstripe = 25% king pin.

So what morphs can I breed to either a spider or mojave to create certain combination morphs?

Thanks


----------



## Roewammi

can someone tell me what id get if i put the following together;

female anery
male carolina stripe

am i right in thinking normal het stripe and het anery?


----------



## Blackecho

Roewammi said:


> female anery
> male carolina stripe
> 
> am i right in thinking normal het stripe and het anery?


Yes again


----------



## repkid

Please ignore my other post above.

But please tell me if these are correct but im not sure on combinations so you'll have to help me with that bit.

Mojave x Spider
25% normal
25% mojave
25% spider
25%.....?

Mojave x Pastel
25% normal
25% mojave
25% pastel
25% ......?

Spider x Pastel
25% norm
25% spider
25% pastel
25% ......?

Spider x pinstripe
25% norm
25% spider
25% pinstripe
25% ......?

Mojave x pinstripe
25% norm
25% mojave
25% pinstripe
25% ......?

Last one :bash:
Pinstripe x pastel
25% norm
25% pinstripe
25% pastel
25% ......?

Not sure if pastel is codom dom or recessive so they might be wrong.

And basically I am planning to get two of them morphs and breeding them in roughly 2-3 years so what do you think the best combination is?


----------



## Ssthisto

A Mojave Spider is a mojave spider - there's no "combo name" for that.

A Mojave Pastel is also called a Pastave or Motel.

A Spider Pastel is also called a Bumblebee.

A Spider Pinstripe is also called a Spinner.

A Mojave Pinstripe is also called a Jigsaw.

And a Pastel Pinstripe is called a Lemon Blast.

I personally would get the Mojave and the Pinstripe - but that's just because I like Jigsaws. Pastel and Pinstripe is also nice. Mojave and Pastel, well, you could in the second generation make Super Pastel Super Mojaves - which would probably be pale yellow-white snakes with greenish eyes.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> A Mojave Spider is a mojave spider - there's no "combo name" for that.
> 
> A Mojave Pastel is also called a Pastave or Motel.
> 
> A Spider Pastel is also called a Bumblebee.
> 
> A Spider Pinstripe is also called a Spinner.
> 
> A Mojave Pinstripe is also called a Jigsaw.
> 
> And a Pastel Pinstripe is called a Lemon Blast.
> 
> I personally would get the Mojave and the Pinstripe - but that's just because I like Jigsaws. Pastel and Pinstripe is also nice. Mojave and Pastel, well, you could in the second generation make Super Pastel Super Mojaves - which would probably be pale yellow-white snakes with greenish eyes.


Awesome.

I will probably have a look at the combo morphs then decide what i really want to breed cause the only one I'd be able to identify out of that lot is bumblebee and spinner.

Thanks a lot :2thumb:


----------



## Blackecho

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1152/702577792_2d8c938629.jpg?v=0


----------



## LEOPARD GECKO CRAZY

*hi*

super snow male x shtct female ??


----------



## Jon2ooo8

50% mack snow and 50% mack hypo aka 1st gen cremsicle, mack ghost lol has alot of names for 1 morph


----------



## tigger79

bumble bee royal to normal royal


----------



## Ssthisto

Bumblebee to normal:

25% chance normal not spider or pastel.
25% chance spider not pastel
25% chance pastel not spider
25% chance bumblebee (pastel spider)


----------



## repkid

Are Ron Trempers Bold Bandit leopard gecko selectively bred normals???

If so, would two bred together create a chance of just getting normal babies or are there other genetics behind them? As I would love to be able to produce some of bandits as they are stunning.

Designer Leopard Geckos These are what I am looking at.


----------



## repkid

:whistling2:


----------



## Ssthisto

Ron Tremper describes the trait "Bandit" as simple recessive.

However, I would like to see someone independent (not Ron Tremper) prove that out because he originally sold "het for giants" before he'd tested to find out what mode of inheritance Giant had - so he sold normals for very highly inflated prices.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> Ron Tremper describes the trait "Bandit" as simple recessive.
> 
> However, I would like to see someone independent (not Ron Tremper) prove that out because he originally sold "het for giants" before he'd tested to find out what mode of inheritance Giant had - so he sold normals for very highly inflated prices.


Ok. Would I be write in thinking that they are technically normals and were made from selectively breeding jungles?


----------



## Blackecho

Not if its a recessive gene.


----------



## Ssthisto

repkid said:


> Ok. Would I be write in thinking that they are technically normals and were made from selectively breeding jungles?


IF "Bandit" is a recessive gene, then no, a visual bandit is not a normal. It is homozygous for a recessive, non-wildtype gene.

However, until someone proves sufficiently that "Bandit" IS a recessive gene I would not like to say for certainty that they absolutely aren't normals with selective breeding behind them.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> IF "Bandit" is a recessive gene, then no, a visual bandit is not a normal. It is homozygous for a recessive, non-wildtype gene.
> 
> However, until someone proves sufficiently that "Bandit" IS a recessive gene I would not like to say for certainty that they absolutely aren't normals with selective breeding behind them.


And to prove that they are recessive you would have to breed to a dom/codom morph and breed back the offspring to another bandit. If it is recessive then you will get some bandits becuase the offspring will be het. However if you dont get and bandit babies it prooves that the offspring weren't het concluding that they are selectively bred normals?


----------



## Ssthisto

To prove it's recessive you'd breed to a NORMAL (no sense in muddying up your results with other genes) preferably with no known hets.

If you get all normal babies out of a significant number of offspring (twenty or more for preference) then it's probably not a codominant or dominant trait.

Take a pair of the normal "het bandit" offspring (or preferably one male and multiple females) and cross them together (not to another bandit). If you get clearly visual Bandit offspring in a roughly one-quarter ratio out of enough hatchlings, it's almost certainly a recessive.

I wouldn't use a Bandit to cross to the het - because then you're bringing the possibility of it being selectively bred back into it (cross a tangerine to a normal, then cross the resulting high yellows to a tangerine, you might well get more tangerine offspring) ... better to see if it can be recovered in the right ratio from suspected hets.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> To prove it's recessive you'd breed to a NORMAL (no sense in muddying up your results with other genes) preferably with no known hets.
> 
> If you get all normal babies out of a significant number of offspring (twenty or more for preference) then it's probably not a codominant or dominant trait.
> 
> Take a pair of the normal "het bandit" offspring (or preferably one male and multiple females) and cross them together (not to another bandit). If you get clearly visual Bandit offspring in a roughly one-quarter ratio out of enough hatchlings, it's almost certainly a recessive.
> 
> I wouldn't use a Bandit to cross to the het - because then you're bringing the possibility of it being selectively bred back into it (cross a tangerine to a normal, then cross the resulting high yellows to a tangerine, you might well get more tangerine offspring) ... better to see if it can be recovered in the right ratio from suspected hets.


Alright ok thanks for explaining that.

Brad


----------



## Serious D

*leopard gecko breeding*

Hi i have a male giant, tangerine, albino, carrot tail, with snake eyes and a female high yellow, whot would i get if i bred them?


----------



## Ssthisto

You will get giants het albino and normals het albino. They might show enhanced orange colouring.


----------



## repkid

reverse stripe het raptor x giant reverse stripe ph raptor


----------



## martin day

could some of you explain to me if i were to breed t albino macksnow x t albino and i was to get 50 % macksnow albino and 50% t albino i think im right in thinking that mean per egg not clutch so what morph would i call the baby that hatched t albino or macksnow albino ?


----------



## Ssthisto

It depends on what the baby IS that you've hatched - it'll either be obviously a Mack albino OR it'll be obviously just an albino.

Repkid: Are the reverse stripes albino or not, and when you say "possible het RAPTOR" which trait (albino, eclipse) is it not guaranteed het for?


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> It depends on what the baby IS that you've hatched - it'll either be obviously a Mack albino OR it'll be obviously just an albino.
> 
> Repkid: Are the reverse stripes albino or not, and when you say "possible het RAPTOR" which trait (albino, eclipse) is it not guaranteed het for?


One is het and one is ph het. Not sure about the trait I will ask.


----------



## repkid

albino.


----------



## repkid

Sorry think I made it a bit unclear and its too late to edit my last post. The RAPTOR gene in the reverse stripes are of albino trait.
Thanks,
Brad


----------



## repkid

Never mind anymore. Found out the pair were both females.


----------



## repkid

Giant reverse stripe x reverse stripe = 
50%giants rs
50% rs

Giant reverse stripe x raptor?
Giant reverse stripe x SHCT?


----------



## Ssthisto

Giant Reverse Stripe (NON-albino) X RAPTOR = Reverse Stripes or Aberrant patterned animals het albino and eclipse; Giant reverse stripes or Aberrant patterned animals het albino and eclipse. All of the above may show enhanced tangerine colouring.

Giant Reverse Stripe (NON-albino) X SHTCT = Normals and Giants, may show aberrant patterning and/or enhanced tangerine colouring.


----------



## repkid

Awesome.


How about giant reverse stripe x super giant mack snow?


----------



## Ssthisto

Giants and Super Giants in both Normal or Mack Snow variants - they may show aberrant patterning.


----------



## repkid

Giant reverse stripe x mack enigma?
SHTCTB x mack enigma?
Giant reverse stripe x stripe?

I know I haven't any experience in breeding atm but was just considering giant reverse stripe enigmas or giant reverse stripe mack snow enigmas. Maybe a giant reverse stripe x mack snow enigma. Breed the offspring back to parents depending on what i would get. Would this be a 2nd or 3rd generation project, if it is even possible? And have any giant reverse stripe enigmas ever been produced?

