# Co-Dom Snows...plant pot time.



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Right, everyone is entitled to look like a plant pot from time to time so I guess it`s my turn! 

The Q is - I totally understand the genetics behind all the Snows etc ... as much as one can at the mo` anyway.... but I`ve never been able to get a grip on the definition of a `Co-dom` Snow. Obviously Macks are co-dom, but why, when they are seen for sale, do you see Macks advertised for sale, and then a seperate section of `co-dom` Snows??? Aren`t co-dom Snows just Mack Snows? 

...or, thinking about it, does it refer to a Snow that was made from crossing 2 different `types` of Snow eg Mack X Tug, and therefor the resulting baby is almost impossible to identify as either - so is just classed as a co-dom (either or)???

If there`s an inherently simple answer, then just put it down to it being very hot `up North` :whistling2:


----------



## forgottenEntity (Sep 7, 2008)

funky1 said:


> Obviously Macks are co-dom, but why, when they are seen for sale, do you see Macks advertised for sale, and then a seperate section of `co-dom` Snows??? Aren`t co-dom Snows just Mack Snows?


Yep...



> ...or, thinking about it, does it refer to a Snow that was made from crossing 2 different `types` of Snow eg Mack X Tug, and therefor the resulting baby is almost impossible to identify as either - so is just classed as a co-dom (either or)???


Mack x TUG complicates things because TUG doesn't behave in a co-dom fashion BUT... crossing a Mack to a Tug can produce you a Supersnow, as per a **** mack snow would be  That's assuming you get the co-dom Mack gene through from the one parent and the TUG gene through from the other. If you only get the one, you're going to get a baby that will be whatever the gene was it did inherit - mack or tug... if that makes sense?


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

funky1 said:


> Right, everyone is entitled to look like a plant pot from time to time so I guess it`s my turn!
> 
> The Q is - I totally understand the genetics behind all the Snows etc ... as much as one can at the mo` anyway.... but I`ve never been able to get a grip on the definition of a `Co-dom` Snow. Obviously Macks are co-dom, but why, when they are seen for sale, do you see Macks advertised for sale, and then a seperate section of `co-dom` Snows??? Aren`t co-dom Snows just Mack Snows?
> 
> ...


The only people I have seen calling their snows "co-dom snows" are JMG. They are Mack snows as far as I am aware, just JMG (presumably) trying to distinguish the lines deveoped by them.

I'm not sure what people would call heterozygous snow from a Mack x TUG, because calling co-dom could still be wrong.


----------



## forgottenEntity (Sep 7, 2008)

MrMike said:


> I'm not sure what people would call heterozygous snow from a Mack x TUG, because calling co-dom could still be wrong.


Isn't it the case that it can only inherit the mack gene or the TUG gene to be hetro... so it's either going to be a Mack or TUG... which tend to be very easy to tell apart visually.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

forgottenEntity said:


> Isn't it the case that it can only inherit the mack gene or the TUG gene to be hetro... so it's either going to be a Mack or TUG... which tend to be very easy to tell apart visually.


Aye, if you have a Mack x het TUG:
25% Supersnow
25% Mack snow
25% TUG snow
25% Normal

I personally would find it very difficult to tell the difference between a Mack and a TUG when side by side. Unless there are some tricks I am missing?


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> I personally would find it very difficult to tell the difference between a Mack and a TUG when side by side. Unless there are some tricks I am missing?


lol I would have said that given how 'normal' a lot of MS's are now that that would be one way of telling the difference


----------



## forgottenEntity (Sep 7, 2008)

MrMike said:


> I personally would find it very difficult to tell the difference between a Mack and a TUG when side by side. Unless there are some tricks I am missing?


Quite a lot of Macks tend to be a mile from black/white... which tends to make it easier. Some are so yellow you can quite easily mistake them for normals. TUGs tend to be much more black/white than Macks do.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> lol I would have said that given how 'normal' a lot of MS's are now that that would be one way of telling the difference





forgottenEntity said:


> Quite a lot of Macks tend to be a mile from black/white... which tends to make it easier. Some are so yellow you can quite easily mistake them for normals. TUGs tend to be much more black/white than Macks do.


