Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I am currently researching morphs for a project to list and illustrate every morph ever produced and categorizing by species/sub species and mode of inheritance, whether a wild type/locality, recessive, co-dominant, dominant, combination, or selectively/line bred (madness, I know!) and next on my list is the heterodon genus.

I have had a good read around but there doesn't seem to be so much information on how each morph is inherited and would like to ask the community here for their assistance in identifying as many morphs as possible.

For Heterodon nasicus:

Leucistic - Recessive
T plus albino (hypo)- Recessive
Axanthic- Recessive
T- albino- Recessive

Ghost- T plus albino and axanthic
Snow- T- albino and axanthic

Red, green, yellow, purple, etc.... line-bred

That should give you a start. I am sure others will fill in the rest.

-Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

Common Albino (T negative) - Recessive
"Hypo" (T Positive Albino) - Recessive
"True Hypo" (Hypo) - Recessive
Leucistic - Recessive
Toffeebelly (T Positive Albino with paradoxing) - Recessive
Carmel Albino (T Positive Albino) - Recessive
Anery - Recessive
Pink Pastel Albino (T negative) - Recessive
Anaconda / Superconda - Codom
Mocha - Dominant
Snow (Common alb x anery) - Recessive
Ghost (Hypo / t pos x anery) - Recessive
Smolder (True Hybino) (True Hypo x Common Albino) - Recessive
Tangerine Pink?? (Pink Pastel x Hypo / T pos) - Recessive
Extreme Red / red / green / blonde / yellow - line traits
leopard / twin spot / banded / tiger etc - line traits (so far)
Common Albino Anaconda / anery Anaconda / "pink panther" Pink pastel anaconda - mix of recessive and codom
Extreme Red Conda - mix of codom, recessive, and line traits
Lavender (T positive Albino) - recessive
Spider - codom????

That is most of them I think... I am sure I am forgetting some. And anyone feel free to correct any mistakes.

Jeremy Thompson

I would say that that is a fairly accurate listing of the majority of known, or fairly established Western Hognose morphs. However, I would like to clarify these combos a little bit better:
Snow (Common alb x anery) - Recessive
Ghost (Hypo / t pos x anery) - Recessive
Smolder (True Hybino) (True Hypo x Common Albino) - Recessive
Tangerine Pink?? (Pink Pastel x Hypo / T pos) - Recessive

While it is true that these are all Recessive genes to the Wild Caught genotype, they are also Incomplete Dominant when mixed with each other, this is why we are getting a new color phenotype when we pair these traits together. If these genes were truly Recessive, then they would be Recessive to each other as well, that would mean that one of those genes would have to be Dominant to the other and only that Dominant trait would show through. Please see my other post here that goes into more detail explaining the hierarchy of these traits, especially the differences between Codominance and Incomplete Dominance. In a way, it's not really that much different than your mentioning the mixes of the following Anaconda mixed traits:
Common Albino Anaconda / anery Anaconda / "pink panther" Pink pastel anaconda - mix of recessive and codom
Extreme Red Conda - mix of codom, recessive, and line traits

I tend to understand that these genetic traits are more of a hierarchal system than anything else, a Dominant trait doesn't necessarily mean that that particular trait will prove out Dominant to everything genetically possible, it just means that it's Dominant to every gene that we currently have proven it against. And it gets a little more confusing with the Codominant and Incomplete Dominant terminology as these are generally a blend of at least 2 traits that are competing with each visually. While a trait such as an Albino might prove Recessive to the Dominant Wild Caught genotype, it is entirely an Incomplete Dominant gene when mixed with another Recessive genotype such as an Axanthic; this is why we get a Snow which is a blend of the two colors merging together to produce a completely different phenotype (which is exactly how Incomplete Dominance is defined).

It's also quite possible, but so far non-existant and/or unproven, that there might be other yet unknown genes that might prove to be Recessive to other known Recessive genes (to Wild Caught), for example let's say, Albinos which would then make the Albino gene Dominant to those particular newly discovered genes. While I wouldn't say that this is probable, it is in theory possible.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

"While it is true that these are all Recessive genes to the Wild Caught genotype, they are also Incomplete Dominant when mixed with each other, this is why we are getting a new color phenotype when we pair these traits together. If these genes were truly Recessive, then they would be Recessive to each other as well, that would mean that one of those genes would have to be Dominant to the other and only that Dominant trait would show through. "

I don't buy this. While I am not a geneticist and I can see your logic, you are a little off in my opinion. The reason these two mutations can be mixed to form a totally new phenotype is because they are on different loci. Both traits are present in the genotype as homozygous recessives. So, it is not incompletely dominance but rather the combination of two homozygous recessive traits at two separate loci that together create a phenotype characterized by both traits equally (or nearly so).