Thanks!: victory:


----------



## repkid

:2thumb:


----------



## repkid

Any such thing as a giant enigma reverse stripe? How would I go about making one?


----------



## repkid

Dont want to sound stupid but what is the difference between a fire royal python and a normal? All the pictures i have seen of fires look like normals :S


----------



## Issa

repkid said:


> Dont want to sound stupid but what is the difference between a fire royal python and a normal? All the pictures i have seen of fires look like normals :S


Fires are the het version of one of the leucastic strains. They look similiar to normals but produce something else entirely when mated together.


----------



## repkid

Are albino and high contrast albino two different morphs or are they compatible?


----------



## Blackecho

repkid said:


> Dont want to sound stupid but what is the difference between a fire royal python and a normal? All the pictures i have seen of fires look like normals :S


You can tell the difference in real life, but they don't seem to photgraph well.


----------



## Blackecho

repkid said:


> Are albino and high contrast albino two different morphs or are they compatible?


Same morph.


----------



## repkid

Alright cheers.

**** albino x het albino = 75% **** albinos and 25% 100% hets?


----------



## Blackecho

Nope, 50% Homozygous, 50% Heterozygous.


----------



## Ssthisto

No.

Albino is recessive, so you do not get a 75% visual / 25% non-visual ratio in ANY breeding combination. Only dominant traits produce 75% visual to 25% non-visual ratios.

Het Albino to Albino has a 50% chance of producing visual albino and a 50% chance of producing normal het albino.

That is because the breeding is as follows:

Het albino *Aa*
Albino *aa*

Combination 1: Het donates *A *(slot 1), albino donates *a *(slot 1) - *Aa* - this is a *het albino*
Combination 2: Het donates *A* (slot 1), albino donates *a* (slot 2) - *Aa* - this is a *het albino* 
Combination 3: Het donates *a *(slot 2), albino donates *a* (slot 2) - *aa* - this is an *albino*
Combination 4: Het donates *a* (slot 2), albino donates *a* (slot 2) - *aa *- this is an *albino*

Half of the possible combinations result in a het albino.


----------



## eeji

repkid said:


> Alright cheers.
> 
> **** albino x het albino = 75% **** albinos and 25% 100% hets?


50% het albino, 50% **** albino


----------



## repkid

Thanks all


----------



## repkid

How are clowns made? Do they have cinny in them? If so what is the other parent? :2thumb:


----------



## Ssthisto

In royal pythons, "Clown" is a base trait - it's a recessive gene all to itself.

You can *get* Cinnamon Clowns, but Cinnamon isn't an ingredient of Clown.


----------



## repkid

Ssthisto said:


> In royal pythons, "Clown" is a base trait - it's a recessive gene all to itself.
> 
> You can *get* Cinnamon Clowns, but Cinnamon isn't an ingredient of Clown.


Oh right thanks.

What combos of cinnamon have already been made?

When was the first cinnamon made?Found?Created?


----------



## randomcookiemonsta

Tops said:


> In theory it would be possible. They have done it in labs with rats, pigs and chickens by altering the genetic makeup. Its been done in the UK and china that I know of. Its done through the introduction of a gene from a jellyfish though due to cost issues and practical implications im not sure we will be getting 'glowing' corns any time soon. (apparently its for disease research but i reckon they did it because they thought it would look cool)


i have a new life ambition :mf_dribble: GLOW IN THE DARK ROYAL MORPHS :flrt:


----------



## teiryklav

this seems silly yea but how do you make more morphs?
do you study it or you breed morph to morph and then get new morph and then breed it with another morp etc?

ok like example. how do we make bumblebee bp?


----------



## Ssthisto

In order to make Bumblebee, you need the two ingredients (Pastel and Spider). These base ingredients cannot be made by combining other morphs.

In order to get the base ingredients... you've got to FIND them. Either you buy the ingredients (if they already exist) OR they crop up in your captive breeding program unexpectedly as the result of a mutation OR you find one that looks odd in the wild.


----------



## teiryklav

thanks, but wait. if i find something odd from the wild, even it's still normal, won't its offsprings will be normal too? if it's a bp that goes mutate, but it was normal, it's gene still normal right? what's the first known morphs? another question, how do we make pieds? really curious.. thanks :2thumb:: victory::whistling2:


----------



## Ssthisto

A wild snake that was born as a mutant morph *won't* look normal - and might not have normal offspring, if the mutation is genetic!

As far as I am aware, ALL royal python morphs originated from wild-caught animals that were abberant/mutant in appearance AND genetics.

Pied is another base gene, and without having pied or het pied (even if you don't KNOW it's a het pied until it breeds out) you cannot "make" one.


----------



## teiryklav

thanks ssthisto. so, someone found a pied? or hatchs a pied out of nowhere?! wow.
btw, is it the same if i breed the males with females with different morph or vice versa?

let's say i'm making bumblebee again. will it be different if i use male spiders to female pastels or female spiders to male pastels??
which is commonly used?


----------



## Ssthisto

The first pied royal was found in the wild, yes. 

Sometimes you see "mutant" animals in the wild; it's just a matter of catching one and breeding it. For example, near us there is a population of "pied" Jackdaws, with white wing feathers and white spotting on the black. I'm sure if you caught a pair and bred them you could get a line of captives that showed the same mutant trait. But unless the trait randomly occurs and someone takes advantage of that, it isn't possible to *make* them occur unless you're doing some pretty tweaky things to unhatched eggs (which might then not be genetic or reproducible - I know that some of the colour mutations in mice are due to radiation or chemical experimentation, but this has not to my knowledge been done with any snakes).

No, it doesn't matter (with codominant morphs) which animal is the male and which is the female - at this point there are no known "sex linked" mutations that can only occur in one sex or the other (like "orange" and "black" in cats - only a female cat can normally display both colours at once and be a Tortoiseshell). 

The only practical difference it might make is purchasing a female of the more common morph will often be cheaper than buying one of the more expensive or desireable morph - especially as an adult. For example, an adult female pastel will probably be cheaper than an adult female spider is.


----------



## teiryklav

see if i buy a female pastel because the female spider is more expensive (of course!:lol2 then musn't i buy male spider that is more expensive either than male pastel??
:whistling2:


----------



## teiryklav

reading some of the thread you're really good at genetics! how did you study it?
wow. thanks of all the answers


----------



## Reptile-newb

Is creating fertile hybrids harming rarer creature's bloodlines?


----------



## Ssthisto

Yes and no.

No, it doesn't, because breeding a pure male animal of a rare species - like, say, a Boelen's python - to a pure female of some other species does not render the male "impure" - he's still all Boelen's and can be used to breed more Boelen's babies. Same goes for a female, but you've got to account for possible sperm retention.

Yes, it can, because some unscrupulous people will try to pass off a hybrid AS a pure animal, or the animal will go through a couple of owners, losing information along the way, until it's not known that the animal in question is a hybrid.


----------



## repkid

teiryklav said:


> see if i buy a female pastel because the female spider is more expensive (of course!:lol2 then musn't i buy male spider that is more expensive either than male pastel??
> :whistling2:


Yes however males can at times be a lot less cheaper than females. Also males can breed a lot earlier than females. So say you were buying a female adult pastel for about £700. An adult female spider may cost £1000. So it's pretty obvious which you are going to choose right? Then as males can breed pretty much a year after hatching you could buy a hatchling male spider for £300, wait and year and they will both be ready to breed. A male pastel may cost about £200 at the least for a hatchling.



So add it up

Female spider £1000 + Male pastel £200 = £1200

Female pastel £700 + Male spider £300 = £1000

Remember there is not normally anymore of a difference than £100 between a male and a female of the same morph. Age is the key reason for the price difference here.


----------



## Fried_frog

Which leopard gecko morph has solid black eyes?


----------



## Ssthisto

There are two that *can* have solid-coloured black eyes.

The first one is the recessive Eclipse gene; this one isn't quite so reliable as you can get animals that have "snake" eyes with some coloured iris, or even one fully dark eye and one normal-looking eye.

The second one is any animal with two copies of a mutant gene on the Mack Snow locus. I know that's a complicated way to say it, but there's at least three ways to get a "Super Snow" that has black eyes: 
Homozygous Mack Snow
Het Mack Snow, het TUG Snow
Het Mack Snow, het Gem Snow
I don't know if Het TUG, het Gem makes a Super Snow.
These will ALWAYS have solid coloured dark eyes, in both eyes, and do not have the "snake eye" effect.

You also occasionally see snake eyes (but I've never seen a pair of solid black eyes) in Blizzards; this doesn't seem to be simple to reproduce. I also noticed that with this, when I had a blazing blizzard who was heavily snake-eyed on one side (the girl in my avatar - the eye in the photo is the _less _snake-eyed side) she appeared to be blind, or nearly so, on that side.


----------



## Fried_frog

Many thanks!

When you say homozygous mack snow, do you mean i would have to breed two macks together, with no hets?


----------



## Ssthisto

Having hets doesn't matter particularly - but "homozygous Mack Snow" means that you WOULD have to breed either:

Mack Snow X Mack Snow (25% chance of solid-eyed Super Snow per egg)
Mack Snow X Super Snow (50% chance of solid-eyed Super Snow per egg)
Super Snow X Super Snow (100% chance of solid-eyed Super Snow per egg)

Having hets (particularly any strain of albino) might mean you get solid red eyes instead of solid black ones (if your super snow baby inherits two copies of the same type of albino, one from each parent).


