Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This is going off the thread below...it was kinda off topic, so I decided to post a new thread...

Here's what was said...Pastel x pastel usually makes prettier babies than pastel x normal. So...

1 - Anyone have an idea why? It doesn't seem like it should matter.

2 - Are there any other cominations/recipes for nicer looking animals that anyone has noticed?
-----
Jeremy Conrad
_____________

Isn't it cooler that serpent's don't walk anymore?
(Genesis 3:14)

For item #1 anyway...

It is not unlikely that the "really good" Pastels are actually expressing more than one gene. That would explain pretty easily why some pastels (heterozygotes) look better or worse than others, but also why even the "bad" pastels can still combine with other pastels to make the Super pastel (homozygote).

What I am theorizing is that there is one gene that is most easily recognizable as "pastel," and that there may be another gene, or a few other genes that contribute to enhancing that "pastel" gene in the overall phenotype. This could even be something of a linkage issue, where depending upon how closely any of these genes are linked, they are mostly inherited together, but can occasionally be inherited seperately.

I love genetics - the snakes got me hooked on genetics at a young age... and I am [an older] college student taking a few genetics-specific courses, so I know I am glossing over some technical and complicated stuff. Let me know if I should explain this more - or if I should just keep my silly theories to myself.

~Rebecca
-----
1.1 Ball Pythons (1.0 '05 Ghost, 0.1 '03 Normal)
0.1 Dumeril's Boa '04
0.2 American Pit Bull Terriers (40 lb darling lap dogs)

Let me know if I should explain this more - or if I should just keep my silly theories to myself.

I don't think you necessarily need to explain this particular idea in more detail. Your explanation was clear and sounded very reasonable. I don't have the zoology background to agree or disagree very strongly, but your idea makes sense to this engineer.

Either way, the topic is interesting, and hearing more about it would be fun. Whatever you do, plese don't keep this stuff to yourself. I like these kinds of posts. Knowing that you are training in this area makes them even better.

Thanks,

Bill

-----
It's not how many snakes you have. It's how happy and healthy you can keep them.

Well, it doesn't take a degree in "rocket science" to know that pastel to pastel breedings will have cleaner pastels. Not to mention "Supers". Just like with the breeders useing "light" normals to produce "lighter" normals or pastels. Some are breeding selectively for blushing, high yellow, thinbanding or whatever they are getting more refined. I think if you purchase a pastel it should be from pastel to pastel breeding!

>>Well, it doesn't take a degree in "rocket science" to know that pastel to pastel breedings will have cleaner pastels. Not to mention "Supers".

Not necessarily (IMO)...If the pastel is one gene, you'll either have it or you won't. If that's the case, it won't matter if it's normal x pastel or pastel x pastel. If you have the pastel gene, the colors will be effected by one gene from one parent.

For pastel x pastel babies to look better, the only explanation is that they're getting genes (OTHER THAN THE "PASTEL" GENE) from both parents. Whenever you get the pastel gene from BOTH parents you get the super...I'm not sure if this makes sense or not, but I think it's what Rebecca was saying.
-----
Jeremy Conrad
_____________

Isn't it cooler that serpent's don't walk anymore?
(Genesis 3:14)

I think the explanation of other enhancer genes being concentrated by inbreeding pastels is probably the most likely explanation for the unexpected observation that pastels from pastel X pastel tend to be brighter than pastels from pastel X normal. However, I don't think it's the only explanation. One other possibility I can think of is that it might not always be possible to distinguish heterozygous pastel from homozygous super pastel. Perhaps some of the really nice pastels from pastel X pastel breedings are less spectacular super pastels. What kind of results have been seen breeding offspring from pastel X pastel? Do the ones picked out as super pastels always prove homozygous and do the ones picked out as normal (heterozygous) pastels always prove not to be homozygous? I saw an animal sold as a pastel het ghost today that to my untrained eye could easily have passed as a super pastel. I don't know if both of it's parents where even pastels making that possible (seems unlikely that many pastel ghosts have been bred yet) but it sure was a bright adult with extreme fading. It would be nice and convenient for marketing if the line between homozygous (super) pastel and heterozygous/normal pastel where clear and consistent but nature isn’t always so neat.

I have been told by a Ball breeder that has hatched out many a Mojave, that he can almost pick out the het Hypo Mojaves, based on their better look, when compared to the normal siblings. I do not know how much experimenting with this theory has been done, but I thought it was interesting.

As for the Pastels looking better from a Pastel to a Pastel breeding, here are my thoughts. If you get a nicer looking Pastel when you breed a Pastel to a stunning normal, it would make sence that you would get a nicer Pastel when you breed a Pastel to a Pastel.

Yes, I've heard of even non morph het ghosts sometimes being pretty bright and even shedding clear so that opens another whole discussion up as to if it is caused by enhancer genes concentrated in hypo lines through selective breeding or some sporadic co-dominant effect of the ghost gene it's self.

To me the idea that the heterozygous pastels from pastel X pastel would be brighter really doesn't make that much sense. It's just that it gets repeated so often we've come up with theories to explain it just in case it really is true. I think the concentration of bright genes in pastel lines makes the most sense - whether separate enhancer genes or extra nice versions of the "normal" for pastel gene per the post below.

I lean towards the multiple enhancer/modifier genes position. Back in the 1920s, a guy named Castle took rats from the same hooded strain and selected for both more and less pigment. The originals had pigment on the head and shoulders and the center of the back. He wound up with one strain with pigment over most of the body and a second strain with only pigment on the head. Crossing the two strains produced rats like the originals.

