There is a difference in the way a dominant and a co-dominant gene works........



****BUT FIRST*****



There is a HUGE misconception, about what the term "co-dominant" actually means. Calling something(hypo boas in this case) co-dominant, beacause it is in its heterozygous form, which is phenotypically different from the wild types(normals), is inaccurate. By inaccurate, I mean it has been turned into a familiar, although improperly used, term that describes the difference between normal,hetero, and a homozygous specimens of the same genetic mutation. The term "dominant" has also been misrepresented in this same fashion. Dominant does NOT mean the homozygous form of a co-dominant trait.



******NOW******



A co-dominant trait will be phenotypically different in its homozygous(super) form than its hetero state. The difference is visible to the naked eye..... from close up or far away. You don't hear anyone calling a tiger retic a co-dom tiger, or a super tiger retic a dominant tiger.



A dominant trait is one where there is not a phenotypic difference between the homo and heterozygous forms. A super can only be proven a super by breeding.



Both dominant and co-dominant genes will show a phenotypic difference fromthe wild type, normal of the same. The terms have been misrepresented in hypomelanistic boas to make a differentiation for a purpose of worth and genetic potential.



And if you think I am rocking the boat now, just wait until I share my thoughts on the anerythristic gene as we all know and love it. Honestly this post was only meant to clarify, what, in my opinion, is a HUGE misconception in our little corner of the universe.



All thoughts and replies welcome........



Jesse Van Atta

Forever Boas
-----
"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh

[ Show Entire Thread ]