----------



## karlos79

*het green ghost royals*

hi

im planning on breeding a spider royal and albino together next year and 100% het green ghosts together. ive got the spider albino combo down, just wondering on percentages of green ghosts produced and if the normals are het green ghost and wat percentage?

this will be my first year breeding royals so tryin to get to grips with the percentages!

cheers


----------



## Ssthisto

You'd have a 25% chance-per-egg of getting a visual ghost out of your het-ghost pairing; the normals will be 66% possible het Ghost.


----------



## karlos79

nice one, thanks
so fingers crossed i get a 1.1 pairing of green ghosts in few go!!!!!!:whistling2:


----------



## andytheanery

So if I have a pair of anerys boas 66 het for snow I got a 2/3 chance of snows or anerys?


----------



## Ssthisto

You have a 100% chance of anerys - but you don't have a guaranteed chance of snow, because there's a 66% chance that the male is het for Albino (and a 33% chance he isn't) AND there's a 66% chance that the female is het for Albino (and a 33% chance she isn't) - you need BOTH of them to be het for Albino to get any snows out.

There are four possibilities -

Your male isn't het and neither is your female
Your male is het but your female isn't
Your female is het but your male isn't
Both of them are hets.

Breed them together; if you get no snows, you'll need to test-breed each of them against an Albino to see if either of them is het for albino.


----------



## alfie01

:blush: Just wondered, when talking about Lesser Royals, are do people mean Lesser Platinums or is the Lesser Platinum a different morph?? :blush:


----------



## Ssthisto

"Lesser" is equivalent to "Lesser Platinum".

The "Platinum" part seems to be falling off nowadays, not least because of the OTHER Platinum morph (Lesser + Hidden/Mystery/Dilute/Crystal?/Special) which is called Platinum or Platty Daddy after the founding animal.


----------



## Rum_Kitty

Sorry if this has been asked before, didn't want to read the whole thread lol! 

Are ghosts and hypos the same thing? I have heard of different coloured ghosts green/orange etc. but never green hypo? Is hypo just another name for regular ghost, that isn't green or orange?

And do any of the ghost genes combine? Like would breeding two royals het for both orange and green ghost result in a combination of the two genes?


----------



## Ssthisto

If you're talking royal pythons, then yes, the word "ghost" has been used to refer to "hypomelanistic" animals. A Green Ghost / Orange Ghost / Yellow Ghost / Butterscotch Ghost are all different colour phases of hypomelanism. Some of these are compatible - they're just selectively bred lines that tend to be the colours named; some of them are not compatible and appear to be different genes entirely. Breeding the selectively bred versions of the same gene will produce more hypomelanistic "Ghosts"; breeding two different-gene versions will produce normals heterozygous for each of the two genes.

It's confusing, not least because every other commonly bred species uses "ghost" to refer to an animal that is axanthic/anerythristic AND hypomelanistic. In royals this combination is called "True Ghost"


----------



## Rum_Kitty

Thanks


----------



## Jokers

if a cornsnake is t+ what does that mean and what does it do?


----------



## Ssthisto

T+ is an essentially meaningless description. I don't think the Tyrosinase test has been done on corn snakes to establish which albino-type mutations produce tyrosinase and which ones don't.

A T+ Albino may just be an Ultramel corn snake (I'm not sure enough breeding trials have been done on it). The T+ Albinos I've seen in the flesh certainly LOOKED like Ultramel (and in the case of three of the four, also like recent-Obsoleta-heritage corn hybrids) and the description of two of the three implied that they BRED like Ultramel too.


----------



## paulh

Amelanistic corn snakes are T-negative. H. B. "Bern" Bechtel tested them some years ago.

T stands for tyrosinase. Tyrosinase catalyses the first two steps in the synthesis of melanin, the black pigment. Tyrosinase negative albino (T-neg or T-) means that the snake lacks black pigment because it cannot make tyrosinase. Tyrosinase positive albino (T-pos or T+) means that the snake lacks black pigment for some reason not connected with tyrosinase. 

There are T-neg and T-pos albino black rat snakes (also tested by Bechtel). They look alike to me -- pink eyes and slightly yellowish in color. Crossing a T-neg black rat and an amelanistic corn snake produces babies that lack black pigment. Crossing a T-pos black rat and an amelanistic corn snake produces babies that have normal black pigment.

Some people use T-positive albino loosely to mean any snake with less than the normal amount of black pigment. That would make corn snakes like ultra, lava, hypo, and others all T-positive albinos. But our best guess now is that ultra has less than normal black pigment because of an inefficient tyrosinase enzyme, while the others have less than normal black pigment for unrelated biochemical reasons. So in that sense, "T-positive albino" is an unnatural grouping.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Ssthisto

Cheers for that, Paul - didn't know that Amel corns had been tested as T- but that's good to know.

That said, have the tests been done to determine whether the many flavours of hypomelanistic-effect genes in Corns actually *are* tyrosinase positive? Theoretically speaking, would it be possible for something like an Ultramel to be T- even though they have dark pupils / sometimes greyish pigmentation?


----------



## paulh

In mice, the albino mutant is T-, and there are half a dozen mutant alleles of albino that produce varying amounts of melanin. The interpretation is that those other alleles produce different abnormal versions of tyrosinase. Each tyrosinase version can produce different amounts of melanin, but none is as effective as normal tyrosinase. And if two different mutants are in the gene pair, each one produces its own version of tyrosinase and the phenotype splits the difference.

My interpretation of ultramel is that the ultra mutant produces an abnormal tyrosinase that can produce some melanin. The amelanistic mutant produces a nonfunctional version of tyrosinase that cannot produce melanin. And ultramel splits the difference between an ultra corn snake and an amelanistic corn snake.

We can't call the ultra mutant T-negative because it can make melanin. There doesn't seem to be any term for a T-positive state that is missing on three cylinders.


----------



## negri21

leopard gecko . 

blazing blizzard (snake eyes) x diablo blanco (red eye) = ? 

cheers


----------



## Ssthisto

Blazing Blizzard is Blizzard + Albino - the snake eyes thing MIGHT be genetic, but I don't know the exact heritability, nor do I think anyone else does.

Diablo Blanco is Blizzard + Albino + Eclipse.

So you'd get Blazing Blizzards het Eclipse.


----------



## negri21

Ssthisto said:


> Blazing Blizzard is Blizzard + Albino - the snake eyes thing MIGHT be genetic, but I don't know the exact heritability, nor do I think anyone else does.
> 
> Diablo Blanco is Blizzard + Albino + Eclipse.
> 
> So you'd get Blazing Blizzards het Eclipse.




cheers,

would they have normal eyes ?


----------



## Ssthisto

I'll phrase it this way:

You can't guarantee they'll have *abnormal* eyes - because they'll only be het for Eclipse - but if some or all of the babies pick up the Blizzard-Snake-Eye trait (however it is that it's inherited) then you might get some non-normal eyes.


----------



## negri21

cheers for that .


----------



## brian_210

I wonder if anyone can help me, I have the genetics for herpers book and I'm trying to understand it all..but I do better learning in practice.

I want to know if I have a fat tailed gecko with a co-dominent (visual male) gene, and breed it to a normal fat tail female, what would the outcome be? as in..what % if any would have the visual trait, would all of them carry the gene? I really need help with this so any info would be great


----------



## Ssthisto

If your male is heterozygous for the codominant gene (he has one copy, not two) then breeding him to a normal female would produce (on average, over thousands of offspring) half non-carriers that are completely normal in appearance and genetics and half exactly like him (heterozygous carriers that show the visual trait).

If your male is homozygous for a codominant gene (he has two copies of it) then bred to a normal female he will produce ALL heterozygous-codominant offspring.

For a fictional example, imagine that "yellow AKA Super Tan" is the homozygous form of the codominant "tan" gene, and that a heterozygous-Tan is visually tan with lighter stripes in colour; a homozygous-Tan is yellow and white.

Breed a "Tan" to a normal, and you'd expect half normals and half Tans. The normals don't carry Tan - or they'd BE Tan.
Breed a "Yellow" to a normal and all the babies would come out as Tan.


----------



## brian_210

That's the best genetics answer I've ever seen! Thank You. I'm going mad trying to work this out. Can all 'recessive' type genes bring out 'hets' in the offspring? It seems strange that if you breed an albino to a normal, the 'non visual' offspring would be 'hets' but a co-dominent is either/or.

I can feel that click in the distance. It's definitely there but I can't see it yet. One day.


----------



## Ssthisto

Just keep in mind the "codominant" gene doesn't tell you whether it's het or homozygous (and neither does "dominant") - you only know how the gene behaves in the pair with that description.

An animal that is het recessive albino is also het dominant normal - it's got one copy of albino, one copy of normal-not-albino.

An animal that is het codominant Snow is also het codominant Not-Snow.


----------



## brian_210

but if it is co-dominent, whether homozygous or heterozygous will have offspring that are either visual co-dominent, or normal? So if Homozygous is shown as A+ . A+, and the normal as b. b, the babies would all be A+.b? ....but surely if heterozygous they'd still carry one of the co-dominent genes? :s..ahh I lost it again. Goodbye to sanity and the clicking of genetics.


----------



## brian_210

I got it!! I understand why the rest would be normal if the male was heterozygous. but surely only 1 in 4 would be co-dominent :S


----------



## Ssthisto

brian_210 said:


> but if it is co-dominent, whether homozygous or heterozygous will have offspring that are either visual co-dominent, or normal? So if Homozygous is shown as A+ . A+, and the normal as b. b, the babies would all be A+.b? ....but surely if heterozygous they'd still carry one of the co-dominent genes? :s..ahh I lost it again. Goodbye to sanity and the clicking of genetics.