True, that tends to be through selective breeding on TUGs part. However, if you had a white TUG and crossed it to a Yellow Mack, chances are you are going to see the yellow come through on the TUG, and any Mack offspring will probably be lighter than the Mack parent.


----------



## forgottenEntity (Sep 7, 2008)

MrMike said:


> True, that tends to be through selective breeding on TUGs part. However, if you had a white TUG and crossed it to a Yellow Mack, chances are you are going to see the yellow come through on the TUG, and any Mack offspring will probably be lighter than the Mack parent.


Ah.... hadn't really thought of that. :blush:

Guess you would have to prove out by breeding then if there was doubt.

Although (this coming from a bloke who's never played about with TUG snows yet... so, if it's rubbish, fair enough...)

The wiki states...

"Stewart believes his snows are axanthic, a genetic trait where little to no yellow is produced."

No idea whether or not that trait would behave as recessive or dominant or polygenic, if indeed he is right... but, if dominant, the Mack's yellow should be "swallowed" by the trait and any TUG offspring would still come through very very white?


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

forgottenEntity said:


> Ah.... hadn't really thought of that. :blush:
> 
> Guess you would have to prove out by breeding then if there was doubt.
> 
> ...


Macks originally showed axanthic traits, it is just the constant breeding to normals has "stained" them. TUG is the same, I have seen some extremely yellow TUG snows, just everyone seems to remember the high white ones.

I would think as more TUG snows are produced, you will see a massive drop in the "quality", as happened with Mack. People will breed TUG to normal to get TUGs. Bloody dominant mutations 

The only way I can see of differentiating is through test breeding to a proven TUG snow. If no Supersnows are produced you have a TUG, if you get Supersnows you have a Mack.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> Macks originally showed axanthic traits, it is just the constant breeding to normals has "stained" them.


don't know about describing it as 'staining' lol even taking aside the old joke about 'yellow snow' some are more dirt brown 



> TUG is the same, I have seen some extremely yellow TUG snows, just everyone seems to remember the high white ones.


*nods* have seen some TUG's that make my boys look crystal white : victory:



> I would think as more TUG snows are produced, you will see a massive drop in the "quality", as happened with Mack. People will breed TUG to normal to get TUGs.


*nods* sadly something that a lot of people and their dogs seems to be doing with any kind of MS with the result 'quantity' seems to mean more then 'quality'


----------



## forgottenEntity (Sep 7, 2008)

MrMike said:


> Macks originally showed axanthic traits, it is just the constant breeding to normals has "stained" them. TUG is the same, I have seen some extremely yellow TUG snows, just everyone seems to remember the high white ones.
> 
> I would think as more TUG snows are produced, you will see a massive drop in the "quality", as happened with Mack. People will breed TUG to normal to get TUGs. Bloody dominant mutations


 Ah, I see - didn't know that. Hmmm, all the TUGs I have ever seen have been really white. Interesting to know that they too have gone the yellow route now to some extent at least.

Oh well.... It will make room for someone else to come along with a really nice line-bred snow for a short while till it too gets the mellow yellow treatment I guess.... Line bred snow V4.0


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

Yellow TUG snow









White Mack snow









Got to say, i love white snows, no matter what strain


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> *nods* sadly something that a lot of people and their dogs seems to be doing with any kind of MS with the result 'quantity' seems to mean more then 'quality'


Also, I think the chance of supersnows also contributed to the rise of MS x Normals.


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

MrMike said:


> Aye, if you have a Mack x het TUG:
> 25% Supersnow
> 25% Mack snow
> 25% TUG snow
> 25% Normal


Are the Mack snow mutant gene and the TUG mutant gene different versions of the same gene or independent mutant genes?

If the supersnow from the above mating is mated to a normal, do they produce TUG snows and Mack snows only? Or do they produce supersnows, Mack snows, TUG snows, and normals?

