Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Maybe I am just venting a little, but why are people even LOOKING for a CO DOM title in genetics in colubrids. To MY knowledge there has never been anything conclusive to prove the theory. While I understand that there may be a linked gene to a recessive(PB and ultra corns)they are far from CO DOM. To prove it just breed the trait into ANY other colubrid line(YES, hybridize)and see if the trait follows. Anything less than that proves CO DOM doesnt exist. Am I wrong? Jeff..........ps, GET THE *^&( OUT OF BALL PYTHONS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!! lol

There are different types of co dom, no?

Otherwise what would you call the ultra corn and Peanut Butters? Thie share the same allel on a single locus.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

i dunno jeff, co-dom traits are really cool. id love to see more of them in common colubrids. i do know a few have been prooven out in kings,corns,pits etc.like striping,melanistic,colors,etc.but most colubrid traits are reccesives,IMHO we need MORE co-doms!,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

I think there is a difference between pattern mutation and genetics. I think there is a difference between traits and genes.

It's a visual het for leucistic black rat. Sounds about as co-dominant as any ball python morph to me...

Any Co Dom gene should be able to be bred with anything(even other sp)and the gene should carry over. I think there is a difference on another level. I think a pattern variation is alot different than a gene variation as this affects a animal past the skin level to a gene level. Am I wrong?? J

well jeff i thought you were talking co-dominant traits IE~visual.
like your monster isle. milks if the green is replicated in F1 offspring crossed from a differant locale(the same locale could be het.green) i would then consider that color variant a co-dom trait if not its probably a reccessive which will be easy albeit time consuming to confirm or deny. also i beleive a co-dom cannot make hets. only homozygous thus co-dominant but i could be wrong. most morphs like amel,anery,hypo have prooven to be reccessive, but there are some pattern traits that have prooven to be co-dom like striping,melanistic,etc. i'd like to see more,,,,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Co Doms cannot make hets. The definition of the term says it. Pattern variation increases % by increasing probability, but it will always "taint" everything it touches.

Example, striped coastals.

There is an obvious link between INDIVIDUALS that increase the probability of abbarancy(in this case striping). But as a whole there is no predictability when it comes down to % of individuals or amount. There is always a chance of making "hets".

2nd example Halloween Pueblans

Again, a PATTERN anomaly. We can try to select for it, and increasing the odds by including like individuals does not make it genetic and therefore NOT predictable. Not REPRODUCABLE to the standards set by this forum I believe. There is always a chance to make "hets".

Co Dom will FOREVER be a BOID trait, and the sooner we accept that the better. Are there "other" genetic descriptions beyond "dominant" and "Recessive"?? Sure. They are very difficult to figure and dont make for simple talk on any public forum.

Until PB and "ultramel" are completely understood I think it would be wrong to judge them. Can we talk about them? Sure. But the numbers, the replications have to be reproduced several times and several generations. We should avoid referring to any colubrid as "TRUE CO DOMINANT" until it can be PROVED. Single clutches, single individuals must be scrutinized.

Dont be afraid of not being the first onto something. Just make sure of your findings before you go public or you will be made a fool,Jeff

So hybridizing is the only way to prove a genetic to be co-dominant?

The tiger/super tiger retic morph is generally considered to be co-dominant, and as far as I know, it has not been hybridized to anything else to prove this.

Co-dominant in this hobby is generally used to describe a morph that has a visually heterozygous form, which is an intermediate between the super (or homozygous) form, and the normal form.

This means when you breed the super to a normal, you get 100% visual hets. You breed the visual het to a normal, you get 50% visual hets. You breed the visual het to another visual het, you get 25% supers, 50% visual hets, 25% normals. Its the same as a recessive trait, only the hets have a unique phenotype.

The rusty/leucistic black rat follows this method of inheritance, and I think a few other colubrid morphs do to, like patternless southern pines.

If this is not what co-dominant is, then just about everyone in the hobby is mis-using the word. I don't care what word you use to describe it, I just like visual hets. You know what you're getting...

Visual hets. Pattern increase or reduction alone does not make a trait. Reproducability is not questioned, its the SCIENCE behind the genetics that give traits power. Its this science I argue for. Producing an "intermediary" defines a "het" but while visual differences can be seen within a clutch, its within a much larger sample size that defines it. Are "rusty" rats produced other ways?? I will be honest in the fact I dont know about the southern pines, but I will and have consistently argued against colubrid CO DOM until it can be proven TO SCIENCE. Yes, you can prove it other than interspecies. But with the mass quantities of hybrids now we can quickly dowse theories....or honor them. Anyone have any PROOF?? To me that would include more than 3 individuals with reproducable and predictable clutches. Hets unlike any other "normal" breedings.