I think you're mixing up pairs there.

Ok, say Tan (the heterozygous form of our mythical codominant gene) is expressed as *T*/T *(that's "T-Star" as the Tan gene, and "T" is the normal NOT Tan gene).

The Tan can pass on EITHER T* (Tan) or T (Not Tan) to its offspring.
A normal is *T/T* - (Not Tan / Not Tan).

Cross the two, and you have the following chances:

50% chance Normal passes on T (Not-Tan) and Tan passes on T (Not-Tan) = *T/T* Normal
50% chance Normal passes on T (Not-Tan) and Tan passes on T* (Tan) = *T*/T* Tan

But a Yellow (Homozygous Tan *T*/T**) cannot pass on a "Not-Tan" gene it doesn't have - all of its babies have to be *at least* Tan because they've inherited one copy of T* from the Yellow parent.


----------



## paulh

brian_210 said:


> Can all 'recessive' type genes bring out 'hets' in the offspring? It seems strange that if you breed an albino to a normal, the 'non visual' offspring would be 'hets' but a co-dominent is either/or.


A gene pair has two genes. All gene pairs are heterozygous or homozygous. 

The two genes in a homozygous gene pair are the same. They are two normal genes or two copies of the same mutant gene. 

The two genes in a heterozygous gene pair are not the same. They are either 
a normal gene and a recessive mutant gene OR 
a normal gene and a dominant mutant gene OR 
a normal gene and a codominant mutant gene OR 
two different mutant genes.

These are the standard genetics definitions. Due to early misunderstandings, many herpers only use "heterozygous" for a gene pair containing a normal gene and a recessive mutant gene. IMO, you and others learning genetics should use the standard genetics definitions.

IMO, the less abstraction the better. Instead of "het albino", use "normal//albino". By convention, if only one gene is listed, the other gene is understood to be the normal gene. The double slash stands for a pair of chromosomes, so "normal//albino" means a pair of chromosomes with a normal gene in one chromosome and an albino gene in the same location in the other chromosome. And "tan//normal" means a pair of chromosomes with a tan mutant gene in one chromosome and a normal gene in the other.

It also simplifies things if you write out a table with the genotype (the identities of the genes) and the associated phenotype (appearance). A Punnett square produces all the possible genotypes for the babies in a mating. Once the table is made, it is simple to plug in the phenotypes.

Genotype - phenotype
tan//tan - yellow
tan//normal - tan
normal//normal - normal

If you can do a Punnett square using normal and recessive genes, you can do a Punnett square using normal and either dominant or codominant mutant genes. The technique is the same in all cases. It's the phenotype that gets attached to the genotype that changes.

Each sperm or egg gets one member of each of the parent's gene pairs. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the gene pairs are reestablished. So a male herp with the tan//tan genotype can only produce sperm containing a tan gene. And a female herp with the normal//normal genotype can only produce eggs with a normal gene. Mate the tan//tan male to the normal//normal female, and all the babies have a tan//normal genotype. In other words, 
tan//tan mated to (= X) normal//normal -->
100% tan//normal genotype, which makes them tan phenotype

In the same way, an albino//albino male mated to a normal//normal female can only produce babies with a normal//albino genotype.
albino//albino X normal//normal -->
100% normal//albino genotype, which makes them normal phenotype


----------



## paulh

Here are genotypes for the parents and babies in six matings:
A//A X A//A --> all A//A
A//A X A//a --> 1/2 A//A, 1/2 A//a
A//A X a//a --> all A//a
A//a X A//a --> 1/4 A//A, 2/4 A//a, 1/4 a//a
A//a X a//a --> 1/2 A//a, 1/2 a//a
a//a X a//a --> all a//a

I want you to plug in the phenotypes for three different cases:
1. A is the normal gene and a is the recessive mutant gene
A//A - normal phenotype
A//a - normal phenotype
a//a - recessive mutant phenotype such as albino

2. A is the dominant mutant gene and a is the normal gene
A//A - full mutant phenotype
A//a - full mutant phenotype
a//a - normal phenotype

3. A is the codominant mutant gene and a is the normal gene. 
A//A - full or homozygous mutant phenotype
A//a - heterozygous phenotype
a//a - normal phenotype

Example using A//a X A//a --> 1/4 A//A, 2/4 A//a, 1/4 a//a

1. A = normal gene, a = recessive mutant gene:
A//a (normal phenotype) X A//a (normal phenotype) --> 
1/4 A//A (normal phenotype)
2/4 A//a (normal phenotype)
1/4 a//a (recessive mutant phenotype)

2. A = dominant mutant gene, a = normal gene
A//a (full mutant phenotype) X A//a (full mutant phenotype) --> 
1/4 A//A (full mutant phenotype)
2/4 A//a (full mutant phenotype)
1/4 a//a (normal phenotype)

3. A = codominant mutant gene, a = normal gene
A//a heterozygous phenotype) X A//a (heterozygous phenotype) --> 
1/4 A//A (full or homozygous mutant phenotype)
2/4 A//a (heterozygous phenotype)
1/4 a//a (normal phenotype)


----------



## Tricky&TheFox

argh..i'll never get my head around this


----------



## paulh

There is no denying that genetics can be confusing for a beginner. However, a lot of it is terminology and presentation that is abstract.

In essence, a lot of genetics boils down to problems like this: John has two chocolate cookies, and Mary has two vanilla cookies. John gives you one of his cookies. Mary gives you one of her cookies. What cookies do you have? 

Perhaps Charles Pritzel's little book, Genetics for Herpers, would be more helpful than this or any other web site. It's available through Amazon and other places. Or perhaps your public library has a genetics text on its shelves.


----------



## lawrencet1988

Just a thought, does anyone know if visual pied royal pythons exist in the wild?


----------



## al stotton

lawrencet1988 said:


> Just a thought, does anyone know if visual pied royal pythons exist in the wild?


Yup ,well they certainly did at one point in time,namely the 1990's.
I know personally know this for a FACT! 

I don't want to bore anyone with the lengthy story,but I saw with my own eyes two of THE very first pieds to be destined for c/b!!

AL


----------



## lawrencet1988

Thanks! :2thumb: 
I thought you would only really get hets in the wild


----------



## lewisdark86

*thanks for this was a big help understanding genes is very interesting *


----------



## cree

Is there anywhere I can find a list of cornsnake het markers?


----------



## eeji

cree said:


> Is there anywhere I can find a list of cornsnake het markers?


theres none that I know of, but thats a good idea for an addition to the guide to cornsnake morphs at Ians Vivarium


----------



## cree

It would be handy or maybe Im just lazy lol


----------



## Ant and Soph

Ok reading through it I think Im getting somewhere, But wondering if someone could correct me where im wrong before I go any further so I dont let false ideas sink in...

So the allelles need to carry a double recessive to produce a visible animal, a dominant gene automatically cancels out a recessive of the same allelle?

Co-dominant and incomplete can show visible differences with only a single recessive....Does a dominant still cancel these out too?

On a more basic note though, How do you tell what allelles carry recessive, co-dom, dominant etc? does it go the same for all of one morph or vary snake by snake


----------



## Ssthisto

Ant and Soph said:


> Ok reading through it I think Im getting somewhere, But wondering if someone could correct me where im wrong before I go any further so I dont let false ideas sink in...
> 
> So the allelles need to carry a double recessive to produce a visible animal, a dominant gene automatically cancels out a recessive of the same allelle?
> 
> Co-dominant and incomplete can show visible differences with only a single recessive....Does a dominant still cancel these out too?
> 
> On a more basic note though, How do you tell what allelles carry recessive, co-dom, dominant etc? does it go the same for all of one morph or vary snake by snake


A dominant doesn't "cancel out" a recessive exactly - it's just that if you have a copy of a recessive allele of a given gene pair paired with a copy of a dominant allele on the same pair, the dominant is what *shows* - hence why it's called dominant. Remember that "dominant" and "codominant" and "recessive" are relative - a single trait all by itself isn't dominant or recessive or anything, it's just there - but it can be dominant to *another trait* on the same gene pair (or recessive to it, or codominant with it).

If your mutant trait is recessive, yes, you have to inherit two copies of it in order for it to show (like Amel in corn snakes).

But Amelanistic - the trait - is always, always, always recessive to "not Amelanistic" in corn snakes; that trait is a recessive-to-normal trait.


----------



## Ant and Soph

Ssthisto said:


> A dominant doesn't "cancel out" a recessive exactly - it's just that if you have a copy of a recessive allele of a given gene pair paired with a copy of a dominant allele on the same pair, the dominant is what *shows* - hence why it's called dominant. Remember that "dominant" and "codominant" and "recessive" are relative - a single trait all by itself isn't dominant or recessive or anything, it's just there - but it can be dominant to *another trait* on the same gene pair (or recessive to it, or codominant with it).
> 
> If your mutant trait is recessive, yes, you have to inherit two copies of it in order for it to show (like Amel in corn snakes).
> 
> But Amelanistic - the trait - is always, always, always recessive to "not Amelanistic" in corn snakes; that trait is a recessive-to-normal trait.


I think i get it, So if the the structure of the genus was say (caps for dom lowercase recessive) RrHH it would be a normal, whereas if it were rrHh it would be amel, and rrhh would then make it a hypo amel? sorry if I got the letters for the traits wrong there at all


----------



## Ssthisto

Genus is the wrong word there (a "genus" is, for example, "Pantherophis" - the subset of snakes to which corn snakes, black rat snakes and Texas ratsnakes belong, but not European or Asian ratsnakes). Locus is the "location"; "Genotype" might be the word you're looking for, as this is "the genetic traits expressed" while "phenotype" is the visual appearance for the animal.

