To begin with, I have to say that I cannot answer your question with a simple "yes" or "no". Let's say that you asked the question "If a brick is flammable, does that mean that I could light it with a match?".

I could say "Yes...you probably could light it with a match". The problem with this answer is that you might interpret it to mean that I have just said you can light a brick with a match. I didn't. What I said was that if a brick was flammable you probably could light it with a match. So...you go and tell all of your buddies that "Renaissance said that I can light a brick with a match"...which is incorrect.

I could answer your question by saying "No...you cannot light a brick with a match". Although this is a correct statement, based upon your question stating "If a brick is flammable...", I haven't really answered the question that you asked because my answer did not assume that a brick was flammable.



So, what I am going to do is to attempt to explain why I cannot give a "yes" or "no" answer to your question. I hope that by the time I am done you will not only understand the dichotomy of your question, but that you will also have enough information that you will know the answer that you are looking for.



For the following discussion, I am going to use the term "morph X" to represent a trait that is dominant to the "normal" (wild-type) trait...



Morph X has two possible alternatives:

- Heterozygous

- Homozygous



The heterozygous form of morph X when bred to "normals" should produce (on average) half of the litter that are morph X and half of the litter that are "normals". The offspring that are morph X will be the heterozygous form of morph X.



The homozygous form of morph X when bred to "normals" should always produce an entire litter that are morph X. These offspring will all be the heterozygous form of morph X.



The heterozygous form of morph X when bred to the heterozygous form of morph X should produce (on average) three quarters of the litter that are morph X and one quarter of the litter that are "normals". Of the offspring that are morph X, 1 out of 3 should (on average) be the homozygous form of morph X, the other 2 out of 3 should (on average) be the heterozygous form of morph X. Since we are dealing with a dominant trait, there is no way to visually distinguish the homozygous animals from the heterozygous animals...the only way to distinguish them is through future breeding results.



The homozygous form of morph X when bred to the homozygous form of morph X should always produce an entire litter that are morph X. These offspring will all be the homozygous form of morph X.



So...to answer your question as asked...

If Spider is a dominant morph, breeding Spider to "normal" would have different results depending upon whether the Spider was the heterozygous or homozygous form of a Spider.

A heterozygous Spider when bred to "normals" should produce (on average) litters where half of the litter are heterozygous Spiders and half of the litter are "normals".

A homozygous Spider when bred to "normals" should produce litters where the entire litter are heterozygous Spiders.



The reason that I say "if Spider is a dominant morph" is that there is currently insufficient breeding data to state with any degree of certainty that Spider is in fact dominant. We do know for a fact that breeding a Spider to a "normal" will produce (on average) litters where half of the offspring are Spiders and half of the offspring are "normals".



In order to be able to state with a high degree of confidence exactly what genetic inheritance is involved, sometimes many, many seasons of breeding results must be achieved and considered. At various stages along the path to reaching a conclusion as to what the genetics of a particular morph really are, certain possibilities may appear to be more obvious than others. For example, we are very confident that Spiders are not a recessive trait.



In some situations, certain morphs may have genetic inheritance labels assigned to them...only for it to be subsequently discovered that this was a premature classification that was incorrect. A good example of this is the current controversy regarding Fire Balls and Black-Eyed Leucistics. Some folks have (prematurely, not only in my opinion but also in the opinion of many others) declared with absolute certainty that the Black-Eyed Leucistic trait is a codominant trait, and that Fire Balls are the visible hets. of this trait. Forgetting for one moment whether the term codominant or incomplete dominant is more appropriate, it is too early to know with certainty whether in fact the Black-Eyed Leucistic trait is a codominant trait (with the Fire Balls being the visible hets.) or a recessive trait that occurs and inherits independently from the Fire Ball trait. It may be either. It is impossible to know for sure based upon the breeding results that have been obtained to date. The Black-Eyed Leucistic trait may be codominant or incomplete dominant...it may be recessive. We can not know for certain until further breeding results have been achieved.



A good historical example of the changing of morph classifications is Salmon boas. In the early days of Salmon boas, the Salmon trait was believed to be and marketed as recessive. The downside to this was that some folks purchased "het." Salmons, only to subsequently discover that they had purchased "normals".



Just because a particular genetic inheritance is assigned to a morph and then the genetic inheritance is subsequently discovered to be something different, do not assume that the breeder of that morph deliberately set out to mislead people. There are many reasons why breeders sometimes rush to prematurely classify the inheritance of a morph. Here are a couple that come to mind:

- They may not have a complete and thorough understanding of the genetic terminology.

- They may not have a complete and thorough understanding of the breeding combinations and results necessary to prove with any degree of certainty exactly what genetic inheritance is involved with a morph.

- Competitive market forces may cause them to rush to judgement before they really can be certain.

- Sometimes breeders are eager to share their current beliefs about the new morph. In an eagerness to share their knowledge with the ball python community, the breeders publish what they currently believe is most likely to be the genetic inheritance. Unfortunately, they do not make it clear that this is their "best guess"...not "guaranteed".

- Sometimes the ball python community just has to have a label to hang on the morph. Is it recessive? Is it codominant?. We want to know!!! In response to this demand, the breeders sometimes publish what they currently believe is most likely to be the genetic inheritance. Unfortunately, they do not always make it clear that this is their "best guess"...not "guaranteed".



Confusion sometimes arises when a breeder's previously published "best guess" turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, the "best guess" was understood by the ball python community to be a "guarantee"...and not a "best guess".



I'm sure that this is w-a-y more information than you really expected or wanted to hear, but it is impossible to answer the question that you asked with a simple "yes" or a "no" since Spiders have not been proven to be dominant.

Spiders were once "classified" as codominant.

They were subsequently "reclassified" as incomplete dominant.

They were subsequently "reclassified" as dominant.

Spiders may be dominant...they may not...further breeding results are required.



I hope this helps.

[ Show Entire Thread ]