So I am pretty good with biology and genetics. I can do punnet squares with dominant, co-dom, and recessive genes in my sleep. I Just bought the new "The Complete Boa Constrictor" book written by Vincent Russo, which I HIGHLY recommend to everybody, expert or beginners. But flipping through the genetics section motivated me to further educate myself with punnet squares. I decided to try to teach myself how to do a punnet square with multiple genes in 1 snake. The example I am using in my punnet square actually has 1 dominant gene and 1 recessive gene, which complicated it a little bit more to me. I am doing my favorite pair I have breeding this year which is a sunglow x arabesque 100% het albino. Some ball python guy told me that the sunglow arabesque is a 1 in 16 snake with that pairing. I've done some research online and came up with a website that helped tremendously for anybody trying to figure out punnet squares.... http://reptimania.co.uk/genetics1.html which has everything from normal squares to multiple gene squares.

Anyways, IF I did this right, and I like to think I did, hitting the sunglow arabesque would be a 1 in 8 chance because I'm using a sunglow, not a DH Sunglow. I think if I used a DH it may turn out to be 1 in 16, but I haven't tried that theory on paper yet. But by doing a sunglow x arab het albino, I came up with 16 squares which produced the following results-

Arabesque gene is represented with Rr', het albino is Aa, albino is aa, and hypo is Hh'. Refer to the website I listed above, it explains it really well.

Arabesque het albino genotype- Rr'Aa (RA, Ra, r'A, r'a)
Sunglow Phenotype- Hh'aa (Ha, Ha, h'a, h'a)

each parents alleles posted above are the exact letters I used in my square and below are the way the babies turned out in my square

2 Normal het albinos (RHAa)
2 Hypo het albinos (Rh'Aa)
2 albinos (RHaa)
2 sunglows (Rh'aa)
2 Arabesque het albinos (r'HAa)
2 hypo arabesque het albinos (r'h'Aa)
2 Albino arabesques (r'Haa)
and last but not least
2 sunglow arabesques (r'h'aa)

Thats a total of 16 squares, each one representing a single baby. If I did this right, that makes 2 of 16 sunglow arabesques, which breaks down to 1 in 8. If anybody who knows how to do these kind of squares and wouldn't mind spending a few minutes on it, I would like for someone to also put it down on paper and either confirm what I came up with, or point me in the right direction. I have realized that even with a good backround with punnet squares, teaching myself to do multiple genes, and even worse mixing dominant with recessive all in the same punnet square isn't the easiest thing to do. I think I got it though and if someone confirms that, quite an accomplishment to me!

Thanks in advance to anyone who puts in an effort or input
Tony

[ Hide Replies ]

• Genetics experts' input needed (long) - NUCCIZ_BOAS, Sun Nov 4 22:59:18 2007
• RE: Genetics experts' input needed (long) - JackJebus, Sun Nov 4 23:16:09 2007
• RE: Genetics experts' input needed (long) - hiss_n_herps, Sun Nov 4 23:52:29 2007
• RE: Genetics experts' input needed (long - NUCCIZ_BOAS, Mon Nov 5 00:09:30 2007
• RE: Genetics experts' input needed (long - Paul Hollander, Mon Nov 5 19:05:59 2007
• Paul! - NUCCIZ_BOAS, Mon Nov 5 22:05:41 2007
• RE: Paul! - rainbowsrus, Tue Nov 6 02:57:59 2007
• Wrong symbols -- Sorry - Paul Hollander, Tue Nov 6 12:09:28 2007
• A couple things.... - jhsulliv, Mon Nov 5 06:42:58 2007
• One point of dissention...... - rainbowsrus, Mon Nov 5 12:14:52 2007
• RE: One point of dissention...... - jhsulliv, Mon Nov 5 13:02:16 2007
• RE: One point of dissention...... - rainbowsrus, Mon Nov 5 13:53:51 2007
• IMO, an easier method than punnet square - rainbowsrus, Mon Nov 5 12:36:10 2007
• Excellent explanation Dave! - kblumenthal, Mon Nov 5 13:19:17 2007
• RE: Excellent explanation Dave! - rainbowsrus, Mon Nov 5 13:48:30 2007
• RE: Excellent explanation Dave! - kblumenthal, Mon Nov 5 14:42:56 2007
• RE: Excellent explanation Dave! - rainbowsrus, Mon Nov 5 15:05:46 2007
• RE: IMO, an easier method than punnet square - jscrick, Mon Nov 5 13:32:42 2007
• RE: IMO, an easier method than punnet square - rainbowsrus, Mon Nov 5 13:46:34 2007