But yes, you've got the sort of idea - most people tend to use A / a for the amel locus, but yes, A/a H/h is Normal-looking het Hypo Amel, and you'd need two pairs of the recessive traits to get a hypo amel.


----------



## Ant and Soph

Ssthisto said:


> Genus is the wrong word there (a "genus" is, for example, "Pantherophis" - the subset of snakes to which corn snakes, black rat snakes and Texas ratsnakes belong, but not European or Asian ratsnakes). Locus is the "location"; "Genotype" might be the word you're looking for, as this is "the genetic traits expressed" while "phenotype" is the visual appearance for the animal.
> 
> But yes, you've got the sort of idea - most people tend to use A / a for the amel locus, but yes, A/a H/h is Normal-looking het Hypo Amel, and you'd need two pairs of the recessive traits to get a hypo amel.


Ah right, thanks mate you have helped me no end, I know I have a very long way to go but Iv finally got a basic grasp of how it works, Yeah think genotype was what I was looking for, however locus is easier to use. And will use A for amel in future, I imagine it would be but found a sight that seemed to use R for it, have a habit of finding out of date info.

Hate to say it but will probably have to pester you with a couple more silly questions in the future when I come have another read to get a more in depth view of how it all works


----------



## manda88

Doesn't matter, just worked out how to use the corn calculator!!


----------



## lawrencet1988

Does anyone know if a mystic potion spider has been produced?


----------



## Snow_Man_UK

Not many mystic potion combo's out there at the moment. As the more knowledgeable guys on here have not answered then I guess not. 

I have a question regarding hypo compatability. As far as I know the main "orange" lines are pretty much proven to be compatible. Also the original green line. Known exception for cross compatibility are Graziani G1, Burgundy and Citrus. Since I will be adding more ghosts to my collection I will be happy to hear the views and further knowledge of our resident experts. :2thumb:


----------



## Lisa morley

*Enigma*

I just wondered do all enigma leopards have the syndrome if not how can you tell when at a pet shop?


----------



## Tadashii

You might have already answered this somewhere in this thread; you touched on it at least, and I tried to read it all, but my brain started to overheat and threatened to explode...

I'm wondering about the three strains of albino in leos. I know the genes are different and are at different loci, so if your female is solely het for tremper albino and your male is solely het for rainwater you'll get neither. But is it possible for an animal to be heterozygous for two strains or even all three? And is it then possible for it to be homozygous for two strains or all three, even if it were impossible to tell by the appearance, or are these genes, while different, mutually exclusive?

For example, If you breed a tremper male to a rainwater female, presumably you'll have offspring that is 100% het for both, but if you then bred those offspring to each other, what would happen? In theory, both would have two genes of each strain at each locus. Would you get both traits showing their subtle differences, or would one take precedence over the other? 

Your analogy of the car being stolen, no petrol, lost keys thing kind of made sense. Were you saying that one of these abnormalities would cause the albinoism and whichever one comes "first" is the trait that will be expressed? And if so, is there an order to it? Is it known which one does come first or is takes priority over the others?

Thanks


----------



## Ssthisto

Lisa morley said:


> I just wondered do all enigma leopards have the syndrome if not how can you tell when at a pet shop?


As I understand it, all Enigma leos have the *potential* to have, or develop, the wobbling, spinning behaviour - and an animal that doesn't show it now might someday START showing it. In a pet shop I'd be watching closely how the animal moved when handled, and when first exposed to bright light.



Tadashii said:


> I'm wondering about the three strains of albino in leos. I know the genes are different and are at different loci, so if your female is solely het for tremper albino and your male is solely het for rainwater you'll get neither. But is it possible for an animal to be heterozygous for two strains or even all three? And is it then possible for it to be homozygous for two strains or all three, even if it were impossible to tell by the appearance, or are these genes, while different, mutually exclusive?


Yes, it's possible for a leo to be het for two or more strains of albino. And yes, it's ALSO possible for them to be homozygous ... what's more difficult is telling your double (or triple) homozygous from a single.



> Your analogy of the car being stolen, no petrol, lost keys thing kind of made sense. Were you saying that one of these abnormalities would cause the albinoism and whichever one comes "first" is the trait that will be expressed? And if so, is there an order to it? Is it known which one does come first or is takes priority over the others?


Ok, another analogy that might explain it better is PaulH's "assembly line" one.

Imagine that a leopard gecko is put together by an assembly line, like a car. Now, it goes through each pair of machines one by one, in a specific order (this is embryonic development!). The mutations actually "break" those machines so that they either don't work at all, work but only partway, or do something totally different to what they're meant to.

So your not-a-leopard-gecko-yet is coming up to the machines that make black pigment and tell it where to go on the gecko. Now, imagine the car assembly line here. One machine might be putting the doors on the car body, and one machine might be putting the door handles on the doors, and one machine might be putting the paint on the surface of the car _including _the doors. If the doors aren't on the car because the door-putting-on machines are broken, it doesn't matter if the door-handle machine is broken ALSO, because the doors aren't there for the handles to go onto. So the door handles won't be in the right place if they appear at all.

It's similar for the albino strains - one of the machines will "break" the process earlier in the chain than the other two, and one of the other two will break the process earlier than the last one. No, I don't know which one breaks the chain first - but whichever one breaks that chain first is likely to have the *most* effect on the visual appearance of the gecko. 

But there may well be "telltales" that there are (or aren't) other genes at work. You might find the door handles on the floor of your car with no doors, if the door-handle machine ISN'T broken. You might find paint sprayed on the inside of the car because the body-paint machine isn't broken. You might find that you get a Tremper-coloured gecko with Bell patterning, and can make an educated guess about what it is genetically, which would then need to be tested by breeding.

It's pretty difficult to tell which of the strains breaks the melanin production and deposition process first, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bell is the one that breaks it LAST, based on how dark they can be (with the idea that more of the melanin-precursor chemicals are available to show in the skin).


----------



## paulh

Ssthisto, thanks for using the assembly line analogy. It makes this addition easier.

One good thing about the assembly line analogy is that it is fairly obvious that EVERY machine in the line is required to make a normal car -- one that looks like you expect. If all the machines except one is working right, the car does not look like you expect. If one machine is set up away from the assembly line, that machine doesn't make a car at all.

It also takes ALL the genes working as expected to make a normal creature. If all the genes except one are working right, the creature does not look like you expect. FOR SIMPLICITY, geneticists ignore all the genes that are working as expected. Just like a mechanic ignores the battery on a car with a flat tire. But those genes are still there. The genetics texts seem to assume that each gene works in a vacuum, which is not true. That is a holdover from the days when we knew less than we know now. We do not know (yet) how many genes are needed to make a leopard gecko, but its pretty safe to assume many thousands.


----------



## Tadashii

Thanks to both of you clever people for putting all of this in layman's terms, or as close to as possible. Feel like I'm getting to grips with it all now, though it is making me want to do some frankenstein experiments...


----------



## yoyocrazy

*please help private mesage me*

im trying to decide on which gecko to get
1st is a *super* giant female bandit albino 6months old and she is 84 grams also she is 50 percent het tpa
2nd is a male and is also a bandit albino he is 8 months old and is 104 grams both of these are moses grandson or grandaughter ijust wana who how big both would probaly be and male or female / which gets bigger 
just reply or private message me please and thanks


----------



## Ssthisto

Yoyo, males TEND to wind up bigger than females in general - so if your goal is a big pet gecko, the boy's the more logical choice.


----------



## yoyocrazy

*hello*

can some body plese help me on deciding on which gecko to get private message me and ill tell you the breeders and the geckos and stuff someone please help me


----------



## MP reptiles

whats the difference betwwen enigma 1 copy and enigma 2 copy?


----------



## gazz

MP reptiles said:


> whats the difference betwwen enigma 1 copy and enigma 2 copy?


Visually to look at there's no differance, 
It's how they genetically works is where the differances is.

[1C]Enigma X Normal = 50%[1C]Enigma/50%Normal.

[2C]Enigma X Normal = 100%[1C]Enigma.


----------



## MP reptiles

gazz said:


> Visually to look at there's no differance,
> It's how they genetically works is where the differances is.
> 
> [1C]Enigma X Normal = 50%[1C]Enigma/50%Normal.
> 
> [2C]Enigma X Normal = 100%[1C]Enigma.


 so how do you know which is which because im buying a bell albino enigma and it doesnt say which copy and they havent replied yet?


----------



## Big Red One

MP reptiles said:


> so how do you know which is which because im buying a bell albino enigma and it doesnt say which copy and they havent replied yet?


It's most likely 1 copy(het for enigma gene). Not many people breed enigma to enigma which is what would be required to make a 2 copy (homozygous for enigma gene).
Treat it as 1 copy, if all offspring when it's bred in the future are enigma it's 2 copy, but as said that's unlikely.....


----------



## MP reptiles

Big Red One said:


> It's most likely 1 copy(het for enigma gene). Not many people breed enigma to enigma which is what would be required to make a 2 copy (homozygous for enigma gene).
> Treat it as 1 copy, if all offspring when it's bred in the future are enigma it's 2 copy, but as said that's unlikely.....


 Thanks the enigma 2 copy produces much better babies IMO


----------



## Big Red One

MP reptiles said:


> Thanks the enigma 2 copy produces much better babies IMO


Only if you want all offspring to be Enigmas, personally I don't....

Most breeders frown on enigma x enigma pairings tbh as there's increased risk
of babies suffering from Enigma syndrome. It's not something I will be doing.


----------



## MP reptiles

Big Red One said:


> Only if you want all offspring to be Enigmas, personally I don't....
> 
> Most breeders frown on enigma x enigma pairings tbh as there's increased risk
> of babies suffering from Enigma syndrome. It's not something I will be doing.


 well im setting up het babies for next year to produce raptors im gonna produce mack snow enigma het eclipse het tremper albino het bell albino


----------



## Big Red One

MP reptiles said:


> well im setting up het babies for next year to produce raptors im gonna produce mack snow enigma het eclipse het tremper albino het bell albino


Hmm.... What are you planning to breed together to get those?

Mixing albino strains is also a bit of an iffy subject, if you breed Bell and Tremper together you will create what are often refer to as genetic 'mutts' as they muddy the genetic waters.
if you have animals het for both strains of albino and breed them together you can't be sure what are being produced down the line.
Its one of the main reasons not to mix the strains tbh....


----------



## MP reptiles

Big Red One said:


> Hmm.... What are you planning to breed together to get those?
> 
> Mixing albino strains is also a bit of an iffy subject, if you breed Bell and Tremper together you will create what are often refer to as genetic 'mutts' as they muddy the genetic waters.
> if you have animals het for both strains of albino and breed them together you can't be sure what are being produced down the line.
> Its one of the main reasons not to mix the strains tbh....


 a male macksnowtremperalbino het eclipse to a female bell enigma


----------



## Big Red One

*N*



MP reptiles said:


> a male macksnowtremperalbino het eclipse to a female bell enigma


Personally, I wouldn't.....: victory:
I'd get a nice female raptor for your male and maybe a Mack snow bell for your enigma. Breeding Trempers to Bells will give you no end of grief in ID ing offspring down the line.
Most buyers won't want mixed up albino hets either if they want to use any offspring in there own breeding plans.


----------



## MP reptiles

Big Red One said:


> Personally, I wouldn't.....: victory:
> I'd get a nice female raptor for your male and maybe a Mack snow bell for your enigma. Breeding Trempers to Bells will give you no end of grief in ID ing offspring down the line.
> Most buyers won't want mixed up albino hets either if they want to use any offspring in there own breeding plans.


 i have some lovely girls but they wont be up to weight for a bit they are currently 44g and 45g i wreckon ill breed them either late april or early may to him and hopefully get some super raptors if my luck is good but i cant buy anything more atm as im getting in two proven breeders and then my £240 incubator(the juragon standard) and my new rack as well:whistling2:


----------



## MP reptiles

How much is a baby radar worth female?


----------



## Big Red One

MP reptiles said:


> i have some lovely girls but they wont be up to weight for a bit they are currently 44g and 45g i wreckon ill breed them either late april or early may to him and hopefully get some super raptors if my luck is good but i cant buy anything more atm as im getting in two proven breeders and then my £240 incubator(the juragon standard) and my new rack as well:whistling2:


So the females you already have are Mack raptors? In that case there's no need to pair your Mack Tremper to the bell is there? To produce Raptors/mackraptors and/or superraptors you already have what you need?

Or am I missing something ?


----------



## MP reptiles

Big Red One said:


> So the females you already have are Mack raptors? In that case there's no need to pair your Mack Tremper to the bell is there? To produce Raptors/mackraptors and/or superraptors you already have what you need?
> 
> Or am I missing something ?


 no it was just a question but there is a 12.5% or something of producing super raptors


----------



## xXxLynnxXx

Noob question lol
But when a breeder claims lets say 100% het albino ..is there paperwork that comes with this or is it a case of you taking his/her word for it ?

Cheers


----------



## MP reptiles

xXxLynnxXx said:


> Noob question lol
> But when a breeder claims lets say 100% het albino ..is there paperwork that comes with this or is it a case of you taking his/her word for it ?
> 
> Cheers


 sometimes but mostly taking word but you can tell visually for some morphs i cant tell the hets but more experienced can


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

Not as easy as that but still need to breed the snakes to find out for sure. 
Paperworks rather a newish thing with the public wanting to know where their snakes are from and are what the breeder is saying it is. Mainly down to all the new morphs that have come in over the past 10ish years. Some give paper work some don't. I give paperwork with mine as proof of where has come from and it is what I say it is. Ask to see the parents. May be hard at a show but some will take photos with them. If your buying a snake it may be best to go to the breeder at home


----------



## MP reptiles

animalstorey said:


> Not as easy as that but still need to breed the snakes to find out for sure.
> Paperworks rather a newish thing with the public wanting to know where their snakes are from and are what the breeder is saying it is. Mainly down to all the new morphs that have come in over the past 10ish years. Some give paper work some don't. I give paperwork with mine as proof of where has come from and it is what I say it is.


 well i was going on leopard geckos for snakes i have no idea


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

For any morph of any species a good breeder should supply some form of paperwork.


----------



## xXxLynnxXx

Thanks guys :2thumb:
Im just getting back into snakes, used to breed normal Royals but im wanting to take things a step further this time round ...still trying to grasp the whole genetics thing lol but i'll get there and when i do it will be nice to give it a go.

Cheers
Lynn


----------



## Ssthisto

xXxLynnxXx said:


> Noob question lol
> But when a breeder claims lets say 100% het albino ..is there paperwork that comes with this or is it a case of you taking his/her word for it ?


Paperwork might exist.

It's only and exactly as trustworthy as the breeder's word that the animal is 100% het albino. If you trust the breeder's word, you don't NEED paperwork unless you plan to sell the animal on... and if you don't trust the breeder, the paperwork's only worth the price of a sheet of paper.


----------



## eeji

"paperwork" is just a bit of paper anyone can knock up, so a dodgy breeder can sell you a "het albino" that isn't really with "paperwork", but it will be worthless.

reputation means a lot more than a piece of paper, and if its an animal someone themselves have bred you should be able to see the parents.


----------



## xXxLynnxXx

Yes reputation would be on my priority list before considering to purchase one , there would be nothing worse than been ripped lol


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

Yeah there are guys out there who will lie about their animals being het for this or that and a few on here go by reading threads. 
Paperwork is just a sheet of paper. Just nice to have a record of where your animal comes from, which can be passed on if required. 
By note though these breeders when selling to pet shops don't normally supply paperwork or if they do the shop doesn't pass it on.


----------



## Phil3822

What does DH and TH mean? For example DH Snow Boa? Thanks all.


----------



## paulh

Phil3822 said:


> What does DH and TH mean? For example DH Snow Boa? Thanks all.


DH or dh = double heterozygous = two gene pairs are heterozygous.
TH or th = triple heterozygous = three gene pairs are heterozygous.

All gene pairs are either homozygous or heterozygous.

Homozygous = the two genes in a given gene pair are the same. Examples: two copies of the normal gene, two copies of a mutant gene.

Heterozygous = the two genes in a given gene pair are NOT the same. Examples: a dominant mutant gene and a normal gene, a codominant mutant gene and a normal gene, a recessive mutant gene and a normal gene, two different mutant genes.

A snow boa has a pair of albino mutant genes and a pair of anerythristic mutant genes. A dh snow boa has two gene pairs of interest: an albino mutant gene paired with its corresponding normal gene and an anerythristic mutant gene paired with its corresponding normal gene. A dh snow boa looks like a normal boa. Therefore, the albino mutant gene is recessive to its corresponding normal gene, and the anerythristic mutant gene is recessive to its corresponding normal gene. By the way, the two normal genes are not the same.

Clear as mud?


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

DH is double het. Carrying two different morphs in one snake. 
And TH is triple het. (carries 3'different morphs)
Ie. Sunglows are a double het (albino and hypo) although not strictly correct as the hypo is a co-Dom morph.

Ghost is a better example (anery and hypo) and 
Snow (anery and albino) 
Or a normal het for two different morphs would be called DH.
You would say an anery snake het albino is a DH for snow etc. 
Triple het for moon glow is a snake that carries hypo/albino and anery. It would have to be a hypo (codom) het albino and get anery


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

Beet me to it Paul. Good explanation. I was trying to get something simple up quickly but I'm no good with these touch screens!


----------



## Phil3822

It pretty much makes sense although I am not sure how you get 3 or even 2 morphs/mutant genes in a snake?? I see it explained but I still dont get it yet.


----------



## Ssthisto

Phil3822 said:


> It pretty much makes sense although I am not sure how you get 3 or even 2 morphs/mutant genes in a snake?? I see it explained but I still dont get it yet.


A snake has lots and lots of gene pairs - not just one.

Think of it as a car assembly line - each snake goes through many paired machines that build it from the chemicals up. Each paired machine controls a chemical process that has an end result in anything from "normal number of eyes" to "albino skin".


