# arabesque boas



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

i keep on reading this is a codom morph, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of differences between het and ****......

can anyone shed any light?


----------



## carisma02uk (Sep 14, 2006)

no **** proven out ever, its belived to be weak strain so arab x arab breeding generally results in 25-50% slugs...

Jon


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

The simple answer is "Because some people can't comprehend that a mutant morph can be dominant to wildtype, so they call it 'codominant' instead."

Same with Salmon. SOME homozygous Salmons are visually distinguishable from their heterozygous siblings. But the proof has never been there that it's specifically because they are homozygous Salmon that they look different - especially since many "super" Salmons do not look different. Therefore, Salmon is more likely a dominant gene, not a codominant one.


----------



## lukendaniel (Jan 10, 2007)

arab are a dominant (no visual difference between het and ****)
salmon are a incomplete dominant (visual difference between het and **** but ot always hence incomplete)
motley co dominant( clear difference between het and ****)


luke


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

thanks for your replies everyone 

if arab is dominant, then normal x arab would produce 100% arab?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

No, because that's not what "dominant" means.

Dominant means only and exactly that a homozygous animal looks exactly like a heterozygous animal, and that this appearance is distinctive from a non-carrier.

Normal X homozygous Arabesque certainly would equal 100% heterozygous Arabesques.

Normal X heterozygous Arabesque would produce some normals and some heterozygous Arabesques.


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

:blush: my bad! i meant 100% phenotypically arab, not 100% **** arab.

the 100% phenotype arabs would be a mix of hets and homos with no way to tell visually


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Not if you cross an Arabesque to a Normal it wouldn't give you ANY homozygous.

Think of it like any other gene... except that in this case Q is for Arabesque and q is for normal-not-Arabesque.

Cross a qq animal (visual normal) to a QQ animal (visual arabesque) and you'll get all Qq - they're all HET Arabesque, but it just happens that a het arabesque looks exactly like a homozygous one.

Cross a qq animal to a Qq animal, and you'll get some qq normals and some Qq Arabesques.

And cross a Qq to another Qq, you get some normals, some heterozygous Arabesques and some homozygous Arabesques... but all the ARABESQUES are the "66% het" animals, because there's a two in three chance they're only heterozygous for the gene.


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

d'oh!! blonde moment, i should have known that! thanks


----------

