Posted by:
BrandonSander
at Wed Nov 12 12:10:19 2008 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by BrandonSander ]
I assume when you created your list you didn't just include double and triple allele morphs, but that you also combined 5, 6, 7, etc, genes until you ended up with a genotypic animal with every known morph included in it's genotype.
Of course, such an animal is possible, however since we don't know if all of those crosses are actually compatible or if they could possibly prove lethal we can't really include them in the final number with certainty.
Finding/writing/creating a formula to determine the number of genotypes (currently known to be) possible could be done, however, the number would be so astronomical that it would be almost meaningless from a breeders standpoint. From a scientific standpoint it would be interesting to figure out and of course we would never be able to tell if the number is a final tally since new morphs could possibly be discovered and some will undoubtedly prove to be either incompatible (the various forms of axanthic is an example... the phenotype of these animals would be normal looking, but they could possibly have a genotype that is het for each line of axanthic).
Another point to take into consideration is the fact that some genes (despite what the originators want you to believe) are the same and cannot be counted twice. The jury is still out on the Mojave/Butter/Phantom/Platinum "complex" because there may be more than one gene influencing the coloration of each of these morphs... if this is the case it would be difficult to determine which one of these is the "pure" form of the gene and which ones have another gene influencing them. So the question is: Would you count each of these as a single gene or separately?
Also, you can't really count known compatible genes that are obviously the same allele. One breeder's line of Pastels and another's cannot each be counted as separate genes unless there is proof that they are, in fact, different genes. RDR's Goblins are simply Yellow Bellies so they cannot be counted as a different gene unless there is proof that that line is capable of producing something that the other lines of Yellow Bellies cannot.
All in all what I am saying is this: Yes, a person could come up with a formula that would determine the number of possible genotypes among known morphs. However, the problems encountered in such an endeavor could prove to be too much to be positive about the outcome. (This is true about all science, actually).
The main problems would be (to sum it all up):
1. Determining what is considered a "morph"
2. Separating known lineages from each other to determine which is unique and which is simply a repeat of earlier examples.
3. Genetic compatibility. We still don't know all of the morphs that would produce viable young. Some may be lethal in either their homozygous form, some may be lethal when combined with other morphs.
4. We don't know if there is an "upper limit" to the number of genetic morphs that can be crossed and still produce viable young. Can you cross every known morph? At what point will the genetic mutation/defects (that is essentially what a morph is) be too much to handle (6 morphs, 15 morphs, 20????)
I encourage you to go back through your list and weed out any doubles and try to determine which lines are actually genetically different from the others in that morph group. Then it would be possible to start looking for a formula.
It would also be impossible to determine the phenotypes of all of these morphs. For example: Even if two Piebald lines were determined to be genetically different from each other, their homozygous phenotype would be considered the same. Axanthics work this way - their genotypes are different (between the various incompatible lines) however their phenotypes are essentially the same. Since we cannot accurately determine what the phenotype would be for a combo that has not been created we cannot determine the number of possible phenotypes among the ball python species as a whole.
Sorry for getting a little long winded. If you (or anyone) made it this far... congratulations (and Thank you!). Even if you didn't I hope you learned something from what you did read.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Warning: Long reply ahead.... - BrandonSander, Wed Nov 12 12:10:19 2008
