Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What I am looking for is very specific, but my internet searches only seem to turn up pictures of one or the other.

I am looking for a picture of a Super Black Pastel Cinnamon. Specifically, a Super created by breeding the Black Pastel to a Cinnamon.

Is there an easier way of saying the name for that morph? That might be one that really needs its own name. Call it the "Black Spice" or something.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

Hi,
Actually breeding a Black Pastel to a Cinny you are only going to get a chance at a "Pewter" along with Cinny's, Black Pastels and normals....
You would not get the super form of that cross unless you cross a Pastel to a Super Cinny or a Super Black Pastel a.k.a Silver Bullet....
Or you can get another super form by crossing a Super Pastel to a Cinny or a Black Pastel you get Sterlings...
Keep in mind a Sivler Bullit or a Sterling are only going to hit if the "Snake Gods" like you...just crossing them doesn't guarantee you will hit.
Good Luck,
Travis
-----

LAIR OF DRAGONS

I re-read my message to see how I might have mislead, and let me see if I can clear things up:

I am looking for pictures of a Black Pastel Cinnamon.
As in the snake has one copy of the Black Pastel gene and one copy of the Cinnamon gene, essentially making it a Super Black Pastel or Super Cinnamon. I was told these genes are allelic and this cross has been done before, I would just like to see a picture of the combo.

There is no "Pastel" gene involved at all, so no Silver Bullets, Pewters, or Sterlings could be produced at all.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

Got Ya...
If it has been created it will appear on the link I am attaching.
Once you open it go to "Check out my new Morph guide" and enjoy.
Travis
Link

-----

LAIR OF DRAGONS

Ok. Where to start...

Your genetic nomenclature and sorting of several of the morphs are incorrect. For instance, the letters for dominant genes are capital (P) and recessive genes are lower-case (p). Codominant genes are dominant over wild type. A Pastel genotype would be displayed as Pp (one copy of the Pastel gene). A Super Pastel genotype would be PP (two copies of the Pastel gene).
This isn't my opinion, by the way, it is simple genetic inheritance as explained in college courses and biology text books. Feel free to peruse such resources which will explain the above in greater detail.

Womas are Codominant. The Super form is the Pearl. Has someone proven this is different? I would like to see a citation in that case where someone explains how they discovered it is considered Dominant now. Several other morphs on the site are in the incorrect locations for inheritance patterns.

You are missing several morphs. Better double check your list.

Finally, never mind. After extensive searching and keyword tinkering, I found pictures of them in the eggs, at least.

Produced by Randy & Michelle at Art In Scales:
BLBC Super Black Pastel Cinnamon
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

to be a bit more precise it would look more like this....

PP = normal

Pp = Pastel (het)

pp = super pastel (homo)

Pitoon

>
>
>>Ok. Where to start...
>>
>>Your genetic nomenclature and sorting of several of the morphs are incorrect. For instance, the letters for dominant genes are capital (P) and recessive genes are lower-case (p). Codominant genes are dominant over wild type. A Pastel genotype would be displayed as Pp (one copy of the Pastel gene). A Super Pastel genotype would be PP (two copies of the Pastel gene).
>>This isn't my opinion, by the way, it is simple genetic inheritance as explained in college courses and biology text books. Feel free to peruse such resources which will explain the above in greater detail.
>>
>>Womas are Codominant. The Super form is the Pearl. Has someone proven this is different? I would like to see a citation in that case where someone explains how they discovered it is considered Dominant now. Several other morphs on the site are in the incorrect locations for inheritance patterns.
>>
>>You are missing several morphs. Better double check your list.
>>
>>Finally, never mind. After extensive searching and keyword tinkering, I found pictures of them in the eggs, at least.
>>
>>Produced by Randy & Michelle at Art In Scales:
>>BLBC Super Black Pastel Cinnamon
>>-----
>>Lincoln, NE
>>0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
>>2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband
-----
Homepage
My BLOG
2010 European Shows

Nope. The relationship between the alleles is relative. When comparing two alleles, the more dominant one is given the capital letter.

