Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have a question for the Boa community.

Why is it that basically every ad I see for a Hypo boa that is het for albino has them labled as dbl. hets? A true dbl het would be an animal that is normal appearing but is a gene carrier for both traits. Now I understand that the Hypo trait is a dominant trait so why not call them what they are - Hypos het for albino?

Am I missing something?

I collect a number of different reptiles, I have collected locality Boas for the last 25 years and I have been breeding Ball Pythons for the last 10 years and I know there is some butting of heads between the ball and boa folk......but what it comes down to is correctly identifying what an animal is. Ball python breeders dont call Spiders, Pastels, Cinnamon Pastels, etc. . . het's for their homozygous form; they are just spiders, pastels and cinny's. ( although some do call yellowbellies hets for Ivory which I disagree with ) Isn't the term "het" used to reffer to a gene carrier for a simple recessive trait not a dominant one?

So why is it that this is being done? Not to jump on toes or start a big arguement.....I am just curious and would like a good explanation to this...

Thanks to all who read this and have a good answer.....

Jared H
-----
~ ASK ME ABOUT MY BALLS ~

my first reaction is to say that I agree about your thinking - technically a hypo het for albino is not a "double het."

it may not be purely correct in some way - but I'm not sure that it really needs to be changed either.??

I also don't think ALL the boa folk use the term "double het" when referring to hypos that are het for albino.

but good point.
maybe the ball boa folks are just smarter than us boa folk?

Patrick

The ball python morphs you have listed are all easily distinguishable between the dominant or "supers" and the codominant forms.. This makes them a true codominant mutation like Motleys and Jungles... Hypos are a true Dominant mutation in where the codominant and dominant forms cannot be distinguished among siblings.. This is the reason for "possible supers", there just isn't a 100% method to distinguish between the two.. Het Ivory IS incorrect terminology because yellow bellies and Ivory balls are easily identifiable.. DH Sunglow is used because it is the correct way to describe the genetics. Codominant hypos are hets for dominant hypos. I'm sure someone else can clear this up a lil better.

There is no such thing as 'dominant hypo' and 'codominant hypo'.
Dominant, co-dominant, recessive, etc describe the genetic inheritance of a trait (the way a mutation is passed from parents to offspring). In boas, all albino genetic mutations are recessive, and all hypomelanistic mutations are dominant.

DOMINANT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PARTICULAR ANIMALS HAS A HOMOZYGOUS (TWO OF THE SAME) PAIR OF GENES.

Using dominant to describe a hypo that is homozygous and codominant to describe a hypo that is heterozygous (two non matching genes)is not only incorrect, it makes you sound silly (when I see breeders at shows with animals marked as such) but it serves to confuse the understanding of genetics that much more.

As for the original post, there are correct responses posted. They are called double hets, because thats what they are; heterozyougs for albino and heterozygous for hypo. This terminology is proper and it is used to distinguish an animal who is known to be heterozygous for albino and HOMOZYGOUS for hypo from those that are known to be 'double hets'.
-----
- Jason F.

After I posted, I noticed I should've gone back and used "homozygous" in place of "dominant" hypo.. Hypos ARE a dominant mutation, not recessive or co dominant.. I used the incorrect term for describing "co dominant" instead of het hypo because that is the commonly understood term for implying the trait will be passed to hypothetically 1/2 of the litter in the same way heterozygous simple recessive animals do.. I felt it would be easier to understand considering the original poster didn't understand that het hypos were heterozygous for the dominant, homozygous hypo.. Again, "regular hypos" are "hets" because they are not distinguishable among their "homozygous/dominant/super" littermates, the same way simple recessive hets are not distinguishable among their wild type appearing littermates...

First, please do not take my last post as an attack I did not intend it that way.

I think you have the basic understanding but you seem to be on the edge of missunderstanding.

Using co-dominant to denote the possibility of a litters inheritance of a trait is just poor and improper use of the term. It appears to me that this is the most commonly confused and misused issue in the 'boa world' of genetics.

I can not see it as beneficial to use terms improperly because the original poster did not understand an aspect of genetics.

Hypos are heterozygous because they recieved only one mutant hypo gene from either their mother or father, not because they are indistinguishable from their homozygous siblings.

Hypo is a discription of a physical mutation.
Dominant is a discription of the way in which the genes that cause this mutation are inherited.
Heterozygous is a description of a pair of genes.

These are three very different aspects of genetics, complications occour when we blur them. When you think about genetics try to think of them in these three parts seperate from the other two.

Hope I helped clear things up and did not get you mad. If you would like to discuss further please email me, I love talking about genetics but dont want to hijack this post much more then I already have.
-----
- Jason F.