Hope that makes sense.

Just my 2 cents,
Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

I agree 100% Chris... Two recessive genes showing in one animal is not incomplete dominance at play...

Thanks for your input Chris, I appreciate and respect your opinion on this topic.

To be honest, I'm open to the fact that I might be totally off on my interpretation of the terminology as I admit that I am an amateur in the understanding of genetics. I really wish that my original post on this topic would have generated more debate which might have helped us all come to some sort of consensus on the matter, unfortunately it did not.

However, it would prove beneficial to your argument and our understanding of this specific topic if you could elaborate, or at least cite some sources, as to why you believe my interpretation is partially or completely wrong. Believe me, I have no ego in persisting that I'm right if incontrovertible evidence, credible sources or valid arguments are made that prove otherwise. In fact, I've done some more research today and think I can see how I might understand things a bit differently, but I would like to hear what you, or others for that matter, have to say.

So let me ask this, how would you define the production of 2 Recessive traits to create a 3rd phenotype, in other words, how would you define the 3rd phenotype, a Snow for example, what would that be called or what would the definition of that be? Sure, a Snow would still be Recessive to the Wild Type, but it's also something more considering it's the byproduct of 2 different but related traits (color-wise I mean). Considering that everything else seems to have a definition and/or name to it, this type of double Recessive trait mixture would have to fall under some type of definition or name too.

I agree 100% Chris... Two recessive genes showing in one animal is not incomplete dominance at play...

With all due respect Gregg, kindly explain to what this collaboration of traits creating a 3rd phenotype is called then? I don't think there can be any denying that what is at work here seems to mimic exactly how Incomplete Dominance actually is defined and works, the only difference is that we're dealing with Recessive traits instead of Dominant ones. Does that mean that this is Incomplete Dominance at work? No, not really, at least not how Incomplete Dominance is scientifically defined, and yes, I do know what the actual definition of Incomplete Dominance is and the specifics of how it's actually supposed to be defined. But the two outcomes are basically the same, the combining of two like traits to create a 3rd completely different phenotype. By completely pure definition, this wouldn't be defined as Incomplete Dominance necessarily at work because Incomplete Dominance is defined using Dominant only traits and not Recessive traits, I'll concede that point to a degree, but again I ask you just like I asked Chris, what do you think it is then ? And please cite sources and references instead of just injecting personal opinions.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Troy- It isn't really a 3rd phenotype but rather the 2 phenotypes occurring at the same time. A snow is an albino axanthic individual, but instead of calling it an albino axanthic, we call it 'snow' for short.

-Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

a combination of two separate homozygous recessive morphs is just that. They are completely independent of each other because they are at different loci.

A snow is a snow because:
a) albino removes all the black
b) anerythristic removes all the red

Thus snow in itself cannot be described as 'recessive' because the phenotype is a combination of the two single traits. The same can be said for a combination of any non allelic combination morphs.

The only time a third phenotype is produced is when an animal is heterozygous for two morphs that are at the same allele. An example:

wibble is recessive to normal
wobble is recessive to normal
wibble and wobble are co dominant to each other

possible genotypes/phenotypes would be:

het wibble looks normal
het wobble looks normal
homo wibble looks different to normal and wobble
homo wobble looks different to normal and wibble
het wibble and wobble looks different to normal, wibble and wobble

....i hope all the wibbles and wobbles aren't too confusing :S

sorry for the double post, i don't seem to be able to edit. The above post should say:

"The only time a third phenotype is produced is when an animal is heterozygous for two morphs that are at the same allele AND are codominant to each other. "

It isn't really a 3rd phenotype but rather the 2 phenotypes occurring at the same time. A snow is an albino axanthic individual, but instead of calling it an albino axanthic, we call it 'snow' for short.

Chris, I couldn't disagree more, especially based on the actual scientific definitions of what a phenotype is.

Let us first read what Wikipedia's definition is: Wikipedia: Phenotype - "A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two."

I could recite all other references online, but they all basically say the same thing. I think the main part that truly defines it is "the expression of an organism's genes". If you notice, the word genes is plural, not singular, which dictates that it's not just always one gene that defines a phenotype.

