Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.
It really bugs me to see Yellowbellies labeled as Het. Ivory. Everyone knows that are CoDom, but refer them as if they are Recessive.
It's like Spiders being CoDom, when everyone really knows they are Dominate.
Why don't we start calling Fires , Het BlackEL's and Lessers, Het. BlueEL's.
Sorry, lol i just need to vent a bit, it just bugs me when i see things like that.
Pitoon
Technically speaking co-dom and recessive are essentially the same thing - the only difference being that there is a visual difference between the codom het - where as the het of a recessive appears "normal".
Then you factor in all the people that hated the name "yellowbelly" as well as those that cant remember what a yellowbelly is het for - for it to be called either or both ways solves many preferences and confusions.
-----
Tosha
JET Pythons
Something can't have something different and be the same. But i feel where you are going.
I personally liked the name Yellowbelly, it's all these new crazy names i think is what's confusing people.
And if someone can't remember that two Yellowbellies can make an Ivory, they are just plain lazy to remember this.
Just my take on this.
Pitoon
Speaking of that.... There is a Butter Het. Lucy for sale right now.
I understand what your saying and I dont think they should be conciderd a het. Is a Yellow Belly's Homozygous form a Ivory?
I thought the co-doms where the ones with the Homo. form, not the Recessives.
Correct me if im wrong.
-----
Josh Molone
"Is a Yellow Belly's Homozygous form a Ivory?"
Yes
-----
Louis Kirkland
Cornerstone Reptiles
Het just means having two different genes - it can come in the recessive or co-dom form. Each have one normal gene and one morph gene - each have a visually different homo form. The only difference between co-dom and recessive is that you can visually tell which animals carry the morph gene.
-----
Tosha
JET Pythons
So does that mean if you breed a normal to a pastel And get a clutch of 8 and out hatch 2 bumble beees, 4 pastel and 2 normals that the normals are het for pastel......... No!
-----
I'm not sure where you'd get two bumble bees by breeding a normal to a pastel?
Pastel is not a homo form - so it couldn't have a het. Het simply means that it does not have a matching set of genes. A pastel has a normal gene and a pastel gene and is het for super pastel which is the homo form meaning that it has a matching set of pastel genes. Don't over think it het and homo only mean whether or not there is a matching set of genes. Recessive, Co-dom and Dominant deal with visual appearance.
-----
Tosha
JET Pythons
My bad on the bumble bee thing I was thing of spider x pastel. So what you are saying is that pastels are Het for super pastel?
-----
N/P.
Well smack my ass and call me Sally........ I don't know $@*% about this stuff then...... I might as well give up the whole thing then!
-----
OK - that makes more sense then!
Yes, pastel is het for super pastel - pastel carrying only one morph gene and super pastel carrying a matching set.
Backtracking to your previous question that I think you were asking - there are some that will argue on either side whether you can consider a codom het for a combo morph (ie pastel is het for bumblebee). Some people think that it is correct in meaning that pastel is one half of a gene to make bumblebee - and others maintain that you can only use the term het for a homo form (obviously a bumblebee isn't a homo form). Its been argued back and forth - sometimes you'll see things that are het for combo morphs so I guess it really depends.
Sorry for the long winded post - I hope it made sense.
-----
Tosha
JET Pythons
Hell yeah...... I always love a good post confrontation.
-----
>Backtracking to your previous question that I think you were asking - there are some that will argue on either side whether you can consider a codom het for a combo morph (ie pastel is het for bumblebee). Some people think that it is correct in meaning that pastel is one half of a gene to make bumblebee - and others maintain that you can only use the term het for a homo form (obviously a bumblebee isn't a homo form).
For what it's worth, I only use the term het for a heterozygous form. 
Heterozygous and homozygous refer to a single gene pair. Bumblebee requires two gene pairs. A bumblebee has a spider mutant gene paired with a normal gene and a pastel mutant gene paired with a normal gene. (The normal gene paired with the pastel mutant gene is not the same as the normal gene paired with the spider mutant gene.) Both gene pairs are heterozygous. If you like, you can call bumblebee a double het.
