IMO, if the hypo gene was truely codominant, you wouldn't have "possible supers". You would be able to tell one way or the other. I use the tiger mutation in retics as the classic example. You don't hear about "possible super tigers". They either are or they aren't. The other option that I haven't heard is that there could be a second gene linked to the hypo gene such that it was carried around with the hypo gene. This could cause some of the differences we're seeing with some, but not all of the homozygous hypos.
-----
1.1 Red Bloods (Cartman and Bebe)
0.1 Boa Constrictor (Victoria)
0.1 Albino Burm (Butters)
0.0.1 Desert King (Miles)

[ Hide Replies ]

• In light of the recent genetics topics - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 20:37:57 2006
• Hypos are NOT Co-dominant... - ChrisGilbert, Tue Sep 26 20:58:04 2006
• Yup. . . - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 21:01:01 2006
• The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - tsusnakeguy, Tue Sep 26 21:36:23 2006
• No... - ChrisGilbert, Tue Sep 26 22:05:15 2006
• RE: No... - tsusnakeguy, Tue Sep 26 22:36:30 2006
• There is not a 100% visual difference... - ChrisGilbert, Tue Sep 26 23:44:49 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 22:13:16 2006
• One typo. . . - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 22:16:11 2006
• I could agree with incomplete n/p - tsusnakeguy, Tue Sep 26 22:32:48 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - Paul Hollander, Wed Sep 27 13:50:43 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - PanamaRed, Tue Sep 26 22:45:16 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - awesomo6000, Tue Sep 26 23:30:06 2006