Thanks for clearing it up a bit. I thought all hets were only gene carriers indistinguishable from their siblings.. I have a pretty basic understanding but when it comes to words like allele, I'm lost in the water!lol Ah well, I know enough to determine hypothetical outcomes.. That's good enough for me!

Thanks!

"Het" stands for heterozygous, which means the boa has only 1 gene for that trait. It really doesn't matter if the trait is recessive, dominant, or co-dominant. So a 'dh' sunglow is a boa that is heterozygous for the hypo gene and heterozygous for the albino gene as well. Really I think that it is just easier to say 'dh sunglow' than 'hypo het albino', but you'll find a lot of people saying both versions. Hope this helps.
-----
1.0 ghost
0.1 het albino
1.0 dh sunglow 66% het anery
1.1 anery het albino
1.0 motley 50% het albino
0.1 anery 66% het albino
0.1 anery
0.1 circleback laddertail

You forgot the Sunglow part.

The term double het is ......

The animal is a Hypo Double het for Albino and Sunglow (Albino Hypo).

Or Super Double het for albino and Sunglow.

Dominant Hypo het for albino and Sunglow.

Hope this helps.
-----

Ashley Lopez's Black Forest Constrictors.
blackforestconstrictors@gmail.com
www.blackforestconstrictors.com

I saw an add for a dbl het coral albino. Now that one really threw me through a loop.

A Hypo is heterozygous see the definiton below:
An organism is a heterozygote or is heterozygous at a locus or gene when it has different alleles occupying the gene's position in each of the homologous chromosomes. In other words, it describes an individual that has 2 different alleles for a trait. In diploid organisms, the two different alleles were inherited from the organism's two parents. For example a heterozygous individual would have the allele combination Pp.

A Super Hypo is homozygous a regular hypo is heterozygous. An animal that is hypo and het for albino is a double het

You gotta love us

lol

JH
-----
~ ASK ME ABOUT MY BALLS ~

using "H" for the hypo allele and "h" for normal allele?

homozygous means that the alleles are the same (HH or hh).
heterozygous (het) means that the alleles are different (Hh).

a non-dominant hypo is "Hh"
a dominant or Super hypo is "HH"
a normal (non-hypo) is "hh"

so a non-dominant hypo ("Hh" is het for Super hypo?

and then,
a jungle is het for Super jungle?
and motley is het for Super motley?

Patrick

Verry close .. here is where you went wrong:

>>a non-dominant hypo is "Hh"
>>a dominant or Super hypo is "HH"
>>a normal (non-hypo) is "hh"
>>
>>so a non-dominant hypo ("Hh" is het for Super hypo?
>>
>>and then,
>>a jungle is het for Super jungle?
>>and motley is het for Super motley?

Dominant only describes the mode of inheritance. It is talking about the genetic mutation itself not that actual animal.
Recessive
Dominant
Co-dominant
are the basic ones for boas although there are more.

Recessive means that in order for the physical mutation to occour in the animal it must recieve a mutated gene from each parent.
Dominat means that in order for the physical mutation to occour an animal only need to recieve a gene from one of the parents. This would mean the animal is heterozygous. The animal CAN recieve this gene from both parents and visualy you could not tell but genetically it will have a pair of mutated genes or homozygous (or super in boa terms).
co-dominant works similar to dominant in the fact that only one mutated gene is required to physically have a difference from a wild type but in this case the presence of two mutated genes forms an alternate physical difference, ie. motley (heterozygous form) and super motley (homozygous form).

Jungle is just het for jungle unless it is stated that it is a super or homozygous jungle, a homozygous (has two jungle genes) is called a super jungle in boa terms. homozygous and super mean the same thing, one is just slang.
Same goes for Motley only with motley you can easily visually see the difference between a single mutant motley gene and a pair of mutant genes.

Just remember to think of dominant, recessive, co-dominant etc as describing the condition not the individual animal.
As in cancer is a deadly disease, deadly describes the cancer.

homozygous and heterozygous describe the genetics of the individual animal.
As in Bob has a bad case of cancer, bad case describes Bobs particular situation with cancer.
-----
- Jason F.

I'm thinking that the word "dominant" can be used in different ways.. (which of course it can)

"dominance" as a mode of inheritance vs. dominant in the sense that a superhypo is dominant because it will produce all hypos.

I'm starting to remember my highschool genetics.. but for the sake of being sure, I'm going to try and repeat what I believe you just said.