Paul Hollander
Heterozygous - having nonidentical alleles for the trait in question
-----
Yeah I don't understand why people a calling anything het ivory or hey Lucy. Yellowbellies, butters and lessers are al Co-Dominant. Ivory any Lucy are the super ( dominant )forms of these snakes. also I have seen people call spiders and pinstripes Co-Dominant, they aren't. The are dominant. This what I have learn through many many hours of research. So please coorect me if I am wrong.
-----
Het ivory is quite acceptable in standard genetics terminology.
Most of the herper web sites do not have the standard definition for "heterozygous". When they define "heterozygous", it is usually the definition for "heterozygous for a recessive mutant gene".
Consult a dictionary, for example http://dictionary.reference.com, for the definition of heterozygous. You will find that a gene pair is heterozygous if the two genes in the pair are different. By extension, a cell is heterozygous if it contains such a gene pair, and an organism is heterozygous if its cells are heterozygous. The definition says nothing about an animal's appearance. So a ball python with a normal gene paired with an albino mutant gene is a het, and a ball python with a normal gene paired with a spider mutant gene is also a het. For that matter, a ball python with a mojave mutant gene paired with a lesser mutant gene is a het, too.
A gene pair is homozygous when there are two copies of the same gene in the gene pair. This definition also says nothing about the animal's appearance. A ball python with two copies of the albino mutant gene is homozygous. And a ball python with two copies of the mojave mutant gene is homozygous.
By the way, dominant and super are not the same. And dominant and codominant do not refer to the number of copies of a mutant gene in a gene pair. A codominant mutant gene is a codominant mutant gene whether there is one copy or two copies of the mutant gene in the gene pair. And a dominant mutant gene is a dominant mutant gene whether there is one copy or two copies of the mutant gene in the gene pair.
Super is herper slang for a snake that is homozygous for a codominant mutant gene.
Recessive mutant gene -- a mutant gene that shows its effect only when there are two copies of the gene in the gene pair. A creature with a recessive mutant gene paired with a normal gene looks normal.
Dominant mutant gene -- a mutant gene that shows the same effect when there are one or two copies of the gene in the gene pair. A creature with a dominant mutant gene paired with a normal gene looks like a creature with two copies of the dominant mutant gene.
Codominant mutant gene -- a mutant gene that shows a different effect when there are one or two copies of the gene in the gene pair. A creature with a codominant mutant gene paired with a normal gene does not look normal and does not look like a creature with two copies of the codominant mutant gene.
Hope this helps.
Paul Hollander
You said what I was trying to say, but in easier to understand terms!
~jenny
-----
"Polysyllabism in no way insures that what you're saying is actually worth being heard." - Blake (an e-friend of mine)
"I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: "O lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And he granted it." - Voltaire
great post Thanks
What about the Het Red-Axanthics. I don't think I've ever seen them posted as anything else other than Het Reds. Or are they known by any other name?
-----
Phil Red Hernandez-
Axanthic is a recessive gene.
-----
I know and understand that an Axanthic is a recessive colour morph. But I am refering to the Red Axanthic which has visual hets just like any other co-dom morph out there.
-----
Phil Red Hernandez-
I don't know....... All I know about red axanthics is that they are the super form of black backs ( that are the visible Hets )
-----
Yes they are the super form of black backs. But they are certain black backs that you use to produce the Red Axanthics. The following links will show you how to spot a Het Red Axanthic and how they are produced.
www.nextworldexotics.com/hghra.htm
www.coreywoods.com/red.shtml
-----
Phil Red Hernandez-
I don't know, I see it both ways--which is why I prefer Het Ivory. Not necessarily the proper name but correct in description.
M.
Wrong.......... Being Het for something deals with recessive genes. Correct me if I am wrong. I am only a newbie thinking I know everything.LOL Het for something is a normal looking snake carrying the recessive gene for what it is Het for.
Recessive Gene - an allele that can determine the phenotype only when in homozygous state.
Here is a link for herp terminology-
http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/matrix/terminology.asp
-----
Recessive or otherwise, heterozygosity results from the possession of two different alleles for any given trait. The homozygous expression of the YB morph is the Ivory, and the heterozygous expression of the Ivory is a Het Ivory.