Codominant Morph:
Super Pastel = PP
Pastel = Pp
Normal = pp

Because the Pastel gene is only somewhat dominant to the Normal gene. That is why you get partitial expression (codominance).

Now, when you look at a simple recessive morph such as Albino, the morph gene is recessive to the normal gene.

Recessive Morph:
Normal = AA
Het. Albino = Aa
Albino = aa

And, just to be clear, here is an example of a dominant gene. In this case, the normal gene is completely recessive to the morph gene.

Dominant Morph:
Champagne = HH
Champagne = Hh
Normal = hh

Once again, this isn't my opinion or interpretation, this can be found in any bio textbook.

This website explains it in greater detail:
Inheritance patterns

-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

you try a punnett square with what you mentioned below with mutiple genes and tell me the outcome....

Pitoon

>>Nope. The relationship between the alleles is relative. When comparing two alleles, the more dominant one is given the capital letter.
>>
>>Codominant Morph:
>>Super Pastel = PP
>>Pastel = Pp
>>Normal = pp
>>
>>Because the Pastel gene is only somewhat dominant to the Normal gene. That is why you get partitial expression (codominance).
>>
>>Now, when you look at a simple recessive morph such as Albino, the morph gene is recessive to the normal gene.
>>
>>Recessive Morph:
>>Normal = AA
>>Het. Albino = Aa
>>Albino = aa
>>
>>And, just to be clear, here is an example of a dominant gene. In this case, the normal gene is completely recessive to the morph gene.
>>
>>Dominant Morph:
>>Champagne = HH
>>Champagne = Hh
>>Normal = hh
>>
>>
>>Once again, this isn't my opinion or interpretation, this can be found in any bio textbook.
>>
>>This website explains it in greater detail:
>>Inheritance patterns
>>
>>-----
>>Lincoln, NE
>>0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
>>2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband
-----
Homepage
My BLOG
2010 European Shows

I promise I am not making this up. I am not winging this, or interpreting it, or lying to you. LOOK IT UP. I provided a reference on my previous post. Take a look at it, if you will. Pick up a Biology text book and it will tell you the same thing.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

I could be wrong, but it was to my understanding that the normal wild type was Dominant.?

Which would make it PP=Normal ad pp=Super Pastel.

a super pastel is NOT recessive, so it doesn't use lowercase letters, ever.
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

lowercase is not only represented by a recessive trait. The dominant gene gets the capital and the other gene is represented by lowercase.

Thank you, Snake Gods! Someone understands!!
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

n/p

I've never seen that in any of my textbooks. the case of the gene is dependent on how its expressed, some genes might have a second letter that would be lowercase like CrW or CrCr (made up letters, doesn't stand for anything) but I've never seen incomplete dom or dom genes shown by lowercase, and that's taken from several different college textbooks
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

You are correct. However, getting people in our field to understand how simply inheritance can be expressed with upper and lower-case letters is difficult enough. Including subscripts, and even superscripts in the case of many mouse genetics, would be nearly impossible to communicate with.

If we were going to be using that, then we would need to use it with Cinnamon and Black Pastel genes:
Cc and Cb

Or with Butter/Mojave/Lesser complex:
Xb Xm and Xl

Have we confused anyone following this thread yet? Well, it is about to get very very complicated.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

N/P

haha oh yea, im not arguing with that. mouse/rat genetics = complicated pita, with all their crazy modifiers and dilution genes and junk.

i was just saying, i don't recall every seeing a "dominant" gene changed to lowercase just because another "dominant" gene was paired with it. its been a while since i thumbed through any of the books but from what i remember it was always PW not Pw ( using pastel for example )
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

A way to think of it is like the genes are on a staircase. Piebald (simple recessive) is on the lowest stair. Normal (usually dominant) is on the second stair up. Champagne (Dominant to Normal) is on the third stair up.

Depending on which two stairs you are looking at, the higher stair gets the capital letter.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

i see what you're saying now, i just don't recall ever seeing it that way. not saying it doesn't make sense to some degree, but it also could confuse a lot of people at the same time.

anyways, time to go to work
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

It is all relative to the gene combination you are looking at. Wild Type may be *recessive to* another gene and *dominant to* another gene.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

True. In ball pythons though the Wild type is always Dominant. That's why you will get normals from any single gene breedings.

um no its not, pinstripe, champagne, spider. those all override the WT look with only 1 copy = dominant
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

Pin to a normal will give u normals and pins.