Let's use a different example for now instead of using an expressed Double Recessive type, like a regular Albino versus an Extreme Red Albino. No one would argue that these are not expressing the same compatible Albino gene, but these types of Albinos are totally discernible from each other. That's a phenotype! How about an Anaconda versus a Superconda, both carry the exact same gene(s) (albeit a different genotype) but yet are completely different in appearance. That's a phenotype! It's no different when you combine multiple genetic traits such as two Recessive traits unless you start getting into the realm of epistasis where one trait surpresses, or masks, the other trait "invisible" but still has the genotype of two different homozygous traits.

Let us look a little more closely at the example of the Anaconda and Superconda types. While the gene involved is the same gene, it is not only expressed differently but it's genotype is different as well due to the Superconda being the homozygous form and the Anaconda being the heterozygous form. Let's refer to the Superconda genotype as 'ss'. With this genotype, we will always get a Superconda, even hypothetically should other color traits be included. Let us use for example that a Normal (Wild Type) genotype would be 'SS'. Now, we can easily distinguish between the two phenotypes, Superconda vs. a Normal. Obviously, when you breed a Superconda to a Normal, you get all Anacondas of which the genotype would be 'Ss' and it's phenotype would be completely different from it's parents thus creating a completely new phenotype. So, from the expression of the mixing of this single gene, we get 3 different phenotypes which, again, is defined as "any observable characteristic or trait of an organism".

In regards to a Snow, if a Snow was found in the wild, how would anybody know that it was the product of 2 separate genes at first glance? You wouldn't! If you bred a Snow to a Normal, you would get all Normals that would be Double Het for both Albino and Axanthic, but you still wouldn't know the specifics of the genotype until you did testcross breeding trials. In fact, after the first breeding, with the F1's, you would first assert at that point that the Snow is just a simple Recessive because all you would get are Normals that are hypothetically het for "Snow". Only upon inbreeding the F1's and producing the F2's would you then start to realize that the Snow is a culmination of at least 2 traits by producing 4 entirely different phenotypes, Normals, Albinos, Axanthics and Snows. All are very different phenotypes and definitely many more genotypes when you start to get into the het aspects of some of the Normals, Albinos and Axanthics being possible het for any of the other traits.

Again, I want to reiterate that the definition of a phenotype "is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism". If a Snow is different looking than an Albino or an Axanthic, then that is it's phenotype, Snow. If an Albino is also het for Axanthic (or vice versa), then it's phenotype is still that of an Albino but it's genotype will be totally different than that of a non-het Albino. So for the 2 Albinos, one het, one non-het, there would be 2 completely different genotypes but still only one phenotype.

And thanks Chris for the invitation on discussing this further on a personal level. I will have to take you upon that.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

I will not argue that 'snow' is a 3rd phenotype. I just tried to explain it that way to make it clear that the doubly homo. recessivity in the genotype is what is important. The third phenotype IS NOT due to a 3rd genotype but rather a combination of 2 separate genotypes. There isn't a 'snow' gene. A snow is a snake that is both albino and axanthic at the same time.

Your superconda x normal example doesn't work since that is not a simple recessive character. You DO have 3 phenotypes related to 3 genotypes at a single locus.

I am enjoying the discussion as well.... Any geneticists in the room?
-Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

I will not argue that 'snow' is a 3rd phenotype. I just tried to explain it that way to make it clear that the doubly homo. recessivity in the genotype is what is important.

OK, so we're now clear that the Snow is in fact a 3rd phenotype. I only overstated this point from my last post because you stated this "It isn't really a 3rd phenotype but rather the 2 phenotypes occurring at the same time."

The third phenotype IS NOT due to a 3rd genotype but rather a combination of 2 separate genotypes. There isn't a 'snow' gene.

I never stated that there was just a single gene for Snow.

I think you are a little confused about what a genotype actually is. A genotype is not a gene, instead, a gene is a part of a genotype. And a single gene does not necessarily make up a genotype either, it's generally a small part of many genes which make up a genotype although we usually do refer to genotypes based on simple Mendelian traits. Again, every source I can site will practically state the same thing: Genotype: 1)The entire set of genes in an organism. 2)A set of alleles that determines the expression of a particular characteristic or trait (phenotype)..

A snow is a snake that is both albino and axanthic at the same time.