M.
Heterozygous - having nonidentical alleles for the trait in question.
This could be better worded but is essentially correct. There is no stipulation that it refers only to a gene pair containing a normal gene and a recessive mutant gene.
Paul Hollander
>>Wrong.......... Being Het for something deals with recessive genes. Correct me if I am wrong. I am only a newbie thinking I know everything.LOL Het for something is a normal looking snake carrying the recessive gene for what it is Het for.
>>
>>Recessive Gene - an allele that can determine the phenotype only when in homozygous state.
>>Here is a link for herp terminology-
>>http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/matrix/terminology.asp
>>-----
>>I'm the one you're not supposed to speak of!
Both (co-dominate and recessive)require two alleles of said gene to show the homozygous form..That said the difference between the two is that a co-dominate gene does not recess visually(yet still carries one allele)
It all comes down to the definition of the word recess.
www.answers.com/topic/recess?cat=biz-fin
"A remote, secret, or secluded place. Often used in the plural."
-----
Charles Glaspie
Co Dom and Dominant are deceptive!
EVERYTHING is a co-dominant trait! Homozygous forms of the trait are not necessarily dominant - they are just lacking in another trait to work in tandem with. Apparently, in the case of the yellow belly, having two copies of the yellow belly gene results in a snake without any normal pattern or color left. Whatever the yellow belly gene modifies is in a normal pattern, without the pattern to modify it just makes a white snake.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary says:
Codominant: being fully expressed in the heterozygous condition
Dominant:
1 : a dominant genetic character or factor
American Heritage Dictionary:
Dominant: Relating to the form of a gene that expresses a trait, such as hair color, in an individual organism. The dominant form of a gene overpowers the counterpart, or recessive, form located on the other of a pair of chromosomes.
We aren't really using the terms correctly. A visual het means that the trait is modifying the pattern in its heterozygous form - meaning that anything you can visually see as a het is a codominant morph.
The spider seems like the only "true" dominant gene - it redoes the pattern no matter if its heterozygously expressed or homozygously expressed (insert mystery about the super-spider here).
And, for those wondering about recessive traits:
American Heritage Dictionary Says:
Genetics: Of, relating to, or designating an allele that does not produce a characteristic effect when present with a dominant allele.
It should be noted that the normal gene is dominant to recessive traits.
Visual het is a very silly term.
~jenny
-----
"Polysyllabism in no way insures that what you're saying is actually worth being heard." - Blake (an e-friend of mine)
"I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: "O lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And he granted it." - Voltaire
>Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary says:
Codominant: being fully expressed in the heterozygous condition
This is a commonly used definition. It has a number of problems when closely examined, especially when different test methods are used. There are also a whole series of terms (semidominant, incomplete dominant, transdominant, and a bunch of others) with more or less different definitions. But when you examine them, they can be lumped together FOR SIMPLICITY. (Simplicity is a Good Thing-TM.) Because in every case, the animal with a normal gene paired with the mutant gene (the het) is different from the animal with two copies of the normal gene and from the animal with two copies of the mutant gene.
>It should be noted that the normal gene is dominant to recessive traits.
True. And the normal gene is recessive to dominant mutant genes and codominant to codominant mutant genes. But that can get confusing when several gene pairs are being considered. It is simpler to use the normal gene as the standard of comparison without any dominant/codominant/recessive adjectives. Then we only have to worry about whether a mutant gene is dominant/codominant/recessive to its normal counterpart. This is modern way in genetics as of approximately 1925, which is too recent to get into many introductory textbooks. 
Paul Hollander
At least I'm getting there. Are these things you're talking about in more advanced textbooks? This is the course of study I am persuing, to an extent, in school so it would be nice to know I have this to look forward to after statistics.
~jenny
-----
"Polysyllabism in no way insures that what you're saying is actually worth being heard." - Blake (an e-friend of mine)
"I have never made but one prayer to god, a very short one: "O lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And he granted it." - Voltaire
I'm sorry; I can't answer your question for sure. I hope yes if you do any experimental work with mice or fruit flies. I learned a lot of this stuff from a couple of old-timer genetics profs. One was my father, and I worked for the other.