Regardless of what most people think about BP's. Normal is really the only true Dominant gene.

The reason you get normals is because of TWO normal genes being present for that particular trait. In ALL the dom and co-dom morphs, they are DOMINANT to the wild-type. That is why they are called CO-DOMS, LOL.

DBL WRONGO
Co Doms are a way of saying there is a step above what you see in co doms.....to make hem doms...simply there is something there in the genetics more than what is present...I may be wrong but I don't think so. Co-doms have the ability to create a gene above and beyond what they create mixed together
-----

LAIR OF DRAGONS

Despite what you seam to think Normal is Dom.

normal is dominant, most of the time.

as i already pointed out, there are certain genes that are dominant to the wild type, you CANNOT argue with that.

and really if you want to nit-pick as well, a lot of the time normal is incompletely dominant, since im sure if you had a snake with only a single copy of the pastel gene im sure it would look different than a snake with a pastel and normal gene. while that would extremely extremely rare, it is possible
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

Normal IS NOT always DOMINANT...Spiders, Pins are DOMINANT over Normals. The reason in a Pin x Normal you can get both Normals and Pins is because that Pin was Hetero in the first place. If it was a Homo Pin, the result would be 100% Pins. Same with Spiders.
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

You are talking about Homo spiders and pins. Show me one. Normal is Dominant. There is no single gene morph that will trump the normal wild type gene. If there is one then please let me know what it is.

Why do they keep name dropping homo pin and homo spider like there really is such a thing. Wild type is dominate 100% of the time, and how about we will say you misinformed guys are correct when you can show me a homo spider or pin lol. Also if you can come up with one Im sure there are hundreds of folks that would buy it for an extremely high premium. LMFAO these guys trying to prove a point with fictitious examples.
Will

Ok, so you are saying it has been decided that the homozygous Spider is fatal? Your post tauts that you have personal knowledge of whether or not there is a homo Spider. Do you have proof that it is only Codominant? Because there are plenty of people on this forum, both those who agree with this lettering scheme and do not, who have been insisting the gene is Dominant.

Additionally, even if I dropped the example of Spider, then we still have Champagne and Banana, among others. Both of which have been claimed as Dominant also. In which case, Wild Type would have to be recessive to it, otherwise the morph gene wouldn't be Dominant, by definition. If they were both dominant genes, then that would be Incomplete dominance, to complicate things further.

I will say it one more time: THIS ISN'T MY *OPINION*. Look it up if you don't believe me. I swear, this is like trying to explain to people the world isn't flat. Just take a walk people, the correct answer is there, just look at the science.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

I am a biotechnology major, and yes you are correct about calling it dominate (and with your lettering). I never said you were incorrect about that. I believe we are incorrect in calling spiders and pins dominate (just because it doesnt have a super and fall into the visual het category doesn't mean it is dominate) because there is no case where either of those genes trump wild type 100% of the time. No one has a spider that produces all spider babies (when bred to a wild type), and no one has pins that produce all pin babies (when bred to a wild type). Bolito you are very intelligent, and I have fun reading a lot of your comments on genetics. With that being said this is not my opinion either, but my knowledge from intense hands on experience will ball morphs. I cannot however comment on the banana or champagne as I do not currently have experience with them. Hope this clears things up. I just think its funny how some of you guys keep talking about homospiders, and homopins to try and prove a point when they actually do not exist.
Will

To address your original comment (dont know how it turned into this discussion lol) but cinny to black pastel is actually the safest way to get supers. If you breed cinny to cinny or cinny to black pastel there is a tendency for the animals to duckbill. I dont know if you are familiar with duck billing, but it only seems to happen in cinnies and black pastels. The super form of cinny to black pastel looks identical to super cinny or a super black pastel. A lot of the supers that you will end up seeing for sale are the result of cinny X b. pastel just for this reason.
Will

Thank you for your comments. I did find a picture of a super form of the combo between the two finally. I even found a breeder who has done the combo several times and, just as you mentioned, she has had no duck-billing issues when combining the two. I'm excited for these eggs to arrive now (if they ever do, of course).
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

There is a previous discussion on spiders and the possibility of them being dominant or co-dominant.

