Reptile & Amphibian Forums

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?

by the way.. it's been about 25 yrs since my highschool genetics class.. but this is fun!

Patrick

..

There no such thing as a:

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

There are homozygous hypos (called super hypos) and heterozygous hypos (called hets). There are no such things as a dominant or non-dominant hypo. That is not a description of a type of a hypo at all, it a description of how the genetics works. This has been pointed out to you many times now. I suggest you take it on faith for now and stop using those incorrect terms so as not to continue confusing more people. I am sure if you keep rereading the answers here over and over you'll get it. But you need to go read them all again and again.
-----
Caden Chapman
slithering.serpents@gmail.com
http://slitheringserpents.com

thanks.
I appreciate the offer of help, but you don't need to think that I will act as you tell me.

am I really expected to go back and read these posts again and again because you tell me to?

what is that all about?
I thought this forum was a place for me to go and have some enjoyment and take or leave what I choose to take or leave.

you certainly can do the same.

have a great day.. if you want to.

if you have the knowledge you need - then more power to you.
my learning process is my own. and each other person has their own learning process as well.

The source of the confusion is this:

Hypos are never ever "Co-Dominant" as there is not a clear definable guaranteed identifiable "Super" version. I think your list would be more accurate like this:

a single allele hypo is "Hh"
a double allele or Super hypo is "HH"
a normal (non-hypo) is "hh"

I complained about this to many folks over and over to no avail. Unfortunately, somebody popularized a perfectly understood scientific genetic term to mean something it never meant. That term was "dominant". When referring to the genetic definition of a dominant genetic trait it is this in my simple layman's language.

A "dominant" genetic trait is a visual mutation that is indistinguishable in it's single allele (Hh) or double allele (HH) state. The "Hypomelanistic" trait, is in Boa Constrictors, a "Dominant" mutation. "Dominant" does not now, did not yesterday and will not tomorrow, mean a double allele (HH) or "Super" Hypo. "Non-Dominant" does not now, did not yesterday and will not tomorrow, mean a single allele (Hh) or "Non-Super" Hypo. The use and or modification of the term "Dominant" is the problem. I do not know who started this misinformation, but it has confused many for many years and will continue to do so because the term "dominant" will continue to be incorrectly applied. I personally used the terms "Double Dose Hypo" (double allele or Super hypo or HH) and "Single Dose Hypo" (single allele hypo or Hh) because I thought those were much easier to keep straight in my own head.

For comparison, the Motley Boa is a "Co-Dominant" mutation or actually probably more accurately an "Incomplete Dominant" mutation. The single allele (Mm) version is the Motley Boa we have all come to know and love. The double allele (MM) is the Super Motley. The "Super" Motley does not become a "Dominant" Motley does it. This is a perfect example of using the wrong genetic term. The Motley mutation is a "Co-Dominant" mutation or really more accurately an "Incomplete Dominant" mutation. See why the misapplication of the term "dominant" has been the source of so much confusion? It drives me personally nuts. Not that I needed any help with that.

It's unfortunate these genetic terms continue to be misapplied. Any particular non-simple recessive mutation, as we know them now, are never both "Dominant" and "Co-Dominant" at the same time. Those two contradictory terms cannot be both used to describe any condition in respect to a single mutation. I hope this post does not come across like I am shaking my finger at anyone. I am not. I just wish this confusion had never started.
-----
Boaphile Home
All Original/Boaphile Plastics
The Boa Network