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

You just adding genes in from other morphs.
So a normal carrying genes for one morph is called het for.
A normal carrying genes for 2 morphs is a double het. (I.e..normal carrying genes for anery and albino)
Or a morph carrying genes for another colour is a double het. (Ie an anery het albino) remember the anery carries the normal gene.
Triple het could be a normal snake carrying genes for three other morphs.
Or a morph (say salmon) carrying genes for two other morphs. Ie albino and anery. 
You can get even more, some corns can be het for four or five different morphs.
........
Ok u take a normal boa and cross it with an albino and the babies come out all normal het albino. 
You take a normal het albino and mate it to an anery. 
Some of the babies will be normal carrying the albino genes and now also the anery genes therefore a double het snake.
A snow boa is an anery albino or an albino anery. Therefore the combination of anery and albino in a snake I's said to be double het for snow.
Triple het works the same its a snake carrying 3 different morph outcomes that put together make a new morph.'say a jungle het albino het anery, which Is a jungle double het snow which could also be called a triple het for jungle snows.some of the boa genes don't work in a het way. Ie. Jungle/hypo/motley these are a co Dom morph. If you have a salmon and it's het for albino we call it a double het for sunglow as the salmon and albino together make sunglow(an albino hypo) it is confusing singeing to keep this very simple. It may be easier to name the snake you have seen marked as DH or TH and let someone explain those exact snakes.


----------



## eeji

animalstorey said:


> ...
> Or a morph carrying genes for another colour is a double het. (Ie an anery het albino) remember the anery carries the normal gene....


anery het albino isn't double het, just het albino cos the anery would be homozygous.


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

Sorry yes your right. Head ache and genetics don't mix well.


----------



## Phil3822

Making more sense. I was not refering to any specific snake just trying to learn more. I have read things in books and online but asking questions help as well.


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

I was trying my best to break it down as low as possible so i hope along with the others its helped in someway. Check out some good books like The 'complete' series, which are an excellent starting point. They do them on boa, python, crondo, etc. They have basic genetics expained and have good write ups and photos on up to date morphs.


----------



## bothrops

Phil3822 said:


> It pretty much makes sense although I am not sure how you get 3 or even 2 morphs/mutant genes in a snake?? I see it explained but I still dont get it yet.


 
All living things are defined by their DNA. This is the blueprint that codes for every single thing that makes them. Imagine its the complete plans for a house that includes every single detail, from the type of bricks, the electrical schematics, even the finish on the light switches and the colour of the rug in the bathroom.


Imagine this is a tiny section of a snakes DNA. Every single snake will have the same section, in the same place and will code for the same things.









This is a bog standard, normal boa constrictor

Each number represents a 'gene'. That is a section of DNA that codes for a particular characteristic. Let's say that gene 2 codes for the production of melanin (the black/dark brown pigment found in normal boas). Note that the animal has two copies of gene 2 (top and bottom). One copy was inherited from its father, the other was inherited from its mother.

The snake above has two normal versions of gene 2 and can produce melanin happily and looks normal.

Now lets say that the animal has a mutated version of one of these genes.










It now has one broken version of the 'melanin' gene and one good one. Because the two copies are different at the same place it is known as 'heterozygous'. However, because (in this particular case) the mutated (yellow) version is recessive, the brown wild type version hides the effect of the mutation and the animal can still produce melanin. The snake LOOKS normal.


Now, what if an animal gets two copies of the 'yellow' mutation?










The animal now has no working version of the 'melanin' gene and so is unable to produce melanin. This means it can not produce black/brown pigment and so looks different to normal/wild type. It is called 'albino' (technically 'amelanistic').


How does an animal carry more than one 'morph'. Well, simply because different parts code for different characters.

Lets say position 5 codes for the production of the reddy brown pigment found in boas called 'erytherin'. The same sort of thing can happen as before, only now the mutation is in a different place...










This is an albino het an*eryther*istic (heterozygous for 'no erytherin')


An animal that has two mutated genes at position 2 AND position 5 will be a 'snow' (double homozygous recessive)


----------



## bothrops

Other areas/positions will code for different things.
















OK.

If you've got all that, please note the following.


The position of any particular gene ('2' or '5') is called the *locus*. The different versions of the gene that can occupy that space ('brown-can produce melanin' or 'yellow-can't produce melanin' are called* alleles *

If the alleles at any particular locus are the same (brown/brown or yellow/yellow) the animal is *homozygous* for that trait. If they are different (brown/yellow) then the animal is said to be *heterozygous* for that trait.


Also, be aware that in the 'real world' snakes have hundred of thousands of genes, not just the nine I've illustrated here!


----------



## bothrops

Finally for tonight....


*NOTE - *Being heterozygous or homozygous has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY THE ANIMAL LOOKS. It is ONLY and ALWAYS merely a description of the genes (called the animals *genotype*)


What the animal LOOKS LIKE (known as its *phenotype*) *compared to its genotype* is what defines an particular mutation as 'recessive, co-dominant or dominant'.

So:

Lets say we have a mutation at 7. There are 3 versions that the *genotype *could be...











How each of those animals LOOKS (i.e. their *phenotype*) dictates what the mutation will be considered as.

So.

If 

Animal (1) looks normal
Animal (2) looks normal
Animal (3) looks different to normal

the mutation is called *recessive*

If

Animal (1) looks normal
Animal (2) looks different to normal
Animal (3) looks the same as animal *(2)*

the mutation is called *dominant*

If

Animal (1) looks normal
Animal (2) looks different to normal
Animal (3) looks different from *BOTH (1) AND (2)*

the mutation is called *codominant*


----------



## BenjaminBoaz

Nice one bothrops.
Did you drawn all that up or was it taken from somewhere?


----------



## paulh

bothrops said:


> Also, be aware that in the 'real world' snakes have hundred of thousands of genes, not just the nine I've illustrated here!


Humans have approximately 21000 genes, according to the Human Genome Project. Snakes probably have a fairly similar number of genes.

Humans do not have enough storage between the ears to handle even a thousand genes at the same time, even if they were all known. So for convenience, we ignore all the normal genes unless needed. When we say that an albino snake has one gene pair, we mean that the *minimum difference* between an albino snake and a normal snake is in one gene pair. All the other gene pairs in the albino contain normal genes.



bothrops said:


> If
> 
> Animal (1) looks normal
> Animal (2) looks different to normal
> Animal (3) looks different from *BOTH (2) AND (3)*
> 
> the mutation is called *codominant*


Typo in this section

If

Animal (1) looks normal
Animal (2) looks different to normal
Animal (3) looks different from *BOTH (1) AND (2)* (corrected here)

the mutation is called *codominant*[


----------



## bothrops

animalstorey said:


> Nice one bothrops.
> Did you drawn all that up or was it taken from somewhere?


 
All from scratch, off the top of my head last night. Couldn't sleep. Had paint and photobucket open and drew/uploaded as I wrote it!



paulh said:


> Humans have approximately 21000 genes, according to the Human Genome Project. Snakes probably have a fairly similar number of genes.
> 
> Humans do not have enough storage between the ears to handle even a thousand genes at the same time, even if they were all known. So for convenience, we ignore all the normal genes unless needed. When we say that an albino snake has one gene pair, we mean that the *minimum difference* between an albino snake and a normal snake is in one gene pair. All the other gene pairs in the albino contain normal genes.
> 
> I May have exagerated the number of genes :lol2::blush:
> 
> 
> Typo in this section
> 
> If
> 
> Animal (1) looks normal
> Animal (2) looks different to normal
> Animal (3) looks different from *BOTH (1) AND (2)* (corrected here)
> 
> the mutation is called *codominant*[


 
Well spotted (well it was 3 o'clock in the morning. - I'll edit it now.


----------



## manda88

Ok, the ultramel gene is confusing me...from what I understand, if you have an ultra corn and an amel corn and they breed, then you can produce ultramel babies even if there's no hets involved?
So if that's the case, then if you put an amel to an ultramel, then will you get a mixture of amels and ultramels? Or will you only get ultramels?


----------



## vetdebbie

ultra and amel exist at the same locus, so ultramel is the "het" version as you have different genes at the same locus. It is more or less the same as motley and stripe, except that motley masks stripe, but ultra and amel are equally expressed in the ultramel.

Amel to ultramel will give you both amels and ultramels.


----------



## Ssthisto

And to put it in a slightly more visual way:

A copy of Normal-not-amel-or-ultra could be written as* A*. An animal that is not carrying Amel or Ultra is *A/A*.
A copy of Amel can be written as *a*. An animal that is an Amel is* a/a*.
A copy of Ultra can be written as *au*. An animal that is an Ultra is *au/au*.
A normal-looking animal het Amel would be *A/a*.
A normal-looking animal het Ultra would be *A/au*.
And an Ultramel - which is het ultra, het amel - is* a/au*.


----------



## bothrops

manda88 said:


> Ok, the ultramel gene is confusing me...from what I understand, if you have an ultra corn and an amel corn and they breed, then you can produce ultramel babies even if there's no hets involved?
> So if that's the case, then if you put an amel to an ultramel, then will you get a mixture of amels and ultramels? Or will you only get ultramels?


 
Ultra and Amel are different mutations of the same gene (the one that codes for melanin or black pigment). The 'amel' mutation removes all melanin. The 'ultra' mutation reduces it. The normal version of the gene produces normal black pigment.


Because they are mutations of the same gene, they share the same locus and so any animal can only carry a maximum of two versions of the three genes (each different version of the gene is called an 'allele'.

With these genes, amel is recessive to normal, ultra is also recessive to normal but amel and ultra are co-dominant to each other.

Therefore the possible combinations of alleles (AKA 'genotypes') and what they look like (AKA 'phenotypes') are as follows:

Lets code the normal allele as '+'
Lets code the 'amel' allele as 'a'
Lets code the 'ultra' allele as 'u'


Remember all animals have two copies of each gene.

++ = normal
+a = normal het amel
+u = normal het ultra
aa = albino
uu = ultra
au = ultramel


Note that a visually albino animal CAN NOT be 'het ultra' and a visually ultra animal CAN NOT be 'het amel'.




