Posted by:
RandyRemington
at Wed Jan 5 00:15:00 2011 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RandyRemington ]
It's an uphill climb to get most long time snake people to think of spiders and other visible codominants as hets. Early on we learned of recessive hets and mistakenly think of “heterozygous” as meaning normal looking gene carrier rather than the correct broader definition of having an unmatched pair of whatever gene you are talking about.
I think now that pinstripe has been proven the first dominant ball python morph it really would be best if people did think in terms of the genotypes heterozygous and homozygous rather than terms like "super" which isn't well defined. We could start seeing possible homozygous pinstripes offered for sale and I think we’ll need to talk about heterozygous vs. homozygous pinstripes more and more. Also understanding that most (maybe all) woma X woma pairings are het X het you see the 25% chance per egg of containing a normal.
I've only recently come to understand the difference between the HG woma and the "regular" woma mutations and haven't been following close enough to comment on if enough woma X woma breedings have been done to say if woma is likely co-dominant with a conspicuously absent homozygous form like spider or dominant like pinstripe with the non normal offspring of woma X woma being 33% chance homozygous animals with the potential to produce 100% woma bred to normals.
[ Hide Replies ]
- Any news? - Bolitochrome, Tue Jan 4 08:22:38 2011
|
RE: Super Woma v. Super Hidden Gene...? - RandyRemington, Wed Jan 5 00:15:00 2011