If spiders (and pinstripes) are recessive, then all spiders (and pins) would have to be homozygous because for the spider genotype to be expressed would require TWO "spider" genes. A snake with only one "spider" gene and one normal gene would be a normal HET for spider and would look normal. The same would happen with pins.

If we consider the spider to be recessive and call the spider gene "s", the spider would have to be "ss". A normal would be dominant for that gene, and be either "Ss" or "SS" That means that if you cross a spider (ss in this scenario) with a normal, the only way you would obtain spiders in the offspring would be if the normal was a HET spider (Ss).

If the normal had no spider genes (SS), like most normals we could assume, all the offspring would look normal (Ss, Het for spider). However, a conclusion from this is that you could get spiders from a normal x normal cross if both parents are het spiders (Ss).

This doesn't seem to be the case, I don't know of anybody producing spiders from two normals, and I don't see anybody saying that they have 100% Het Spiders or 50% Het spiders, like is the case with the proven recessive genes like Pieds for example.

-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

Exactly. Thank you. You have explained it completely, correctly, and succinctly. Kudos.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

Correct, in those cases Champagne, Spider, Woma, and the other morph genes are *dominant to* the Wild type gene. IN THIS CASE the wild type gene would be expressed as a lower case letter.

Example:
Spider = Ss or SS
Normal = ss

This is important because if you breed a Hom. Spider to a Normal you get all Spiders. Het. Spider to a Normal you (theoretically) get 50% Spiders (over a long period of time).
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

homo spider...does one really exist? Ive never produced one nor have I heard of anyone getting 100% spiders from a spider to normal breeding every year. Maybe dumb luck and hit on all spiders in a clutch, but bet on hitting all normals the next year from the same animal.
Will

Wild Type (Normal) is not always dominant. Pastels, Mojaves, Cinnamons, etc are Co-Dominant over Normals
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

Right! Normals are Dominant over Pieds, but Pastels are Co-Dominant over Normals, so in a pairing of Normal x Pastel, P could be used for the Pastel and p for the Normal. In a pairing of Normal x Pied, N could be used for the Normal and n for the Pied.
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

Pastels are Co-DOminant over Normal;s. a Pastel would be Pp, a Super Pastel PP and a Normal pp
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

as stated already

WW = wild type
PW = pastel
PP = pastel

no lower case involved since there is no recessive gene, only recessives are noted in lower case
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

woma = dominant
hg woma = co dom with pearl being the super
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

while that is a good list, there are still quite a few combos that aren't on there not to mention how many duplicate morphs with different names on there. But I guess that's how the BALL game is ya know.
-----
Josh & Krysty Hutto

Various Ball Pythons, boas, dogs, cats, fish, a couple sulcatas and a few other odds and ends.

a BAD dog is MADE not bred, support the American Pit Bull Terrier as the greatest breed of dogs on Earth!!!!!

How would you get a pewter from a black pastel x cinnamon?

"Actually breeding a Black Pastel to a Cinny you are only going to get a chance at a "Pewter" along with Cinny's, Black Pastels and normals....
You would not get the super form of that cross unless you cross a Pastel to a Super Cinny or a Super Black Pastel a.k.a Silver Bullet....
Or you can get another super form by crossing a Super Pastel to a Cinny or a Black Pastel you get Sterlings...
Keep in mind a Sivler Bullit or a Sterling are only going to hit if the "Snake Gods" like you...just crossing them doesn't guarantee you will hit.
Good Luck,
Travis"

maybe i read this wrong but...you will not produce any pewters crossing a cinny and a black pastel, that would require the pastel gene...you will not produce any supers of any of those 3 morphs by crossing a pastel to a supper cinny or super black pastel, which is not called a silver bullet (that would also entail the pastel gene)"... i think where your going wrong here is stating that any super can replicate itself in super form when bred to another morph which just isnt the case, you can breed a super cinny to every morph youd like (other than another cin (and pos black pastel?)) and you wont be producing any combos or otherwise containing the super cinny form, nor will you produce a single sterling from ^said cross...the same which goes for all codominants to my knowledge...to produce the superform the gene must be present on both parents...aka a pewter to a pewter would have a chance at producing all the possible combinations you mentioned.

theres a slim possibility that im wrong about this and that my fundamental understanding of the ball pyton codominancy is completely flawed...