This means when you breed the super to a normal, you get 100% visual hets. You breed the visual het to a normal, you get 50% visual hets. You breed the visual het to another visual het, you get 25% supers, 50% visual hets, 25% normals. Its the same as a recessive trait, only the hets have a unique phenotype.

Okay explain this to me. With the Peanut Butters I have bred them to other traits and gotten very light animals. I bred a PB to a hypo years ago and the male adulut I have is very pretty high yellow. But nothing as spectacular as a Jelly.. So if I bred a PB male to a female hypo, axanthic, ect I would get some light animals. Then I bred the PB to a T- neg and got some dark and some VERY light. Would /could this be a super??

Two years ago I did lend out my PB male to Swampland reptiles (post as JJL on here) and he bred it to a whitesided and axanthic. The snakes I received back are normals (dark animals). i never saw the others in the clutch so i don't know what he held back or if anything was lighter in color or anything else unusual was produced. So the results are a mystery on that one for me.

This year I bred the PB to other things so I guess the jury will have a verdict. Another poster here (Horridus) also was supposed to breed a light PB (poss super) to a wild florida king this year, to prove if this trait is codom or not. It could be the PB is the first true codom kingsnake because I do not know for sure. I recall very very light snakes being produced from the PB x hypo I did in 2003. But nothing as spectacular as when the gene was crosses with the T negative later in '05.

This year I also bred Peanut Butter to(JellY) and Jelly to Jelly. If this is a codom what should I expect from these breedings.

The Jellys I used were the very light (super?) to dark Jelly.

Last year I also bred a very dark (red) Peanut Butter to supposed normal het(not really a het then) and got mosly dark PB and only a couple light ones.

Matter of fact i have never known a "het" Peanut butter ever producing anything BUT Peanut Butters. It seems from memory that every "het" ever produced was actual het. Meaning there never was a normal looking "het" that was not het. What are the odds. Never thought of this before.

I will need to post a picture essay of the dark and light Peanut Butters and the normals . This is an old pic but i have newer ones showing these PB and others as adults.

PB and Super Peanut Butters???? (pic taken in '04)

dark normal Peanut butter and normal. Result from breeding PB male to normal female(thought of as a "het"

Classic pic i took in 2003 which shows the confusion at the time of a Peanut Butter to a normal breeding. Again the normal was thought to be possible het. Turns out I thought it was a het. Maybe this is a codom because it shows the PB, the super, and the normal which is what supposed to happen, right??

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

>> This year I also bred Peanut Butter to(JellY) and Jelly to
>> Jelly. If this is a codom what should I expect from these
>> breedings.

If it follows simplistic rules *and* it really is the same gene pair -

Jelly x PB should result in 50% Jelly and 50% PB

Jelly X Jelly should result in 25% PB, 25% amel, 50% Jelly

However - I think that some traits can be the result of multiple different heterozygous gene pairs. Some of the double hets kerby has produced look hypo to me but are two different alleles.

I think your jelly is a single heterozygous gene pair that both morphs share, but I think it is possible that are different alleles but when both are heterozygous, it has an unexpected effect.

When are these clutches expected to hatch?

If they are different gene pair (which I doubt) - then

PB x Jelly will produce

50% PB *1
25% Jelly (double het)
25% normal het PB

*1 - some of the PB will be het for amel and hetero PB het amel may end up with a different jelly or maybe look jelly?

Anyway - if they are same gene pair you shouldn't get any normal but if they are different gene pair you should get some normal.
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata - 14 eggs (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

Rainer, you may have something there but you may have a problem proving things. I think it awesome you have kept the records you have, but it shows us all how important having a little better records always help. As far as naming your lines, I will be honest that the PB&J thing has me a little confused,lol.
The numbers will bear it out,but to PROVE a gene it would be nice to see ratios somewhere near expected results, right? I think your "light and dark" references only make it murkier, but again thats just me.
With all the different species and all the different morphs now, double morphs spontaniously appearing is no longer impossible. Having 2(or more) new morphs in the same line makes it difficult to sort. I REALLY hope you figure it out before you include all the other morphs,lol, or the water will be full of muddy guppies.

I think it is possible for a gene to be codom with some genes and recessive with others.