So to answer you question:

amel (aa) to ultra (uu)

gives 100% ultramel (au) offspring


amel (aa) to ultramel (au)

will give 50% amels and 50% ultramels







EDIT: or what Debbie and Ssthisto said!


----------



## manda88

Thank you, guys!


----------



## negri21

royal python : 

pastel orange ghost x bumblebee (pastel spider) het ghost


----------



## bladeblaster

negri21 said:


> royal python :
> 
> pastel orange ghost x bumblebee (pastel spider) het ghost


I will refer to oroange ghost as its quicker to type :lol2:

12.5% Hypo bumblebee
12.5% bumblebee het hypo
12.5% hypo pastel
12.5% pastel het hypo
6.25% hypo spider
6.25% spider het hypo
6.25% hypo
6.25% normals het hypo
6.25% hypo killerbee
6.25% killerbee het hypo
6.25% super pastel het hypo
6.25% hypo super pastel


----------



## Kyleg21

*re corn morths*

could you tell me what i would get from a female lavender stripe het bloodred with a male bloodred stripe/mottley?????

also how do you create a lavender?

thanks


----------



## eeji

lavender stripe het bloodred x bloodred stripe/motley =

1/4 stripe het diffused lavender
1/4 motley het diffused lavender stripe
1/4 diffused motley het lavender stripe
1/4 diffused stripe het lavender

You need both parents to be either het or **** lavender to make more lavenders


----------



## Kyleg21

So the bloodred and lav off spring be normals carrying the gene? Or will some look like lavenders?. What if I put the same lave with a charcoal? 

I basically want to make more lavenders...?...


----------



## vetdebbie

Lavender is a base morph like amel or anery. In order to make more lavenders, BOTH parents have to be carrying the genes for it, either visually or as a het.


----------



## Kyleg21

*lavender*

so 2 visual lavenders would produce more lavs? what ****? thanks for your help


----------



## eeji

yes, two lavs will produce all lavender babies.

het = heterozygous (two different versions of a gene at a given locus)
**** = homozygous (two same versions of a gene at a given locus)

theres a good post on the last page that explains in more detail


----------



## Kyleg21

I need to find my self a male lavender for next year!... Stripe to as female is low stripe?..


----------



## Kyleg21

so would 2 snow corns produce all baby snows???? no normals with het?? thanks


----------



## bothrops

Kyleg21 said:


> so would 2 snow corns produce all baby snows???? no normals with het?? thanks


Yes.

With a recessive morph (such as almost all corn mutations), if you bred a visual animal to a visual animal, all the offspring will also be visual for that trait.

That holds true even if other mutations are involved in the mating.

snow x snow = 100% snow

snow x amel = 100% amel (both parents are visual amel) het anery (snow is also visual anery)


----------



## South West Regius

*Royal Pythons*

I put this question to 'World of Ball Pythons' recently and they havent got back to me on it...

I understand genetics quite well maybe not as knowledgeable as some but I can definately hold my own in a conversation or debate. Basic genetics teach us to use punnet charts as a simple method to establish the possible outcomes of a bred pairing. But what I have found through 'World of Ball Pythons' genetic wizard is that a punnet chart only gives you half a story when you are using a breeding pair with double (+) genes. 

For instance using a Butter pastel (Co-dominant) bred with a Firefly (Co-dominant) on a punnet chart it will tell you that out of 4 eggs you should recieve the following...

1x Butter Fire 
1x Firefly
1x Butter Pastel
1x Super Pastel

So all of the above have a 1 in 4 chance. But the 'World of Ball Pythons' genetic wizard tell me that there are different possibilies I know they are right (They've been operating and collecting info for years) but I want to know how they have achieved the following results...

1/16th Normal
2/16th Pastel
1/16th Fire
2/16th Firefly
1/16th Super Pastel
1/16th Superfly
1/16th Butter
2/16th Butter Pastel
1/16th Butter Fire
2/16th Butter Fly
1/16th Butter Super Pastel
1/16th Nuclear Super Fly

To get this info ^^ they must use a more advance calculation and iv been itching to learn how!

Any help :lol2:


----------



## paulh

South West Regius said:


> I put this question to 'World of Ball Pythons' recently and they havent got back to me on it...
> 
> I understand genetics quite well maybe not as knowledgeable as some but I can definately hold my own in a conversation or debate. Basic genetics teach us to use punnet charts as a simple method to establish the possible outcomes of a bred pairing. But what I have found through 'World of Ball Pythons' genetic wizard is that a punnet chart only gives you half a story when you are using a breeding pair with double (+) genes.
> 
> For instance using a Butter pastel (Co-dominant) bred with a Firefly (Co-dominant) on a punnet chart it will tell you that out of 4 eggs you should recieve the following...
> 
> 1x Butter Fire
> 1x Firefly
> 1x Butter Pastel
> 1x Super Pastel
> 
> So all of the above have a 1 in 4 chance.


This is correct if the two snakes have only one gene pair of interest.

firefly gene pair #1: fire gene and pastel gene
butter pastel gene pair #1 = butter gene and pastel gene

But there are actually three gene pairs, rather than one gene pair.



South West Regius said:


> But the 'World of Ball Pythons' genetic wizard tell me that there are different possibilies I know they are right (They've been operating and collecting info for years) but I want to know how they have achieved the following results...
> 
> 1/16th Normal
> 2/16th Pastel
> 1/16th Fire
> 2/16th Firefly
> 1/16th Super Pastel
> 1/16th Superfly
> 1/16th Butter
> 2/16th Butter Pastel
> 1/16th Butter Fire
> 2/16th Butter Fly
> 1/16th Butter Super Pastel
> 1/16th Nuclear Super Fly
> 
> To get this info ^^ they must use a more advance calculation and iv been itching to learn how!
> 
> Any help :lol2:


The firefly x butter pastel mating problem requires using three gene pairs in each snake.

firefly gene pair #1 = fire mutant gene and normal gene
firefly gene pair #2 = two normal genes
firefly gene pair #3 = pastel mutant gene and normal gene

butter pastel gene pair #1 = two normal genes
butter pastel gene pair #2 = butter mutant gene and normal gene
butter pastel gene pair #3 = pastel mutant gene and normal gene

The normal genes are just as important as the mutant genes when working out a mating problem. Unfortunately, the World of Ball Pythons only lists mutant genes in the morph listings instead of gene pairs.


----------



## bothrops

South West Regius said:


> For instance using a Butter pastel (Co-dominant) bred with a Firefly (Co-dominant) on a punnet chart it will tell you that out of 4 eggs you should recieve the following...
> 
> 1x Butter Fire
> 1x Firefly
> 1x Butter Pastel
> 1x Super Pastel



No you shouldn't. You've made an error with your Punnett square here.




South West Regius said:


> I know they are right (They've been operating and collecting info for years)


That's not actually true. They actually appear to have an erroneous idea of what a dominant gene actually means.



Anyway, back to the question at hand...

Three gene pairs in play here, pastel, fire and butter.


Let’s code them pastel (P), Fire (F) and Butter (B). As these are all codominant genes it doesn't make sense to code the normal version of each gene as capital or lower case letter so we'll use '+' for this. 
This however gives a problem because the normal pastel gene (+) can't be distinguished from a normal butter gene (+), so I will do it on word and post it as a pic so I can use superscript and draw your punnett:






















I'll let you work out the 'combo names' for super pastel butter fire etc, as I have no idea past firefly!



Hope that helps you see where you went wrong in your initial Punnett square. Any questions, just ask!


----------



## South West Regius

*Genetic Wizards!*

Thanks guys you absolute legends!

I understand where I went wrong completely I did have a slight incline that I was missing the normal genes out of the mix but had no idea what was truth or how to apply it. 

Thanks a lot for all your time it is greatly appreciated! I think from now on Il be making my own punnet squares to find out truth from fiction  sound as a pound!

*** Business before pleasure/Pleasure before business? ***


----------



## kaleigh

I have a female rainwater blazing blizzard and I am confused about the genetics..I have seen ads for Blazing blizzards but how is my rainwater different to them?
Got told not to mix albino morphs because it will produce double hets, and will be hard to tell what morph the hatchlings would be. Any advice also on what i should breed with my blizzard to produce nice babies? Worried that I won't be able to tell what they are :/ hets are such a headache!


----------



## Big Red One

kaleigh said:


> I have a female rainwater blazing blizzard and I am confused about the genetics..I have seen ads for Blazing blizzards but how is my rainwater different to them?
> Got told not to mix albino morphs because it will produce double hets, and will be hard to tell what morph the hatchlings would be. Any advice also on what i should breed with my blizzard to produce nice babies? Worried that I won't be able to tell what they are :/ hets are such a headache!


What's confusing you ?

You have an albino blizzard, 'strain' rainwater (1 of 3 known albino strains).
'Blazing' simply means albino, so blazing blizzards are albino blizzards. Most are Tremper, certainly in the UK.

You 'shouldn't' mix the albino strains as it can really cock up the albino lines if people want clean lines. As for what to breed to get 'nice babies', that's entirely subjective, depends what you see as nice.

To produce anything visually different to a normal leopard gecko you need to breed to something at least 'het rainwater' to get a chance of visual rainwater albinos, same for blizzards - you'll need at least het blizzard.
Again though, if you plan to breed to a blizzard you should really make sure that there is no Tremper albino in the blizzard. That can be tricky unless you are 100 percent certain it is albino het free or rainwater only.

Then you have dominant or co dominant genes like W&Y, enigma, Mack snow etc. 

Have a look into genetics a little more and then decide what you'd like to produce and source the relevant match....


----------

