Reptile & Amphibian Forums

When you breed a snake with a single recessive (albino) to another single recessive (hypomelanistic), are all the babies double het?
-----

>>When you breed a snake with a single recessive (albino) to another single recessive (hypomelanistic), are all the babies double het?
>>-----
>>
>>

Yes, if one parent is hypo and one parent amel then the babies are definite double het for amel and hypo.....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Thanks a lot, John. I'm now remembering that is the case. I must have had a brain fart. lol Thanks for jarring my memory.
-----

They'd be definite double hets.

You would get a hybino or sunglow or whatever a double visual (homozygot) would look like showing both traits overlapped at the same time.
-----

www.Bluerosy.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Rainer!
-----

......or if you want to use the correct spelling since you are in America and an American citizen, you could apply the English language and refer to them as double "homozygotes" instead of double "homozygots" if they express both traits (hybinos) at the same time...

Feel free to google up the term Ross and see what pops up for you continuously.
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Maybe the E is getting stuck on the keyboard. lol
-----

yeah, lots of things are getting "stuck" alright......
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

When you breed a snake with a single recessive (albino) to another single recessive (hypomelanistic), are all the babies double het?

Yes but i needed to add one more thing.

With cal kings there are a lot of morphs that are not true recessive traits that people are calling hypos.

So a double recessive would only apply if the hypo is a true recessive and not just a light phenotype...which is fairly common with cal king folks.
-----

www.Bluerosy.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited on January 16, 2012 at 20:34:03 by PHFaust.

>>Yes but i needed to add one more thing.
>>With cal kings there are a lot of morphs that are not true recessive traits that "people" (Hubbs *cough*) are calling hypos.
>>So a double recessive would only apply if the hypo is a true recessive and not just a light phenotype...which is fairly common with cal king folks.

And....the amel gene will cancel out the hypo gene....a double homozygote (hybino) would look like an amel.

Then there's the myth about a Caliking being Anery too......I think every Calking I've seen has had the absence of erythrin (Red).....I guess they are all anery.......I had to go there again.....lmao!
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

.
-----

Just as Hubbs and a lot of the older guys call anything lighter or cleaner than normal a hypo, Rainer calls an bluish tinged animal an axanthic.......and a black and white animal anery even if the animal never had red.......lol

I know......they are just labels........
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Maybe someday Rainer will prove everyone wrong and introduce us to the first axanthic Cal kings.
-----

Hahahahahahahaha!!!
-----
Gerard

"Destruction of the empty spaces, is my one and only crime."

www.livebaitclip.com

GONE FISHING!!!

>>>>Then there's the myth about a Caliking being Anery too......I think every Calking I've seen has had the absence of erythrin (Red).....I guess they are all anery......

Why conclude that's a myth?

If it lacks erythrins it's anerythristic, right? Who's to say whether a million years ago (hypothetically, of course!) there were cal kings with red in their normal coloration--maybe their white rings were orange then, or red--and then an anerythristic mutation occurred. If it was a recessive trait, then it wouldn't get the traction to displace the normal phenotype, but it would persist, usually hidden, as is the case today with splendida or hondurensis (ok, those are hypoerythristic, but you get the point). But if it were a dominant trait, the "anerythristics" would eventually displace the "normal" or wild type. If it were a more recent mutation event, the hyperrythristic, or whatever it would be called, trait would persist in hidden fashion as gets, like the anery splendida. But if it happened very early in the subspecies' evolution, it could have been eliminated. I think when we argue that wild-type snakes that lack red pigment aren't anerythristic, we're being shortsighted. I might be off on a few of the details here, but I think the concept is valid.

>>Why conclude that's a myth?
>>
>>If it lacks erythrins it's anerythristic, right? Who's to say whether a million years ago (hypothetically, of course!) there were cal kings with red in their normal coloration--maybe their white rings were orange then, or red--and then an anerythristic mutation occurred. If it was a recessive trait, then it wouldn't get the traction to displace the normal phenotype, but it would persist, usually hidden, as is the case today with splendida or hondurensis (ok, those are hypoerythristic, but you get the point). But if it were a dominant trait, the "anerythristics" would eventually displace the "normal" or wild type. If it were a more recent mutation event, the hyperrythristic, or whatever it would be called, trait would persist in hidden fashion as gets, like the anery splendida. But if it happened very early in the subspecies' evolution, it could have been eliminated. I think when we argue that wild-type snakes that lack red pigment aren't anerythristic, we're being shortsighted. I might be off on a few of the details here, but I think the concept is valid.

Terry....as I once stated....I agree with all that and it is certainly a possibility, but you know as well as I.......Rainer just doesn't think that way......LOL

BTW.....I think the black and white or blue Splendida are Axanthic......not Anery....hehe
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

haha I hear you there. Yeah, that is one thing I have learned here, it has to prove out.
-----

>>When you breed a snake with a single recessive (albino) to another single recessive (hypomelanistic), are all the babies double het?
>>-----
Assuming you mean breeding the two different homozygous morphs together (albino and hypo phenotypes, in your example) then yes, you're correct.

That's true, however, only so long as the two morphs occur on different gene pairs. So far, I'm not aware of any king or milk morphs that occur on the same gene pair, so that's a "problem" only in theory at this time, to the best of my knowledge.

(To elaborate, for those who care for any more detail than that: there are a number of gene pairs populated by the "normal"or wild type genes. A het for albino has one of those gene pairs occupied by one albino and one normal gene: if the two morphs occurred on that same gene pair, you could have double hets, but you couldn't have an albino het for hypo or hypo het for albino. As it turns out, of course, the two traits occur on different gene pairs. Before we produced triple-het hondurans the question hung in the air: what if two of those morphs (hypomelanistic; a melanistic; hypoerythristic) occurred on the same gene pair? That would preclude the existence of triple hets. The answer, of course, came when the first clutch of triple het x triple het breedings hatched with animals displaying each of the three phenotypes.)

Remember that on sex-linked morphs the mutation or genotype occurs on the same gene pair that determines gender: females are females, it turns out, because they get an extra chromosome, on that gene pair. That leaves only a single "slot" for a color-determining gene on that gene pair. Thus a male (having two slots available) that gets one gene for a sex-linked morph looks "normal" and is het, but a female getting one gene on her gene pair (which has only one open slot because the other is filled by the gender-determining gene) shows the phenotype.

>>Remember that on sex-linked morphs the mutation or genotype occurs on the same gene pair that determines gender: females are females, it turns out, because they get an extra chromosome, on that gene pair. That leaves only a single "slot" for a color-determining gene on that gene pair. Thus a male (having two slots available) that gets one gene for a sex-linked morph looks "normal" and is het, but a female getting one gene on her gene pair (which has only one open slot because the other is filled by the gender-determining gene) shows the phenotype.

Great information Terry....
I wonder if that is why there are some sexually dimorphic mutations.....
You've always explained genetics in such simple terms over the years and it makes it easier to grasp.
I still, to this day check out your genetics page on your website.......
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

That is very interesting. Thank you for that break down.
-----
Gerard

"Destruction of the empty spaces, is my one and only crime."

www.livebaitclip.com

GONE FISHING!!!

Interesting stuff. Thanks a lot!
-----

.