Reptile & Amphibian Forums

That if you look at a anery poss het snow,you will be able to tell it is a positive and not a possible by the fading saddles!!
Is this really the case?
Thank you for any comments,
-----
Joel Pretz

I heard that looks have NOTHING to do with telling if a boa is het or not for any trait. But im with you and others I think some het's DH's ect. do have that certain look that set's them apart from a wild type/normal boa. Just my thoughts
Great post
Later
jake`~~~~

the term "heterozygous" refers to a 'normal' looking offspring carrying a recessive trait. In this case, Albino, or if you wanted to go DH, albino/anery.

Some people argue that some het albino boas have random white scales blotched in the body. I can somewhat agree to this, as I have a 7' female with paperwork that has such scales. However, it's not enough evidence to consider it a rule for ALL het albino boas. Some may have it, others may not.

Same thing goes for anery. There may be a select few anerys with the reduced pattern that you mentioned, but I do know people who have DH snow boas that if being sold in a store, could be a typical $100 boa and nobody would know the difference.

Point and case, there is always going to be a handful of boas with something sticking out that catches our eye. such as white scales, reduced patterns, or even excessive speckling. There has not yet been a proven different appearing "het" offspring in the boa world. Not saying it wont happen, just hasn't yet, in order for that to happen, ALL DH snow boas out there would have to have this reduced pattern.

The Ball Pythons have..... forgive me if this is the wrong snake, black eyed Leucistic, which is a recessive trait. (damn those ball pythons, good for nothing I tell ya) The heterozygous form of those are visibly different from normal ball python offspring, they're called Fire Balls.

The term "heterozygous" does not mean,"normal,carrying a recessive trait." In recessive traits,typically there is nothing visible to distiguish hets from non-gene carriers,(one possible exception may be found in Leopards ? yet to be determined conclusively.)There may sometimes be certain markers to look for,however,in non-recessive traits,(various forms of dominant transmissives.)the heterozygous individuals are clearly distinguishable from the non-gene carrying counterparts.examples include Arabesque,Motley,Salmon/Orangetail/hypo,Jungle,(variable,and sometimes less distinct.)etc...many people get the idea that when breeding a mutation to a non-gene carrier,if the trait shows up in half the litter,it means the trait is "co-dominant".In actuality,it doesn't,it means: 1.The trait in question is non-recessive. 2.The expressive individual used in the breeding trial is likely a heterozygous example of the mutation.(when breeding ANY heterozygous individual,recessive,or not,the statistical transmissive result is 50/50...for example: het albino x "normal"=50% hets/50% "normal" )....hope this helps.
-----
EMAIL

forgive me, it's been a few years since my last science class. As I was replying to that message, I had a dictionary open in my lap looking up the exact definition of "heterozygous," so I could be more conrete. As usual, the dictionary didn't help me much.

I should know better. I forgot that TECHNICALLY F1 Hypos, arabasques, motleys, ect, would actually be considered hets. I've gotten so caught up in co-dom and super talk.... haha. Because they would still have the 2 different Alleles from both parents, making them hets. Unless it would be what we consider "super," carrying only alleles of one gene. being an F2-4? hypo, or arabasque x arabasque result offspring, etc.

Sound a little better? haha. Thank you for pointing that out.

I really was not expecting this detailed explanation.
Thank you,
-----
Joel Pretz

Please don't think,I'm trying to "correct" you in an attempt to come off as some sort of self appointed "genetics guru" (*lol*) I'm just a hobbyist/enthusiast,like alot of the rest of the folks that visit here.I think all of us benefit from this Forum for a variety of reasons,and as we move forward with all of these new morphs & combinations,we'll need to voice different theories.we'll all benefit from being on the same page,so to speak,in terms we can all agree on. In the last few years I've seen many things that raise questions about genetic principles we take for granted as "laws" in our yearly expectations. certainly what we all use,and have come to rely on is over simplified at best,and should always be subject to re-examination from time to time.
-----
EMAIL