By the way, a supersnow from a Mack snow X het TUG mating is heterozygous. The only question is whether it has one or two heterozygous gene pairs.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

paulh said:


> Are the Mack snow mutant gene and the TUG mutant gene different versions of the same gene or independent mutant genes?
> 
> If the supersnow from the above mating is mated to a normal, do they produce TUG snows and Mack snows only? Or do they produce supersnows, Mack snows, TUG snows, and normals?
> 
> By the way, a supersnow from a Mack snow X het TUG mating is heterozygous. The only question is whether it has one or two heterozygous gene pairs.


I thought Mack and TUG were allelic. I could be wrong here though, I don't know if anyone has proven it out yet.

A supersnow from a Mack x TUG must be heterozgous Mack and heterozygous TUG (or so I believe), so if not allelic, must have 2 heterozygous pairs. (Is this what you are saying? I never thought that a Supersnow from this pairing would be heterozygous, but of course it would be. Whethe rit is 1 or 2 pairs)


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Paul, Mack, TUG and Gem snow all appear to be allelic.

TUG and Gem appear to behave as dominant to wildtype - they do not have a visually distinctive homozygous form.

Mack appears to be co/incompletely dominant to wildtype - it has a visually distinctive homozygous form. It also appears to be codominant to TUG and Gem - a het Mack/het TUG or het Mack/het Gem is a Supersnow.


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

MrMike said:


> I would think as more TUG snows are produced, you will see a massive drop in the "quality", as happened with Mack. People will breed TUG to normal to get TUGs.


Already happening i give it about two year before TUG's are as mellow yellow as Macks.One name Phantom:2thumb: created by breeding there clear white TUG snow to Bright tangerine Sunglows.Now meny people have pantoms that are carrying this polluted blood.

Just for genral. 

Though Mack snow are refered to be Codominant it's beleave to be in truth Incompletedominant.But codom seems to be sticking due to it's what most are informed it as being.

IMO not fact needs proving i beleave that breeding a Codom snow X dom snow all the standed snows you get would be Codom snows as in HET's carriers of the super snow influance.

Personally i think we sould just have the two snow names.

[1C]Snow/as in TUG/Gem.
[2C]Snow/as in TUG/Gem.
Snow Dom'HET Super snow/as in Mack.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> White Mack snow
> 
> 
> 
> ...


have to say it's a shame that Marcia's aren't more able to be had over here as I'd rather have them anyday ~ they're absolutely gorgeous :no1:


gazz said:


> Already happening i give it about two year before TUG's are as mellow yellow as Macks.One name Phantom:2thumb: created by breeding there clear white TUG snow to Bright tangerine Sunglows.Now meny people have pantoms that are carrying this polluted blood.


makes you wonder if it's even worth trying to keep macks white when it seems as though they'll eventually be knacked out


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> makes you wonder if it's even worth trying to keep macks white when it seems as though they'll eventually be knacked out


100% yes, definately worth it


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> 100% yes, definately worth it


lol it'll be selling them that'll be the wrench: victory:


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

MrMike said:


> A supersnow from a Mack x TUG must be heterozgous Mack and heterozygous TUG (or so I believe), so if not allelic, must have 2 heterozygous pairs. (Is this what you are saying? I never thought that a Supersnow from this pairing would be heterozygous, but of course it would be. Whethe rit is 1 or 2 pairs)


That's exactly what I meant. :2thumb:


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

paulh said:


> That's exactly what I meant. :2thumb:


Phew, thought I was confusing myself there


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> lol it'll be selling them that'll be the wrench: victory:


You know they will all have a good home here :whistling2:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

SleepyD said:


> makes you wonder if it's even worth trying to keep macks white when it seems as though they'll eventually be knacked out


Sure there is. If people insisted on GOOD Mack snows, as white as possible, and refused to pay premium prices for "genetic" Mack Snows that were not as white as possible when adult, then gradually the Monochrome Mack would return... oh yeah, and if people who care about having whiter Macks only BRED white macks to white macks and didn't use yellow-snows in their breeding programs, that'd make a difference too.

I personally wouldn't pay anything more than "normal" price for a yellow Mack... but I would quite happily pay for an adult Mack that was as close to black, white and grey as possible.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> You know they will all have a good home here :whistling2:


lmao ~ will see what appears next year 



Ssthisto said:


> Sure there is. If people insisted on GOOD Mack snows, as white as possible, and refused to pay premium prices for "genetic" Mack Snows that were not as white as possible when adult, then gradually the Monochrome Mack would return... oh yeah, and if people who care about having whiter Macks only BRED white macks to white macks and didn't use yellow-snows in their breeding programs, that'd make a difference too.