Yes and no. A Snow is an animal that has both the Albino and Axanthic genes which make up an entirely new genotype that also creates a new phenotype. If you have a Snow that is also het for Lavender, it's phenotype will still be that of a Snow but it will then be another completely new genotype which is the entire set of genes it carries. However, I would greatly argue that a Snow is both an Albino and Axanthic, as it stands, as neither trait is visually discernible from it's phenotype. Like I stated previously, if you caught a Snow in the wild, there is no way you would come to the immediate conclusion that an animal like that has both genes for Albinism and Axanthism. You would only come to that conclusion after breeding trials. Again, this is why I suggested that the Snow, or Double Recessive Homo animals genotypes behave like those defined as Incomplete Dominant genotypes, it's the blending of colors. Now, if we had an animal that had a yellow dorsal base type but with charcoal dorsal saddles/patterns and it proved out to carry both the Albino and Axanthic genes, then I would suggest that this was working much like a Codominant trait as that is how Codominant traits tend to work versus the blending that happens in Incomplete Dominant traits.

I'll admit that saying that a Double Recessive Homozygous (DRH) animal, such as a Snow, is a bit of reach considering that the definition of an Incomplete Dominant trait is based on F1 animals coming from Dominant gene parents. But the visual end results for the DRH animal are the exact same which is why I made the comparison. If Incomplete Dominance was a bit more general about the blending of Homo traits instead of F1 Dominant based progeny, then I think it would be a no-brainer that this is are DRH animals are as well. But that's just my take on it.

Your superconda x normal example doesn't work since that is not a simple recessive character. You DO have 3 phenotypes related to 3 genotypes at a single locus.

I never stated that the Superconda was a Recessive gene nor did I state that it exhibits the traits of one. As I previously stated in my post on Codominance & Incomplete Dominance, I came to the conclusion that the Superconda gene is in fact a Codominant gene. I do believe that my example works because a Superconda, Anaconda and Normal all have completely different phenotypes which also directly coincides with 3 different genotypes (ie Superconda 'ss', Anaconda 'Ss' and Normal 'SS'). Again, a genotype is defined as "A set of alleles that determines the expression of a particular characteristic or trait (phenotype).". Isn't that what this is, a differing set of alleles for each animal that is expressing different phenotypes? I believe it is.

I am enjoying the discussion as well.... Any geneticists in the room?

I am too! I find this type of conversation mentally stimulating. Regardless of whether I'm correct in my assertions and/or assumptions, I am motivated to delve further in my current understanding of these topics so that I can address and at least comprehend to some depth what it is we are dealing with and talking about. Some people might be content with just knowing that you can eventually create a Snow by breeding an Albino and Axanthic together, but I want to know why.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

"While it is true that these are all Recessive genes to the Wild Caught genotype, they are also Incomplete Dominant when mixed with each other, this is why we are getting a new color phenotype when we pair these traits together. If these genes were truly Recessive, then they would be Recessive to each other as well."

Although its pretty commonly thought that things like albino and anery are incomplete dominant or co-dominant when expressed in the same individual its not really true. These terms specifically refer to alleles at the same locus (or variants of the same gene). That means recessive, dominant, incomplete dominant, and co-dominant only apply to how alleles are expressed when combined with each other, not when combined with other genes.

Best,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

I don't think it's completely up to date but here are most hognose morphs proven and unproven so far.

www.cowtownreptiles.com/morphlist.html
-----
Louie Chavez

Cowtown Reptiles

Nice list Louie...was surprised to see my unproven on there. Sent ya a few pics of them.
-----
Jenea
Guardian Reptiles

"When your memories are bigger than your dreams, you're headed for the grave" Author unknown

I believe the "bengals" he is talking about are the ones currently being produced by Dustin Dodge...

Here we go.....
-----
Jenea
Guardian Reptiles

"When your memories are bigger than your dreams, you're headed for the grave" Author unknown

Actually I WAS referring to Jenea's bengals.
-----
Louie Chavez

Cowtown Reptiles

Ok... I never heard of them before seeing Dustins...

She hatched them out a few years back I believe in '07. I actually thought Dustin's were the offspring from Jenea's.
-----
Louie Chavez

Cowtown Reptiles

I guess they are like the tigers... Maybe something that pops up every so often...

Either way they are pretty cool looking... Hope they prove out...

I agree!!! Very cool! I hope they prove out as well!
-----
Louie Chavez

Cowtown Reptiles

Excellent site, thanks! Would it be cool with you if I used your photos on my site (all properly credited of course)?

Contact me.
-----
Louie Chavez

Cowtown Reptiles

Louie,
Thanks for the list. Loved your website!
Jeff Clayton
Link

-----
J. Clayton
www.cahabariverreptiles.com

Thanks Jeff! It's still a work in progress but I guess the morph list is always going to be a work in progress.
-----
Louie Chavez

Cowtown Reptiles

Thank you all so much for your help, I didn't realise there were so many!