Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have been dumbfounded by this one.

Clearly every single Het leopard i have seen obviously has a noticeable mutation in pattern.

Wouldn't this make it codominant and not recessive?

I think that het leopards are more expressive in pattern mutation than most jungles (het jungles) that i have seen, yet the jungles are codominant.

Is there something i am missing? And if i am right in my assumption, then actual Leopards would need to be called Super leopards??

You make a great point here. The problem being in a litter from Het Leopard to Het Leopard breeding. Out of the possible Het Leopards can you pick out which are Hets and which are not hets ? If you can without failure every time,you may have a great point.
I'm not working with the Leopard gene,so I have no first hand experience to pull from to support or dispute your Hypothesis.
I have seen several Het Leopard litters pictured .
All of those babies certainly seem to have pattern anomalies.
I feel I'm missing or failing to point out and or make an important point.
I know what it is.
The percentages produced when breeding Heterozygous Recessive to
Heterozygous Recessive are different than
The percentages produced when breeding Heterozygous Codominant
to Heterozygous Codominant

Heterozygous Recessive to Heterozygous Recessive =
25% Homozy ;
25% regulars ;
50% hets

Heterozygous Codominant to Heterozygous Codominant =
50% super / Homozy ;
50% non Super / Het standard Version

So the recessive trait in a Het to Het breeding only produces 25% Homozygous animals

The Codominant trait in a Het to Het breeding produces
50% Homozygous animals

I don't believe I've missed or failed to state any major points here
Someone will correct me if I have

. . . Lar M

-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

I think I made a mistake

CoDom Het to Het
Out of every 4 babies:

1 - normal looking
non-gene carrier

2 - Heterozygous

1 - homozygous Motley

Now I've confused myself
this is

25%

50%

25%

also

ha ha ha ,LOL

. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

are you sure on that...

when het codominant bred to het codominat

you'll get
25% homozygous codominant
50% het codominant
25% normal

it is the exact same output as in a breeding of

het recessive to het recessive

If the determination of this gene being recessive is due to the fact that it is not completely certain 100% of hte time to pick out hets in a litter...then in my opinion, the same should be said aboutr jungles. How many "possible" jungles have we seen on the market?

This needs to be clarified. I know that jungles are codominant, even if sometimes they are hard to pick out, that only has to do with the expression of he mutation.

The same is going on iwth the Leopards, yet we have deemed the gene to be recessive, falsely.

I agree I messed up .In the next post down I made that adjustment.
Which left me pondering your Hypothesis further because
percentages are the same For recessive and Codom.
The only thing that could be a disputable point would be the first part of my original post.
If you can't distinguish without doubt which of the normal appearing offspring are Het everytime then that would be the hang up

Here's my correction post I made just below my original

>>Posted by: LarM at Sat Mar 7 15:28:33 2009 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

I think I made a mistake

CoDom Het to Het
Out of every 4 babies:

1 - normal looking
non-gene carrier

2 - Heterozygous

1 - homozygous Motley

Now I've confused myself
this is

25%

50%

25%

also

ha ha ha ,LOL

. . . Lar M
---------------------

-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz