# double triple genetics



## firebelliedfreak (Nov 3, 2008)

can someone clear these up for me
i.e. double co-dom doulble recessive and double dominant and in triples please


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

firebelliedfreak said:


> can someone clear these up for me
> i.e. double co-dom doulble recessive and double dominant and in triples please


I'm not sure what the question is?


----------



## markhill (Sep 22, 2006)

firebelliedfreak said:


> can someone clear these up for me
> i.e. double co-dom doulble recessive and double dominant and in triples please


Just means there is more than one gene in the snake

ie: Bumblebee= Double Co-dom, Spider x Pastel

Bumblebelly=Triple co-dom, Spider x Pastel x yellowbelly

Albino Clown= Double recessive, Albino x Clown 

Think that helps?


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

firebelliedfreak said:


> can someone clear these up for me
> i.e. double co-dom doulble recessive and double dominant and in triples please


Double Codom.
Giant Super snow.

Double Recessive.
Talbino blizzard.

Double Dominant.
Hypo enigma.

And in triples.

Triple Recessive.
Talbino blizzard patternless.

Triple Dominant.
Hypo snow enigma

Is that what you mean ????.

*Just seen your talking Royals, I'll leave it to some one that does Royals.*


----------



## alan1 (Nov 11, 2008)

gazz said:


> *Just seen your talking Royals, I'll leave it to some one that does Royals.*


OP could be talking about goldfish - cant see any clues anywhere...

* goes to find a goldfish expert*


----------



## markhill (Sep 22, 2006)

alan1 said:


> OP could be talking about goldfish - cant see any clues anywhere...
> 
> * goes to find a goldfish expert*


I wasn't sure, I just used royals cos I know a little bit about them


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

markhill said:


> Just means there is more than one gene in the snake
> 
> ie: Bumblebee= Double Co-dom, Spider x Pastel
> 
> ...



Isn't Spider thought to be dominant & not Co-dom as so far no Super form has been found?


----------



## bladeblaster (Sep 30, 2008)

corny girl said:


> Isn't Spider thought to be dominant & not Co-dom as so far no Super form has been found?


no super form has sucessfuly hatched


----------



## markhill (Sep 22, 2006)

corny girl said:


> Isn't Spider thought to be dominant & not Co-dom as so far no Super form has been found?


dont you start:whip:, 
as I just explained to Alan it was a beer induced late night slip:blush:


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

firebelliedfreak said:


> can someone clear these up for me
> i.e. double co-dom doulble recessive and double dominant and in triples please


Here's an answer to the questions I think you are asking. 

There are two genes in a gene pair. The normal or wild type gene is the most common gene in the wild at each gene location in the cell chromosomes. There are many thousands of gene locations, but we ignore all but the ones that do not contain normal genes.

Two genes (A and a) make three gene pairs, AA, Aa, aa. By the way, I am using A and a like unknowns in algebra. They can be defined however you wish, as long as they are potential members of the same gene pair.

If A is dominant to a, then the AA and Aa animals look alike, and neither looks like the aa animals. Three pairs of genes that produce two appearances.

If a is recessive to A, then the AA and Aa animals look alike, and neither looks like the aa animals. Three pairs of genes that produce two appearances.

If A is codominant to a, then the AA animals have one appearance, the Aa animals have a second appearance, and the aa animals have a third appearance. In other words, you can look at the animals and tell what the genes are. Three pairs of genes that produce THREE appearances. Tiger in the reticulated python and lesser platinum in the royal python are codominant to their respective normal genes.

You can always or almost always tell the heterozygous animals when the gene pair contains a codominant mutant gene and a normal gene.

Dominant and recessive mutant genes always or almost always require a breeding test to identify the heterozygous animals.

Double means that there are two gene pairs. Triple means three gene pairs.

Double recessive means that there are two gene pairs. And each gene pair has two copies of a mutant gene that is recessive to the normal gene. Example: A royal python with a pair of albino mutant genes and a pair of pied (AKA piebald) mutant genes is both albino and pied.

Triple recessive means that there are three gene pairs. And each gene pair has two copies of a recessive mutant gene.

When a herper says double codominant, he means two gene pairs. Each pair contains a codominant mutant gene paired with a normal gene. This is incorrect useage. In standard genetics terminology, this would be two gene pairs that are heterozygous for codominant mutant genes.

When a herper says triple codominant, he means three gene pairs. Each pair contains a codominant mutant gene paired with a normal gene.

When a herper says double dominant, he means two gene pairs. Each pair contains two copies of a codominant mutant gene. This is incorrect useage. In standard genetics terminology, this would be two gene pairs that are homozygous for codominant mutant genes.

When a herper says triple dominant, he means three gene pairs. Each pair contains two copies of a codominant mutant gene.


----------



## firebelliedfreak (Nov 3, 2008)

alan1 said:


> OP could be talking about goldfish - cant see any clues anywhere...
> 
> * goes to find a goldfish expert*


 its all generic
royals, corns even goldfish


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

Is that like a thank-you to all the people who have answered your question?


----------



## firebelliedfreak (Nov 3, 2008)

Blackecho said:


> Is that like a thank-you to all the people who have answered your question?


 no not yet i was waiting for more replies lol
just making sure you understand
but thanks anyway


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

firebelliedfreak said:


> its all generic
> royals, corns even goldfish


In that case, you should buy a copy of Schaum's Introduction to Genetics, written by Elron and Stansfield. I like the problem-oriented format. It's paperback, in fourth edition now, and used copies in good condition cost less than USA $10.

Pritzel's Genetics for herpers is good, too, but it sounds like you would benefit more from something more generic.

If cost is a major factor, Punett's 1911 text, Mendelism, is on the Project Gutenberg web site.


----------