Ask Nokturnal Tom about hypo sonoran gophers.
I can't speak for him, but I believe he and others involved with the line he is working with have demonsrated it at least can be codom. I don't know if a "super" form exists or not.
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata - 14 eggs (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

Regarding colubrid mutations, Are some people jumping the gun? yeah. But forums are for expressing thoughts and ideas other than hard fact. Are incomplete dominant traits strictly a boid thing? (Co-dom is actually an incorrect term for what we're seeing in reptiles) Well, I guess if you think so....sure. Fact is, there's more proven incomplete dominant traits in Boa Constrictors and Ball Pythons at this point but who even knew what they were before Pastel Balls were proven to be inherited in this manner? We are all in an embryonic state in reptile genetics. We have little idea as to what's going on....There just has not been enough time and breeding done with ANY reptiles to come to any solid scientifically correct conclusions. But we do have some terms that have been accepted by the hobby. I believe that there will be many incomplete dominant traits that show up in colubrid species...Rusty ratsnakes are a good example at this point, It's my understanding that if you breed a rusty to a normal unrelated animal you get a percentage of animals exhibiting the rusty appearance. If you breed two rustys...you get Luecistics, Rustys, and normals...now, whether we are correct in calling this incomplete (or Co) dominant it's still an example of what's been accepted in the hobby as such. I think that the PB Brooks (when people have enough time to breed them to wild unrelated animals) will also prove to be of similar mode of inheritence. Anyway, that's my opinion and it's worth exactly nada....

To another point you made...(oh no, tangent time)...those who have no passion for breeding Ball pythons will be out of them soon, The money just won't be what they thought it was. I find it strange how there's this animosity toward the species though. I love them, I have many, I had some before the amazing genetic things started being discovered. There's been several of these "booms" in the hobby...Veiled Chams, Beardeds, Amel Milksnakes, Cornsnakes and on and on...
There will always be those who choose thier projects by what they think they can get as a financial return. They won't last as breeders of ANY species....and if you chose to "get into" balls because you saw dollar signs flying around in the air then yes, you might want to get out. But those of us who have them because they are a GREAT snake to keep and as a plus have fascinating genetic possibilities then there's no reason to "get out while we still can" Actually this is a great time to be breeding them as there's so many unanswered questions and unseen appearances. What's with all the hostility toward a great snake? Did you buy some Mojaves or something? The "business" of herpetoculture is really just a mirage. Those who love animals will always do well and make some money, the ones who don't will not.....whether they chose to invest in Solid White Ball Pythons or Amelanistic Hondurans or Locality Eastern Kings. There's a finite number of people who will pay these overinflated prices for animals and when they have them.....that's it, the "market" will "crash" And those who love the way the snakes looked regardless of whether they were "worth" $20,000 or $20 will be the winners. Is the Amelanistic Nelsons any less mindblowing now than when they were $2000 ea for babies? No, they are still just as beautiful...some even more so with selective breeding...but no one would "invest" in those now...see the absurdity? Or is it just me??

I work with Locality Kingsnakes, Ball Pythons, Beardeds, Turtles, Venomous, mutations, and hybrids....and I love and learn something from all of them...I don't get the mindset of looking down one's nose at anyone's projects....and I see alot of that on these forums.

Now, if you made it this far into this pointless rant...Here's a box of brooks morphs

...

from another lover of ball pythons...from way back before the craze started.

Will

Personally every time I sell a snake for more than 50 bux I am jumping for joy. I want to work with new projects and hope to make a nice profit for a year or ten but when the prices fall the snakes stay right here, and get the same attention and excitement every time they produce babies.
True, the Amel Nelsoni are hardly an investment animal. However many people still buy them to breed them because they're nice looking snakes. There will always be the types out there who refuse to pay top dollar for a new mutation knowing they will get that same snake years later much cheaper. I hear it every year from potential customers and friends. "I will wait for the price to come down"....nothing wrong with that, to each his own. There's also the types who want sellers to lower their price on anything and everything and sometimes they get thier way,.,,,,,but not at my table LOL!
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

The fundamental problem here is that most snake breeders have a very limited understanding of genetics and inheritance.

First of all, recessive alleles occur when an allele doesn't produce a visible product. That's what makes the allele recessive. If you are a het, you show the dominant phenotype since something plus nothing equals something. Example - normal pigmentation genes will be dominant over the faulty recessive allele where you don't produce the pigment, thus albinism is recessive. This we understand.

Codominance occurs when multiple alleles produce a product and both products affect the phenotype. The A and B blood type alleles are codominant. If you are a het, you have both A and B proteins on your blood. Usually, the het has a third phenotype, not necessariy something halfway between the other two.