Dominance (Dominant mode of inheritance) places the emphasis on the need to have the dominant allele to receive the trait. Recessive(Recessive mode of inheritance) places the emphasis of needing two recessive alleles to receive the trait.

hypomelanism is passed through a dominant mode of inheritance.. all the boa needs is one dominant allele from either parent, but Albinism is a recessive mode of inheritance which requires that the boa receive a recessive allele from each parent in order to inherit the trait.

the importance of "het" when referring to a recessive mode of inheritance is different than when referring to a dominant mode of inheritance. the "het" is REQUIRED to produce an albino , but the "het" is not required to produce a hypo. (I think that made sense)

which is why I am now going to take a HUGE risk and go back to my original thought that a hypo het for albino is in my opinion not a true "double het" - unless you wanted to say that a hypo het for albino is a double het for Supersunglow.

but - of course I could be completely wrong also.

Patrick

Listen to what Jason is telling you...a double het.sunglow is an animal that carries two genetic mutations,both of which are in their heterozygous form! (a TRUE double het,every bit as "true" as a double het snow!!!)...this can be proven beyond any doubt by "breeding results",which is the only thing that weighs in on correct identification,besides accurate known genetic status of parentage.
-----
HarlequinBoa.com Captive born excellence through applied genetic theory...and,astute observations based on a keen sense of the sometimes painfully obvious

I think this is a very interesting topic and I enjoy the intellectual challenge.

I am not implying that anyone is seriously challanging my credibility as a person - this discussion is all for the purpose of fun and education.. but I feel the need to preface myself this time..

ALL READERS, PLEASE NOTE.. I am not a genetic expert, but I do understand enough to accurately represent the animals I have purchased, produced or sold. I typically purchase my animals from trustworthy breeders and the few animals that I have purchased as "imports with unknown liniage" I have identified them as such.

now, having said that.. if anyone still cares to continue..

I realized after sending my previous post that I had some obvious errors, but I felt I was much closer to the truth than when I first responded to this thread.

I want to retract the section below.. I still have some thoughts about this that I "feel" are true but can't seem to find the correct way to say it or haven't figured out for myself why it's not true..

>the importance of "het" when referring to a recessive mode of >inheritance is different than when referring to a dominant mode >of inheritance. the "het" is REQUIRED to produce an albino , >but the "het" is not required to produce a hypo. (I think that >made sense)

>which is why I am now going to take a HUGE risk and go back to >my original thought that a hypo het for albino is in my opinion >not a true "double het" - unless you wanted to say that a hypo >het for albino is a double het for Supersunglow.

and I will cling to this ending statement..
>but - of course I could be completely wrong also.

Patrick

I understand that a hypo can be a "het"
"Hh" is a hypo, but "HH" is also a hypo (superhypo).

therefore, not all hypos are hets. some hypos are homozygous for the hypo trait (I am pretty much 100% sure about this - but please tell me if you think I am wrong..)

- so why assume that all hypos het for albino can be called "double het?? but of course you may not be assuming that.. and of course I may be wrong again..(I know that's possible!)

Patrick

I will try to make this as simple as I can. An animal that is a het Hypo and het albino is a double het animal. It does not matter that you can see it is a het it is still a het. You are correct a super hypo that is also het albino is not a double het.

no need to correct me or make it more simple- I think I have already agreed that a "het hypo" that is also "het albino" is a "double het". I really do get that.

my last repsonse was just to point out that all boas that have a hypomelanistic appearance are not "het hypos" - and Thank You for confirming I was correct on that point.

I just thought of a new question to ponder..

in terms of marketing then - if we are arguing so strongly that a non-super hypo is a "het hypo" then why don't we advertise and sell them as "het hypos"?

"Litter of het hypos just born!"
"On Sale - 0.1 het hypo - genetics guaranteed!"
"Proven male 100% het hypo ready for you female het hypos!"

hmmm.. maybe it would work!?
I'm just having fun...........

Patrick

2007 1.0 possible het hypo ..it might be a homozygous hypo (homo hypo??).. only time and breeding will tell which for sure!
I just wish I hadn't sold it.

you can visually distinguish a "het hypo" from a normal because the trait is dominant. If a hypo has the possibility of being homozygous, it will be marketed as such (ie "possible super", or "super". Plus "possible super" sounds so much cooler than "possible homozygous".

With a recessive trait, you have to signify whether the animal is a het or not, because, assuming its not homozygous, it will look normal. And there's no other way I know of to signify it is a het than just saying "het". We could say "100% albino gene carriers for sale", I guess. But "het" works so much better...

good points.. that completely made sense to me.

but maybe "het for superhypo" could catch on..?