*nods* as MrMike knows I know it'd be worth it in the long run ~ think what gets to me is the fact that no matter how hard a few will work at getting the white back and/or keeping the white we know that as soon as any are sold the chances are high they'll be slammed right back with normals and muckied again :roll:


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Paul, Mack, TUG and Gem snow all appear to be allelic.
> 
> TUG and Gem appear to behave as dominant to wildtype - they do not have a visually distinctive homozygous form.
> 
> Mack appears to be co/incompletely dominant to wildtype - it has a visually distinctive homozygous form. It also appears to be codominant to TUG and Gem - a het Mack/het TUG or het Mack/het Gem is a Supersnow.


The Mack snow and TUG or GEM snow mutants could be alleles. That would certainly be a possible explanation for a Mack/TUG snow being a supersnow. But that word "appears" bothers me. "Appears" makes it sound like people are guessing. That's why I was asking whether anybody has done breeding tests.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

paulh said:


> The Mack snow and TUG or GEM snow mutants could be alleles. That would certainly be a possible explanation for a Mack/TUG snow being a supersnow. But that word "appears" bothers me. "Appears" makes it sound like people are guessing. That's why I was asking whether anybody has done breeding tests.


Out of curiosity, what would prove it?


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> I personally wouldn't pay anything more than "normal" price for a yellow Mack... but I would quite happily pay for an adult Mack that was as close to black, white and grey as possible.


Knowing what I know now (after my snows have been purchased already ) I would agree here.



SleepyD said:


> *nods* as MrMike knows I know it'd be worth it in the long run ~ think what gets to me is the fact that no matter how hard a few will work at getting the white back and/or keeping the white we know that as soon as any are sold the chances are high they'll be slammed right back with normals and muckied again :roll:


I haven't seen many for sale, and when they are not much of a fuss is made of them. Next time some come up for sale we should "big it up" as much as possible!


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> Next time some come up for sale we should "big it up" as much as possible!


before or after the best have been quietly sold?


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> before or after the best have been quietly sold?


After we have had our fill obviously


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

MrMike said:


> Out of curiosity, what would prove it?


A Mack/TUG supersnow X normal mating or matings. If they produce 25-30 babies and all are Mack or TUG snows, I'd be convinced. If any normals come out, then the two genes cannot be alleles.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

paulh said:


> A Mack/TUG supersnow X normal mating or matings. If they produce 25-30 babies and all are Mack or TUG snows, I'd be convinced. If any normals come out, then the two genes cannot be alleles.


Of course! I blame the weather :crazy:


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> lmao ~ will see what appears next year
> 
> 
> *nods* as MrMike knows I know it'd be worth it in the long run ~ think what gets to me is the fact that no matter how hard a few will work at getting the white back and/or keeping the white we know that as soon as any are sold the chances are high they'll be slammed right back with normals and muckied again :roll:


 Well, it`d be worth bumping the prices of the `White Macks` back up a little to disuade the casual `collector`, fashionite, must haver (was gonna add `crap` to that but could be perceived to be smutty ) from buying them and wasting all the hard work.
I`m not saying at all that they shouldn`t be available and affordable to everyone, but with any luck it would help people to understand that if you want real quality then you`re gonna have to pay for it, and appreciate/treaure them a little more. And with any luck - seeings as so many `breeders`are driven by money - they`ll want to keep the lines clean and strong so that they can get maximum returns from them - not the ideal reason to try and Macks white, but at least it should help to get results.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

MrMike said:


> Of course! I blame the weather :crazy:


lol ~ talking of which (because the rain is keeping me in at the mo) have been sorting out the ground-work for next years breeding pairs/groups so will send that to you and a couple of others for checking over later


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> lol ~ talking of which (because the rain is keeping me in at the mo) have been sorting out the ground-work for next years breeding pairs/groups so will send that to you and a couple of others for checking over later


Rain? Rather sunny here :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------