There is also a subtype of codominance called incomplete dominance where the het is intermediate between the two alleles. This is what most herpers are talking about when they say "codominance". You breed a black chicken to a white chicken and you produce a gray chicken - incomplete dominance.

But here's the problem....there are MANY other ways things can be inherited. Things aren't either dominant/recessive or codominant. There are quantitative traits, epistasis, pleiotropy, sex-linkage, traits influenced by sex hormones, and many other allele/gene interactions which can affect the phenotype.

So with complex traits, the best approach to figuring it out is to gather a lot of data. You can't do that by crossing your trait into other lines. That just obfuscates the real pattern. You have to line breed for many generations and then go back and look at your pedigrees carefully. This is how geneticists figure this stuff out, and you can't really do it any other way.

Another problem is you have to have a real way of identifying and quantifying your trait. Imagine if you took a group of male humans who were 5'10" and one guy who was 6'4".
Most herp hobbyists would look at the big guy and label him a tall morph. Then they would proceed to breed the tall morph to their available females and produce offspring and grow them up. Let's say of the male offspring, some were 5'10" and two were 6'0". Does that make the 6 footers heterozygous individuals for this codominant tall allele? No, and and while it seems ridiculous to say that, that's the approach herp hobbyists seem to take.

The problem with "proving" codominance is failing to recognize the variance within and between the two phenotypes. How much "tigerism" do you have to have to be a super tiger? Are there snakes that are hard to put in one category or another?

I think Peanut Butter falls into this category. I don't see a clear pattern emerging about what exactly peanut butter is and isn't. Why aren't all peanut butters the same? I think using the name super peanut butter is unfortunate.

Peanut Butterism is obviously heritable, but it doesn't appear to be something simple, from what I have gathered.

And don't forget, there are many traits in humans that took many decades to figure out with huge pedigree studies and there are lots of heritable traits we still don't understand. The same is going to be true in snakes, as well.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

...

.
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

I don't see a clear pattern emerging about what exactly peanut butter is and isn't. Why aren't all peanut butters the same? I think using the name super peanut butter is unfortunate.

And don't forget, there are many traits in humans that took many decades to figure out with huge pedigree studies and there are lots of heritable traits we still don't understand. The same is going to be true in snakes, as well.

Chris ,

I don't think the name Peanut Butter really has anything to do with the subect at hand.

The name Peanut Butter was invented 4 years before there ever was any speculation that it might be a codom trait. At first myself andf everyone thought it was just another form of hypomelanism. Since the name hypo was already taken I left it before this forum and its poster to pick a name.

I have been breeding the Peanut Butters since 2002. So there is plenty of data. I have hundreds of pics. That my data and the best you can have. Also I beleive that the resulting outcrossing of the PB this year will reveal the answers we are looking for. If I had not bred the PB to a T neg to begin with then none of this CODOM speculation would have even started. Also I don't see the difference between breeding a PB to normal florida or an axanthic, hypo , lavender ect. If any of the babies are anything BUT normal (dbl hets) then we have more answers.

This is an exciting new trait for the kingsnake world and hopefull it will be a lot of fun for breeders to discover what it will bring for the future.

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

np

Of course you make many valid points..........and you know I am going to say BUT!
What happens when people hold back all their snakes to prove them out is eventually when they do become available that breeder is often accused of scheming some financial plot to unleash them during one particular year.... and basically makes a killing while everyone else who buys into them will find massive amounts of competition when they finally produce them.

Some breeders go as far as freezing off excess babies to keep the numbers down, which I personally think is cruel and a waste of good pets.

Using the Vanshing Pattern trait in Hondurans as an example, many people found them appealing and bought them knowing they may or may not help them to produce more Vanishing Patterns in their colony of breeders. I myself look at these situations as hit or miss. If it turns out to be either reproduceable or influential in any way creating more of the same or even a new variant then I am happy. If it doesn't, well I still have that somewhat unique snake in my collection and I am OK with that too.

To think the majority of people think breeding snakes with a cookbook recipe in a one size fits all type of mentality is bad enough. To think many people are going to be upset if their recipe of A+B=C will not work out for every single mutation is even worse. When things are not fully understood some of us feel it is even more fun ot work with that gene. To be able to show you bred A to B and produce something much different than C is a bonus from where I am standing. Who knows how many people will say they either prefer specific projects to create specific looks or how many hope they get a surprise? Misrepresentation is bad, but allowing more people to experiment with something new should be encouraged,,,,,,,,,that is my opinion of course, not saying that is the way it should be for everyone.

Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com