Nope, Scott is correct here.



Stripe is sort of a co-dom gene. It is formed by breeding a rufescens kenyan sand boa to a kenyan sand boa. Therefore, when you breed a stripe to a normal you will typically retain a bit of the rufescens influence which results in the tiger morph.



Also, while yes an animal is either het or not. You cannot predict or possibly know which babies in the clutch will be het and which will not be het. But of the normal looking babies ~66% will be het for anery while ~33% will be normal. So the chances of any one baby being het for anery is ~66%. This only applies to simple recessive traits that do not show some sort of visual heterozygous marker. The coin flip analogy doesn't really fit here as the chances that the anery gene is passed on to the offspring is not 50/50 because both parents have a copy of it. If only 1 parent had a copy of the anery gene then the babies would be 50% het anery. It's all based on punnet squares of simple recessive traits. Technically the 66% referrs to genotype frequencies in the offspring.



Another option is to list all normal looking babies as normal even though 2/3 of them are also carrying the anery gene. Personally, I would rather know that a baby might be carrying the gene as opposed to being surprised by it later on. The only other way to be sure about hets is to raise them up and breed them, and even then statistically it is possible that those that are het anery would not produce any anery babies when bred to a homozygous anery.
-----
Kyle R. Mara



Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes. - Ralph Waldo Emerson



scaledvertebrates.weebly.com/

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]