Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I saw some genetic hypos for sale at K&N Reptiles.

Has anyone here worked with them before? If you crossed one with a normal, what would you typically get?

They say it is a dominant trait. Is there any difference between hets and those homozygous for the trait?

Where did these come from?

Do you expect a big drop in hypo prices once these guys are "mass produced"?

Thanks,
Alice

with dominant traits, as i believe it, if you breed a homozygous of that trait to a normal, you will get all hets, that show the trait. if you breed a het, then half the offspring will show the trait and half will not. they were supposedly, and i have no reason to doubt it, imported from the wild, so like many herp morphs, the originals were wild caught. and when ever there is an abundance of a certain herp, the prices will drop, which is why i will never think of any leo morph as an investment.
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at chichandoCONrosa

co-dominant doesnt have hets.. if you breed a co dom to a normal you will get 1/2 homo (carrying and showing the trait) animals and half normals , not carrying the desired genetic trait.
dominant is when you breed the desirred genetic trait (homo) to a normal and all offspring will show and carry the desired trait.

hets are from simple recessive animals like albinos
you breed an albino to a normal and get all normal looking offspring "het" for the trait... they do not look it but they do carry the gene
when a het is bred to a het or het bred to an animal displying the desired trait... a percentage of the offspring depending on what you bred to what will have the desired trait while, others will be hets and still others will be just normals. you can not tell a het from a normal so you have to offer the offspring as "whatever% possible het whatever desired trait"
thats where the possible het thing comes into play
in simple recessive genes if you breed a animal carrying the desired trait (homozygous aka homo) to another homo animal of the same trait all offspring will be whatever the desired trait is

NOW all the is scientific info but sometimes genetics do prove us wrong,take the blazing blizzard for instance.... two simple recessive traits.. supposed to be 1:16 ration on offspring but its alot rarer than that. seems some genes arent compatable or do not mix very well if at all
-----
-robin struck (new married name)
Geckoheads And Geeks

I don't think that of definition works with the strict biological meaning. Co-dominance is practically unheard of in the animal kingdom (notice I didn't say completely unheard of people surprisingly have quite a few co-dominant traits) There really is no reason for trait to be co-dominant. In
co-dominance one of two things happens, The trait is either mixed with normal or alternates with it. Several species of flowers do exhibi co-dominance. For instance if you cross a white flower with a red flower you will get pink flowers with some species. Then if you self pollenate the pink flower you will get a mix of red and white flowers but no pink ones. In other species cross pollenation of a white and pink flower yields flowers with red and white stripes, this mutation has proven to be helful in attracting bees and I believe this trait can be handed down to the first generation. In people If a person with blue eyes has kids with someone with green eyes the kids will all have green eyes and be het for blue assuming the green eyed parent was homozgynous. Then if someone with green eyes has kids with someone with brown eyes the kids will have hazel eyes and will be double hets. Sorry for the long post and little about leopard geckos.

Hypo in many snakes is codominant. Jungle and Pastel are codominant in ball pythons (i think? I'm not a BP person).
-----

Ball pythons do have a few co-dominant morphs but it is still uncommon. That evoloutionary path is not as succesful as recessive traits for improving a species because if it doesn't wotk this type of gene is harder to weed out.

Let me see if I get this right:

The genetic hypo is a codominant trait. So a lizard that is heterozygous dominant (one normal allelle and one hypo allelle) will show a mix of hypo and normal traits.

Would the leos with spotless bodies but spotted heads be an example of this or would these geckos only have reduced spotting?. And, would the leos with completely spotless head and bodies be examples of homozygous dominant animals?

My understanding of genetics is that a het (heterozygous) would have two different allelles for a particular trait versus a homozygous animal which would have the same allelles. Therefore, it is possible for an animal to be a het and still display a dominant trait.

-Alice

That's pretty much correct except the term heterozygous isn't because the definition of het includes the words genotype and phenotype. In an animal with co-dominant traits the phenotype and genotype are the same. If you describe it like that everyone will know what you're talking about I'm just being picky.

Well now that I think about it my last post was wrong because heterozygous literally means two different and the word can be used in other applications it does work but in a genetic sense the phenotype and genotype are often described as being different in hets.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Phenotype refers to the physical manifestation of a trait (the animal's appearence), in this case the degree of spotting.

Genotype refers to the "genetic appearence" and heterozygous and homozygous can be used to describe a genotype depending on whether the two alleles for a particular gene are different or the same.

The phenotype may or may not reflect the genotype. In the case of a homozygous recessive animal (ex and albino) it does; you can determine the animal's genotype by looking at it. In the case of a heterozygous animal the phenotype rarely reflects the genotype (you can not distinguish a heterozygote for a homozygous dominant individual). I've never heard the term heterozygous used to describe an animal's phenotype. But, perhaps I am misinformed or misread your post ( anyway it's fun to have someone to bounce this genetic stuff off ).

-Alice

I posted the second time to agree with you. I was trying to say you were right in your original post because all heterozygous means is that the alleles are different. I was trying to say that your explanation was correct but if you read a biology book heterozygous is often defined (incorrectly) by saying it is the state in which an animals phenotype does not fully reflect all parts of the genotype. When I thought about this I realized this doesn't cover co-dominant traits.

I posted the second time to agree with you. I was trying to say you were right in your original post because all heterozygous means is that the alleles are different. I was trying to say that your explanation was correct but if you read a biology book heterozygous is often defined (incorrectly) by saying it is the state in which an animals phenotype does not fully reflect all parts of the genotype. When I thought about this I realized this doesn't cover co-dominant traits.

Are these genetic hypos something new? Or, are they the same as the "old" hypos?

-Alice