# leo genetics.....again



## dazdaraz (Feb 23, 2008)

hi there


if breeding a super hypo carrot tail to a sunglow would the outcome be all hypo with some degree of tangerine influence?


thnks in advance

daz


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

dazdaraz said:


> hi there
> 
> 
> if breeding a super hypo carrot tail to a sunglow would the outcome be all hypo with some degree of tangerine influence?
> ...


It would depend what the genetics of each were ie whether both were 1 or 2 copy Hypo.

If both are 1 copy then 50% Hypo het Albino and 50% Normal het Albino
If one is 1 copy and the other 2 copy or both are 2 copy then they will all be Hypo het Albino.
As you say some will be influenced by Tangerine or Carrot tail.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

sam12345 said:


> It would depend what the genetics of each were ie whether both were 1 or 2 copy Hypo.
> 
> If both are 1 copy then 50% Hypo het Albino and 50% Normal het Albino


If both are one-copy hypo, you'd get 25% normal, 50% single-copy Hypo and 25% double-copy hypo...


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> If both are one-copy hypo, you'd get 25% normal, 50% single-copy Hypo and 25% double-copy hypo...


Oops :blush:
Thats what work on a Sunday does to you!
And also 1 copy x 2 copies will give 50% 1copy and 50% 2 copy


----------



## Tempestas (Nov 25, 2009)

sam12345 said:


> It would depend what the genetics of each were ie whether both were 1 or 2 copy Hypo.
> 
> If both are 1 copy then 50% Hypo het Albino and 50% Normal het Albino
> If one is 1 copy and the other 2 copy or both are 2 copy then they will all be Hypo het Albino.
> As you say some will be influenced by Tangerine or Carrot tail.





Ssthisto said:


> If both are one-copy hypo, you'd get 25% normal, 50% single-copy Hypo and 25% double-copy hypo...



I'd place a bet of 50p that all off spring end up being hypo or super hypo with no normals but all will be het albino. 

Afterall a Super Hypo is a double copy ( giving you Hypo off spring when bred to a Normal ) A sunglow ( technically known as a super hypo albino hence the Hybino's being single copy of hypo ) So a Super Hypo X Super Hypo Albino AKA Sunglow would create in theory all Super Hypo's het Albino. 

Instead of using double copy one copy this copy and that copy how about saying you put this with that you get this that way newbies won't feel confused about what a double copy this and a single copy that is. Get where I'm coming from  Instead of making it more complex than it actually is.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

It seems Hypo is not codominant though, too many breedings of Super hypos to normals giving super hypos, hypos and normals.
I believe Hypo to be dominant, with the Super hypo being a polygenic reduction of spots.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

[1C]Super hypo X [1C]Albino super hypo tangerine = .

Normal HET Albino.
[1C]Hypo HET Albino.
[2C]Hypo HET Albino.

A percent of Hypo offspring will likly mature into Super hypo.
A percent of offspring will likly be influanced by Tangerine.
----------
[2C]Super hypo X [1C]Albino super hypo tangerine = .

[1C]Hypo HET Albino.
[2C]Hypo HET Albino.

A percent of Hypo offspring will likly mature into Super hypo.
A percent of offspring will likly be influanced by Tangerine.
----------
[2C]Super hypo X [2C]Albino super hypo tangerine = .

[2C]Hypo HET Albino.

A percent of Hypo offspring will likly mature into Super hypo.
A percent of offspring will likly be influanced by Tangerine.


----------



## Tempestas (Nov 25, 2009)

MrMike said:


> It seems Hypo is not codominant though, too many breedings of Super hypos to normals giving super hypos, hypos and normals.
> I believe Hypo to be dominant, with the Super hypo being a polygenic reduction of spots.


It seems Hypo and Super Hypo are two different genetics considering I have bred a fair few of them in my years, Hypo's started off being line bred which then proved to be co-dominate and the Super Hypo ended up being the Super form of Hypo. 

With genetics it doesn't matter if this is a super form or that is a super form you will always have the chance of getting a normal unless you bred super X super and even then you could have a chance of hitting a normal ( Granted the chances would be extremely slim but it can happen ) 

I have seen your classified advert of your young and your calling them Hypo's yet they look like tangerines with far too many spots.


----------



## mcdougle (Jan 20, 2009)

is there a form of super mac snow?


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

Tempestas said:


> I have seen your classified advert of your young and your calling them Hypo's yet they look like tangerines with far too many spots.


As far as I'm aware, it isn't the number of spots but the placement of them.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

mcdougle said:


> is there a form of super mac snow?


Super mack snow is a homozygous Mack snow. Meaning it carries two copies of the mack snow gene.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Tempestas said:


> I'd place a bet of 50p that all off spring end up being hypo or super hypo with no normals but all will be het albino.
> 
> Afterall a Super Hypo is a double copy ( giving you Hypo off spring when bred to a Normal ) A sunglow ( technically known as a super hypo albino hence the Hybino's being single copy of hypo ) So a Super Hypo X Super Hypo Albino AKA Sunglow would create in theory all Super Hypo's het Albino.
> 
> Instead of using double copy one copy this copy and that copy how about saying you put this with that you get this that way newbies won't feel confused about what a double copy this and a single copy that is. Get where I'm coming from  Instead of making it more complex than it actually is.


Thing is Hypo* is't* Codominant, So all that you just wrote is wrong for hypo in leo's :Na_Na_Na_Na:. Super hypo can be a [2C] leo, 
But Super hypo can also be a [1C] leo as well. Coz Hypo is a Dominant trait, And Super in Hypo is a Polygenic trait.


----------



## Tempestas (Nov 25, 2009)

gazz said:


> Thing is Hypo* is't* Codominant, So all that you just wrote is wrong for hypo in leo's :Na_Na_Na_Na:. Super hypo can be a [2C] leo,
> But Super hypo can also be a [1C] leo as well. Coz Hypo is a Dominant trait, And Super in Hypo is a Polygenic trait.


Thing is Gazz  Hypo back when I was breeding was indeed classified as Co-Dominant there wasn't any of this Polygenic it was Het and Codom and Dominant and it was so much simpler to explain. 

You state that Hypo is a dominant trait but when putting a hypo to a normal you get a percentage of normal and hypo offspring so therefore is co-dom to a normal but yet you get a super hypo put that to a normal and you will result in getting Hypo offspring and the odd normal hence making the Super Hypo a dominant form of Hypo. In your terms  1 copy = co-dom 2 copy = dom/super form. 

Now if you have some solid evidence stating that Super Hypo's are Polygenic traits I would be interested in viewing it.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Tempestas said:


> yet you get a super hypo put that to a normal and you will result in getting Hypo offspring and the odd normal hence making the Super Hypo a dominant form of Hypo


If you *ever* get a normal from a Super Hypo parent bred to a Normal, it proves that Super Hypo animal *isn't* homozygous for a codominant trait.

If Super Hypo is by definition a homozygous Hypo animal, it can ONLY pass a copy of Hypo to every single offspring - and if Hypo is codominant, every offspring will be visually hypo. you breed it to a normal, you should never get normals (not carrying hypo) or super hypos (carrying two copies).

The breeding results don't bear this theory out - you can breed a hypo to a normal and get supers with no spotting between shoulder and hip; you can breed a super to a normal and get normals.

Hypo being dominant (so that you only need one copy to be visually a hypo) with some "modifier genes" that tag along with it and can make a hypo (single OR double copy) into a Super Hypo ... that is more like what the breeding results show.


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

Tempestas said:


> unless you bred super X super and even then you could have a chance of hitting a normal ( Granted the chances would be extremely slim but it can happen ) .


 
how can you get normals out of 2 supers?

supers are 2 copy, so if both parents are 2 copy where are they dissapearing to to give normals?


----------



## Tempestas (Nov 25, 2009)

Ssthisto said:


> If you *ever* get a normal from a Super Hypo parent bred to a Normal, it proves that Super Hypo animal *isn't* homozygous for a codominant trait.
> 
> If Super Hypo is by definition a homozygous Hypo animal, it can ONLY pass a copy of Hypo to every single offspring - and if Hypo is codominant, every offspring will be visually hypo. you breed it to a normal, you should never get normals (not carrying hypo) or super hypos (carrying two copies).
> 
> ...


Just because something is a super form doesn't always mean it can't produce normals there is always a small percentage of that chance. You say if Hypo is co-dom then every offspring will be Hypo yet co-dom morphs produce both normals and in this instance Hypo. If breeding tests have been carried out with this morph then I would be interested in seeing the results or is it based on percentages of what others have hatched out and it's just based on hearsay. 

When I used to breed hypos and super hypos I got normals and hypos from Hypo breeding but from Supers to normals I got Hypos and from Super X Hypo I got Supers and Hypos and Super X Super I got all Supers yet your saying that it is not possible. Yet putting a Hypo to a normal you will always get the chance of getting normals no matter what if it was dominant then you would get all Hypos so explain normal off spring in hypo breedings. 

Someone in America bred two super forms to each other and ended up with a clutch of normals and one co-dom the chances are untrue but it does happen nothing is ever set in stone except one thing death.



pigglywiggly said:


> how can you get normals out of 2 supers?
> 
> supers are 2 copy, so if both parents are 2 copy where are they dissapearing to to give normals?