Patrick

A hypo is not advertised as "het hypo" simply because it's redundant. The Hypo morph only requires the heterozygous form, whereas if the snake is homozygous it will be labeled "superhypo"(or possible/probable superhypo).

For the same reason, you would not advertise a ball python as "het pastel" or "het yellowbelly". Although it DOES make sense to say "het ivory" (since ivory is the super form of yellowbelly even though they look completely different). However, nobody advertises "het mojaves" or "het pastels" for ball pythons because most ball hobbyists already know that these are dominant traits. Boas and balls aren't so different when it comes to morph terminology.

~kasey
Boas, Balls, & Burms

I see both sides.

to me, a "double het snow" seems more correct than a "double het sunglow"

I'm sure I still said something incorrect though.

Patrick

once again, I thought this was an interesting topic.

>>I have a question for the Boa community.
>>
>> Why is it that basically every ad I see for a Hypo boa that is het for albino has them labled as dbl. hets? A true dbl het would be an animal that is normal appearing but is a gene carrier for both traits. Now I understand that the Hypo trait is a dominant trait so why not call them what they are - Hypos het for albino?
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>>
The term Heterozygous does not mean normal with a hidden trait. It means the gene pairs are not the same. In the case of the Salmon, (I am guessing this is the hypo you speak of) the Salmon gene is Dominant to the Normal gene, but the Normal gene is still paired with the Salmon gene.

So a normal Salmon Boa is quite literally "Het" for normal.

Hope that helps.
-----
Richard Carew
Sunset BCI
You laugh at me cuz I'm different! I laugh at you cuz you're all the same.
Stop Inhumane and Illegal Practices

All ball python people disagree with us boa people about this subject???? I have read through all of the responses so far, and all of them pretty much agree with my theory.

I see it like this.... Lets forget about snakes for a minute, forget boas, forget balls. Lets define the word HETEROZYGOUS! I do not have a dictionary in front of me right now, but I'm sure it would say something along the lines of: "Having different alleles."

I think it is a HUGE misunderstanding in snakes that heterozygous means a normal appearing animal carrying a recessive gene. This is false because heterozygous has nothing to do with recessive genes, it has to do with Allels. An albino animals alleles would look like aa, a het albino would look like Aa. In which case, the recessive gene would be a heterozygous animal.... in THIS case.

But in other cases, such as a hypo... Lets use a Homozygous (super) HH hypo for this example. Breed that HH hypo to a normal wild type boa, NN, the babies would carry the alleles HN. Which are 2 different alleles, neither of which are recessive, but making this animal a true heterozygous hypo.

Any comments agreeing or disagreeing with this????? I'm glad this arguement came up because I am still at disagreement over this with some friends, they think recessive genes HAVE to be involved to be het

in a het. It doesn't matter if it's a dominant or recessive or codominant gene. A het is a het. It doesn't matter what it looks like. What it looks like is not part of the definition of het. Het is short for heterozygous. It means that the gene pair are not the same. One of them is different. This can mean one or both of them are mutated genes, but they don't match each other, they are different.

I can't believe how many times and how many people now have explained this! And still so many people don't get it. There is no such thing as a dominant hypo or a recessive hypo. Dominant and recessive are modes of genetic transmission. Those are not in any way a description of homo (homozygous) or het (heterozygous). Homozygous is a description where there same gene makes up the pair. Heterozygous is where the pair are different from each other.
-----
Caden Chapman
slithering.serpents@gmail.com
http://slitheringserpents.com

sounds like you have a very dominant opinion that the word "dominant" can only be used in one context... i.e., "dominant mode of inheritance."

I agree with your use of the word in that sense, but it's not the only way the word can be used - in my opinion.

I can't really think of a reason to use the term "recessive hypo" but maybe a "dominant hypo" is that one hypo in a gang of hypos that all the other hypos want to follow and emulate??

maybe then, that one hypo could be called "the dominant hypo"..?
I just hope that that "dominant" hypo is a good guy or girl and sets a good example for the rest of the hypo boas..

trying to have fun.
I know.......... you don't need to tell me..
I'm wrong.

Patrick

I think that this thread has only served to confuse the hell out of those who are unclear on genetic terminology...when in fact this topic is actually quite simple.

A het is a het whether it is a recessive or co-dominant gene. I don't care which way you look at it but a double het for sunglow is as accurately and correctly described as a double het for snow...no if's, and's or but's.

My 2 pence.

I said np
-----
Thanks,

Dave Colling

www.rainbows-r-us-reptiles.com

0.1 Wife (WC and still very fiesty)
0.2 kids (CBB, a big part of our selective breeding program)

LOL, to many snakes to list, last count:
24.36 BRB
19.19 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats