that the following are homozygous conditions:
Caramel//Caramel
Sharp//Sharp
Caramel//Sharp

Agree that Caramel//Caramel and Sharp//Sharp are homozygous conditions.

Disagree that Caramel//Sharp is a homozygous condition.

Heterozygous conditions being:
Caramel//WT
Sharp//WT

Agree with this.

A lot of herpers are hung up on a heterozygous animal having to look normal. There is NO requirement for appearance in the definition of "heterozygous". The only requirement is for the two members of a gene pair to be different. If Caramel and Sharp were the same, then Caramel//Caramel and Sharp//Sharp snakes would look alike. But they look different, so they must be different mutant genes. That makes Caramel//Sharp a heterozygous gene pair. Consult the definitions on www.dictionary.com.

Rainbows-r-us:

Het Caramel//Sharp is good terminology. Het Caramel//normal is also good terminology and is synonymous with het Caramel. In het Caramel, the normal allele is assumed rather than stated. However, when messing with multiple alleles, stating both genes in the pair is better.

I prefer to use the "/" character instead of the "|" character because the "|" character requires hitting the shift key. But there is no law broken if you prefer the "|" character.

Paul Hollander

[ Hide Replies ]

• Paradigm genetics...thoughts on theory? - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 16:41:22 2006
• Well Chris - giantkeeper, Fri Sep 22 16:47:23 2006
• More, for everyone - giantkeeper, Fri Sep 22 16:49:53 2006
• ^ EVERYONE SHOULD READ ABOVE ^ n/p - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:02:27 2006
• The breeding that had Normals... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:01:40 2006
• I don't know Chris - giantkeeper, Fri Sep 22 17:04:01 2006
• I don't know either... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:07:11 2006
• It is VERY plausible, more.... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:10:52 2006
• That would be the next test... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:14:11 2006
• RE: That would be the next test... - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:55:49 2006
• Very true if this is the case........... - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 19:07:42 2006
• Not only would it be a 1/16... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 19:39:50 2006
• Actually, higher odds of proving.... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 19:49:32 2006
• RE: Actually, higher odds of proving.... - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 20:20:00 2006
• look here............... - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 20:25:57 2006
• Exactly.... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 21:16:54 2006
• I agree. - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 21:22:31 2006
• RE: Actually, higher odds of proving.... - ChrisGilbert, Sat Sep 23 14:07:13 2006
• RE: Paradigm genetics...thoughts on theory? - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 17:43:40 2006
• The flower analogy... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:01:57 2006
• From reading... - Psycodelic, Fri Sep 22 17:44:22 2006
• The Caramel... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:57:37 2006
• RE: The Caramel... - styrsnake, Fri Sep 22 18:40:26 2006
• I feel the same way... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 19:35:19 2006
• RE: From reading... - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:24:31 2006
• YUP! - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:30:28 2006
• wonderful world of multiple alleles - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:05:51 2006
• Paul, thanks, and more... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:11:33 2006
• Chris, paul has it right....duh ; - )... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:19:45 2006
• or even better - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:21:11 2006
• I'm saying... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:26:06 2006
• RE: I'm saying... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:30:12 2006
• That's what I am getting at... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:32:53 2006
• RE: I'm saying... - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:45:15 2006
• Must exit. Good discussion. n/p - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:57:38 2006
• Sorry you had to go... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 19:37:49 2006
• Well, I'm no Paul but...... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 19:57:49 2006
• I could very likely be wrong... - ChrisGilbert, Sat Sep 23 14:03:54 2006
• gonna disagree and agree... read........ - joshhutto, Sat Sep 23 01:07:34 2006
• I was thinking about... - ChrisGilbert, Sat Sep 23 14:45:51 2006