Paul Hollander
Paul H.
I would have to agree with you on your terminology. My mother is a college biology professor and I have had a strog background because of this. I too have done all of the fruit fly and mice experiments.
Het - which is short for heterozygous - has nothing to do with the appearance of the animal it only refrences the Allel pairs for a specific gene ( Trait )
So when speaking of a specific gene if the pair in that gene does not match it is HET - Heterozygous
If the pair does match it is HOMO - Homozygous.
What everyone has to realize is that the appearance of the animal does depend on this pairing but the fact that it is HET or HOMO does not depend on the appearance of the animal only the pairing of the gene in question.
So yes a pastel is a HET for super pastel or OPAL as it was originally named.
A yellow belly is a HET for IVORY
Mojos, Fires, Lessers, ect. are Hets for LUCY's
Cinny's and Black pastels are Hets for Black Balls
Spot nose is Het for power ball
and the CoDom list goes on
Spider and Pinstripe refered to as Dom. but yet Proven to be
If they have one mutatant and one normal in the pairing are HET
If someone does prove it dominant by creating an animal that has a matching pair but no Visble differnce then that animal will be HOMO
Rececives - The only visual difference in in the HOMO animal but just because rececive HETs don't show a visual doesn't make HETS of CoDom or Dom mutations any less HETS!
JUST MY 2 CENTS !!!
-----
Joshua A. Mills
2.1 Pastels
1.0 Yellow Belly
0.7 Normals not including the babies
And many more to come
Great explanations guys!
The idea of a co-dom being het for the "super" form is a gateway explanation for herpers addicted to "only recessive mutations have hets". However, some day we may well have a proven dominant ball python mutation and as you point out if spider or pinstripe turn out to be dominant we'll still have heterozygous spiders and pinstripes. So if a super isn't needed to have a het I'd point out that we can start taking about animals that are heterozygous for the pastel or yellow belly mutations right now. It does get a little confusing using the same name for the phenotype and the mutant gene but all pastels are heterozygous for the pastel mutation and all yellow bellies are heterozygous for the yellow belly mutation. We don't really have to call them het opals and het ivory. All known spiders so far are hets!
I think the main advantage of correctly using genotype terms is that once you understand genotypes the inheritance prediction from increasingly complex crosses becomes much more manageable. Knowing that a bumble bee is a double het spider and pastel and a pewter is a double het cinnamon and pastel you see the possibilities of crossing them easily.
And if at all possible let’s stamp out the misuse of mutation type terms like calling an opal the “dominant form” of pastel. As pointed out already in this thread, pastel is always a co-dominant mutation regardless if you are looking at the heterozygous form (pastel) or the homozygous form (opal, aka super pastel). Knowing what is homozygous is also very important to predicting it’s offspring. A homozygous animal only has the one version of whatever gene you are talking about to pass on so for example a super pastel can’t produce offspring that aren’t at least pastel.
The one I would love to know a better term for is the animal that has two different mutant copies of the same gene. I realize that it has a heterozygous genotype for that gene because the two copies don’t match even though normal isn’t one of the versions. However, it seems like there should be some term to distinguish it from the hets with a wild type version.
>The one I would love to know a better term for is the animal that has two different mutant copies of the same gene. I realize that it has a heterozygous genotype for that gene because the two copies don’t match even though normal isn’t one of the versions. However, it seems like there should be some term to distinguish it from the hets with a wild type version.
I don't think there is such a single term. Anyway, I don't think such a term would be useful in cases where there were three or more mutant alleles. In mice and other creatures, there are loci with six or more mutant alleles.
The best I can suggest is to name the mutant genes with // (for a chromosome pair) between the names -- "mutant1//mutant2". So a blue-eyed leucistic with a lesser platinum mutant paired with a mojave mutant could be written "lesser//mojave".
Paul Hollander
Help, tips & resources quick links
Manage your user and advertising accounts
Advertising and services purchase quick links