We talk about "the" normal gene. We have to remember that humans have from 20-25 thousand genes, and ball pythons can't be more than a few thousand behind that. There are dozens of genes involved in producing the normal color, and some can have mutants with quite subtle effects, so subtle that can't be quantified at our present level of detection. We just call them individual differences.

Paul Hollander

It would sure be interesting to know how the genetics worked for that hooded rat experiment. Where there slight variations of the actual hooded gene over time selected in each line or just a concentration of other genes that promoted less or more pattern. I suppose one indication would be what then happened if he crossed the normal hooded offspring of the two lines to each other - do they produce 1/4 reduced hoods and 1/4 expanded hoods indicating that perhaps a single gene controls the expression of how much hood is seen? Probably too simple to work out that clean.

Good point about the large number of genes involved in the normal color/pattern. Variations in genes not at the pastel locus no doubt affect the appearance of pastels. Even limiting the discussion to just the "normal" for pastel version of the gene at the pastel locus there may be several different non pastel versions of that gene. Selective breeding of pastel lines may have selected for some of the most complementary versions of the non-pastel alleles (if there are multiples) at the pastel locus in addition to genes at other loci.

Is that in hets sometimes the pattern or color variation will "bleed thru". I purchased a het albino from a spider clutch and she has a spiderish look altho not a spider herself, I've seen the pastel x pastel breedings produce cleaner, brighter pastels and what about the pied markers? I've also noticed this Bleed thru effect in my cornsnake breedings. While it's not something you can count on to verify a het, it is interesting.

Cheryl

The albino het with a spider parent and spider tendencies without being an outright spider is interesting. I wouldn't expect being het for albino would have any contribution to looking spider like or not but who knows. Also, if it didn't get the spider gene it may be just co-incidence that it has spider like tendencies and had a spider parent. It's also possible that selective breeding in spider lines has concentrated non-spider reduced pattern genes in those lines (whether a non-spider allele of the gene at the spider locus or reduced pattern genes at other loci).

However, the piebald het reference brings up another interesting idea. If hets for some "recessive" mutations can sometimes show co-dominant like tendencies (where sporadically the hets are visible do to the single recessive gene sometimes “bleeding through”) could heterozygous animals for some dominant type mutations have sporadic recessive tendencies? Could genetic pastels or spiders (i.e. animals heterozygous for those genes who would normally be a visible morph) sometimes end up looking almost normal? How strong are the spider tendencies in that het albino? Since it’s a female I assume you will breed it eventually. If you end up not breeding it to a spider please let us know if it surprises you and throws spiders.

She'll be used initially with my albino group, but I do plan to get a spider group going and I'll probably move her to that group. It would be nice if she were a poor quality spider but I seriously doubt she is.

I was thinking perhaps the pattern of her dam influenced her pattern so I went back and checked her parents pics but, nope, the female albino has just a normal pattern.

She's in shed right now and very dark. As soon as she's done I'll take a pic and post it. Right now all I have is a paper copy.

Cheryl

perhaps when you breed a heterozygous pastel (Aa)to another heterozygous pastel (Aa)and the resulting het pastels look better than the typical het pastel is because of the normal gene carried by both parents are better than the typical normal. What I'm saying is this. Het Pastel male was hatched from a truly stunning high yellow normal that was bred to a pastel. He is then bred to het pastel female that was hatched from a completely average looking normal female. Of this breeding you get 8 eggs. 2 of which are super(AA) pastels. Both look very similar. of the other 6 eggs you get 4 pastels (Aa) and 2 normals (aa). 2 of the pastels look like "screamers" the other 2 are just nice pastels. Why isn't it possible to say that the normal code in their genetic makeup (_a) was inherited from the grandmother's nice coloration. Granted the trait isn't passed on like any simple recessive or co-dom trait but it could be passed on through very selective line breeding. We see this in alot of other snake breeds such as the chondro's where the pedigree of the snake determines the price. Perhaps these traits that don't prove out on the first or second line breeding are still worth breeding into our morphs as when they do show up, they "POP". Almost everyone that has bred for a few years has a male or female that has a look that they want but can't copy exactly but who's offspring look nicer than "normal". I know I do and plan on breeding them into my morphs to see if they come out looking nicer.
Josh Hutto
JKReptiles
-----
2.3 het pied (RDR, alan bosch x 2, BHB x 2)
0.1 High Contrast Albino (Gulf Coast)
1.1 het albino (ben siegel, Gulf Coast)
1.2 het citrus ghost(Gulf Coast line)
1.0 citrus ghost (Gulf Coast line)
0.1 graz pastel female
1.6 05 normal bp's
0.6 04 normal bp's
2.5 adult normal bp's (some need breeding to see if norm)
4 various corns
0.1 brazilian rainbow boa (alan bosch)
1.0 american pit bull terrior
1.1 taco dogs (ankle biters)
1.0 grey cat
1.1 bearded dragons

a BAD dog is MADE not bred, support the American Pit Bull Terrior as the greatest breed of dogs on Earth!!!!!

I agree with you. I beleive that the original normal gene has alot to do with genetic makeup. I think the normal animals breed to the co- dom animals has a huge effect on the out come of the off spring. If you take a really high yellow female normal and breed it to a nice pastel, then take those pastels and breed them together the end result should be a brighter lighter pastel and supers. I experimented last year with breeding my lemon male to different females. Every clutch had influence from the normal female. I truly feel that the "nicer" pastels had nicer normal parents. But thats just my thought.
Kim
NARC Reptiles