That is a good question...is there a difference between a Super Black Pastel and a Super Cinnamon? I don't know, I thought the Super Black Pastel was more black than the Super Cinnamon...Am I right? If there is a difference, then the Super Cinnamon-Black Pastel might also look different...

BTW from a Cinnamon x Black Paste cross you get:
25% Normal
25% Cinnamon
25% Black Pastel
25% Super Black Pastel-Cinnamon
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

Yep, I knew the percentages. I am currently doing the cross as Black Pastel Pewter and Cinnamon. Much better chances of a morph of SOME sort coming out.

Also, found a pic. Check my post above.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

Its not my site I sent yuo the link to....just a site that I found that has pics of alot of morphs...just trying to help
Travis
-----

LAIR OF DRAGONS

All righty. Will send comments to the owner then. Really, there is enough misleading genetics info out there as it is...
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

From what you have been trying to claim---that normal isn't Dominant--How could you say some thing like this?

"BTW from a Cinnamon x Black Paste cross you get:
25% Normal
25% Cinnamon
25% Black Pastel
25% Super Black Pastel-Cinnamon"

How on earth could you get a normal?

Right.

Think about it.

really?

because you dont get either of the genes that override the normal wild type gene, duh. basic genetics 101 right there
-----
www.bamreptiles.webs.com
www.facebook.com/bamreptiles

I thought about it, if you think about it you would come up with the answer yourself.

The Cinnamon and Black Pastel mutations are inherited in what is called Co-Dominance or Incomplete Dominance. That means that the presence of ONE mutated gene (Cinnamon or Black Pastel) will "dominate" over the normal (non-mutated) gene and the phenotype of the offspring will be different from the normal phenotype. An animal with TWO mutated genes will look different from the ones with only ONE mutated genes (in what we call the SUPER form). Regular Dominance is when ONE mutated gene overrides the normal gene, but the phenotype of an individual with one gene is identical to that of an individual with two genes for that particular mutation.

Cinnamon and Black Pastel are two closely related mutations of the same gene. For simplicity let's call them "C1" for Cinnamon and "C2" for Black Pastel. The normal gene in this case would be "c".

When you cross a cinnamon with a Black Pastel you are crossing individuals with the genotype "C1c" and "C2c", C1c being the Cinnamon (one Cinnamon gene and one Normal gene), and C2c the Black Pastel (one Black Pastel gene and one Normal gene).

The Cinnamon will produce two kinds of gametes: one with the gene C1 and one with the gene c. The Black Pastel will produce also two kinds of gametes: one with the gene C2 and one with the gene c. By combining the four kinds of gametes you will get four possible combinations: C1C2 (Super Cinnamon-Black Pastel), C1c (Cinnamon), C2c (Black Pastel) and cc (Normal). That's how you get normals out of a Cinnamon x Black Pastel cross.
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

Great thorough explanation.

Exactly. Very well described.

This is a case where the Normal gene acts as a recessive to the morph gene you are comparing it to.

I also like the 1-2 numbering system for the allelic genes. These would normally be subscripts we would attach to the letter we associate with the gene, but that would get pretty complicated on the internet.

Very good job describing it.
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.0 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

Thank you! Some people still don't get it...
-----
Neutiquam erro. Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.

It does prove a point.

That the Normal gene is recessive in relation to some Morph genes and dominant in relation to other Morph genes?
-----
Lincoln, NE
0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly
2.1 Normals, 1.0 Thayeri, 0.1 Thayeri X Alterna, 0.1 Whitesided P. catenifer sayi, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

You can breed a recessive trait out but you can't breed a dom gene out.