Anything is possible in the genetic world nothing is set in stone at the end of the day all the morphs are just colour mutations and they all resort back to their "Normal" form being the wild type aka Normal in one way shape or form. You have co-dom morphs which will always throw a percentage of normals and co-doms, Never think that because it's highly unlikely to happen that it won't.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Tempestas said:


> Thing is Gazz  Hypo back when I was breeding was indeed classified as Co-Dominant there wasn't any of this Polygenic it was Het and Codom and Dominant and it was so much simpler to explain.
> 
> You state that Hypo is a dominant trait but when putting a hypo to a normal you get a percentage of normal and hypo offspring so therefore is co-dom to a normal but yet you get a super hypo put that to a normal and you will result in getting Hypo offspring and the odd normal hence making the Super Hypo a dominant form of Hypo. In your terms  1 copy = co-dom 2 copy = dom/super form.
> 
> Now if you have some solid evidence stating that Super Hypo's are Polygenic traits I would be interested in viewing it.


Super hypo's are not Polygenic, Super hypo are Dominant AND Polygenic.

We know Hypo is't codominant coz people have bred Super hypo to normals and got a mix of Hypo and Normal offspring.
And sometimes the Hypo's matured they developed into Super hypo.

If Hypo was Codominant, It would be as cut and dry as Super hypo X Normal = 100%Hypo SPLIT Super hypo, 
And that simply not the case.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Tempestas said:


> Just because something is a super form doesn't always mean it can't produce normals there is always a small percentage of that chance.


If "Super" for a given trait is the *homozygous *form of a codominant gene, it is physically impossible to produce normals with it.

If a gene *X* is codominant, there are three visual outcomes:
Homozygous non-carrier: normal, genotype *xx*
Heterozygous carrier: Visual Appearance 1, genotype *Xx*
Homozygous carrier: Visual Appearance 2, genotype *XX*

A homozygous "Super X" does not have an *x* to give ANY offspring (it's only got *X*) and therefore all of its offspring must at least be heterozygous for *X* - they'll be *Xx* at a minimum.



> When I used to breed hypos and super hypos I got normals and hypos from Hypo breeding but from Supers to normals I got Hypos and from Super X Hypo I got Supers and Hypos and Super X Super I got all Supers yet your saying that it is not possible.


No, what I said is that if you pair a Super to a Normal and EVER get a normal, you've proven that your "Super" is not homozygous. *XX* to *xx* _cannot _make *xx*. It can only make *Xx*. 



> Someone in America bred two super forms to each other and ended up with a clutch of normals and one co-dom the chances are untrue but it does happen nothing is ever set in stone except one thing death.


That clutch proves that both Super Hypos were *Xx* (not homozygous for hypo) - and that they hit phenomenally bad odds and got mostly *xx* offspring with one *Xx*.

Homozygous codominant by definition cannot throw normal-looking offspring.
Heterozygous _dominant _can - and if Super Hypo is the result of a combination set of traits (Like RAPTOR is - I hate people saying "het RAPTOR") then you could get PART of the combination in the breeding, but not all of it.


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

pigglywiggly said:


> how can you get normals out of 2 supers?
> 
> supers are 2 copy, so if both parents are 2 copy where are they dissapearing to to give normals?


Ideally, the only criterion for a super would be to have two copies of a mutant gene.

The way it was explained to me was that super hypo leopard geckos have two criteria:
1. The gecko has fewer than a given number of spots on the body. (I don't remember the number, sorry.)
2. The gecko has a gene pair with two copies of the hypo mutant gene.

Some hypos have few enough spots to qualify as a super hypo under criterion 1. But they have a hypo mutant gene paired with a normal gene so do not qualify as a super hypo under criterion 2. Pairing two of these "supers" together can give some normals among their babies.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

paulh said:


> Ideally, the only criterion for a super would be to have two copies of a mutant gene.
> 
> The way it was explained to me was that super hypo leopard geckos have two criteria:
> 1. The gecko has fewer than a given number of spots on the body. (I don't remember the number, sorry.)
> ...


My understanding is that a 'Super' Hypo is classed as such as it has 'NO' spots on it's body. I also understood it to be that '1 Copy' Super Hypo's would produce a mix of Super/Hypo/Normal offfspring due to the genetic 50/50 chance giving Hypo or Normal, with some going Super Hypo due to the line bred element. In that case I understood '2 copy' Super Hypos would not produce normal offspring, but all Hypo, with Super Hypo if the line bred element carried through....
Iif Hypo was co-dominant then only a 2 Copy Hypo would produce no normals (as in Super Mack snow(2 Copy Mack Snow) to normal produces all Mack Snow (1 Copy Mack Snow)), I think the thing is there a very few 'proven' 2 Copy Super Hypo's around, which is somewhat muddying the waters on this one.


----------

