Reptile & Amphibian Forums

an earlier post asking how super hypos are created mentioned that " In most snake species its Hypo X Hypo but in hondurans the Hypo isnt co-dominant"

can anyone provide a list of co-dominant morphs in colubrids? are there colubrids with co-dominant hypo morphs? my knowledge is pretty deep but narrow (hondos, especially) so i'm curious.

and just out of curiosity, what about in boids?

thanks
terry dunham
albino tricolors
st petersburg florida

I have a line of hypo corns that manefest in the het state. It isn't extreme but it is there.

Tony, I could see as a corn matures that you can see other traits additional(say piggybacking)on the hypo...but likely not co-dom....I have yet to hear about ANY co-dom colubrid traits.Jeff

Nice assumption Jeff but the hets are distinctive right out of the egg. Don't know what specific classification the genetics would fall inot but they are as described.

Tony, a co-dominant gene has no "hets"as you know.How far along is the project and what has been produced?Is anyone else working on it with you(to establish reproducability)?I remember the first guys who were selling HYPO RED MILKS in Orlando several years ago were trying to sell them as dominant....which hindsite has disproved. Anyway, nothing personal,keep up the documentation,Jeff

at least by my understanding and the contect of the rest of the thread. Take the example of the tiger retic. A normal tiger is the het state and a super tiger is the homozigus state. Im not sure that co-dominant is the correct term as it to me seems more like an incomplete dominance. In any case it doesn't come across as a typical dom or recesive trait.

Several people are working with the corns though I don't think the exact nature of it expressing in the het state has been an issue. As I stated the difference is sutble but it is there. Perhaps I'll get a pic up shortly of to demonstrate the difference.

Tony is correct. Heterozygous simply means that the two genes in a gene pair are different. A tiger retic has a tiger mutant gene paired with a normal gene. As the two genes are different, the snake is heterozygous.

As for "incomplete dominant" vs "codominant", the two are synonyms in the loose sense we are using the terms. In both, there are three phenotypes, one for the first homozygote, one for the second homozygote, and one for the heterozygote. To use the terms in the strict sense, we'd need enzyme activity information that does not exist yet.

Paul Hollander

n/p

I think if you take red snake A and breed it to yellow snake B then its safe to say that the offspring will "mostly"be in the middle shadings.My view of a CO-DOM trait is one that when A is bred to B then a predictable number(50%) of offspring look VERY MUCH like the original A specimen. There is NO phenotypic differentiation between f1 and f2 animals(like hypo boas)but records alone indicate the "super" morph. These "supers"when bred to a normal B animal will produce ALL CO-DOM offspring but NO "supers".I think this terminology would also eliminate the aztec/zigzag/motley corns as well.Agree?

Hi Terry,
The only possible co-dominant genetic trait in colubrids that I can think of is the patterned and patternless trait seen in southern pine snakes. Although several breeders report statistical results lending credence to the co-dominance of this pattern trait, I am not sure that the has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I currently work with southern pines, this will be my first year breeding them. I hope to do some test breedings this year, although it will likely take me several breeding seasons to come up with any valid interpretable results.
Josh Martin

I know that this is the milk forum, but I could not resist!
Pink Patternless S. Pine

Tiger retics,pattern only.
salmon hypo boas.
hypo sonoran gophers.
And I used to have a line of great basin gophers that were co-dom on the pattern aspect.No matter what I bred that w/c funky looking male to I would get some aberrants out of the clutch.

shannon

n/p

my limited understanding (or interest) of the Tiger pattern in retics is that it is a codominant trait.

Normals are homozygous, tigers are hets, and "super tigers" are homozygous for the tiger allele.
-----
Chris Harrison

>>my limited understanding (or interest) of the Tiger pattern in retics is that it is a codominant trait.
>>
>>Normals are homozygous, tigers are hets, and "super tigers" are homozygous for the tiger allele.
>>-----
>>Chris Harrison
====================
chris, this is consistent with what i thought/think were co-dominant traits in Lady Gouldian Finches that i bred for many years: there is a "co-dominant yellow"...a normal gouldian has a green body and is homozygous for green (wild type or "normal". A gouldian with one of the yellow genes was heterozygous but because the yellow was dominant to wild type the heterozygous gouldians were very pale green, a dramatic diff in color that could not be overlooked. And if an animal had two of the yellow genes--if it were homozygous yellow--it was an extremely light yellow. This is a pattern observed in the retics, but i'm not aware of any evidence linking it to hypo hondurans, for examlple, and i've produced a lot of babies from hypo x hypo pairings.

Confusing the issue with gouldians were two factors: 1) it was also sex-linked (the trait occurred on the sex gene, where the female's extra gene occupies one of the two places so if she has only one yellow gene she is homozygous for the trait, and she is yellow, not light green) and 2) for reasons i cannot explain the mutation interacted with the white-breasted trait in the gouldian finch, which is a recessive trait. I'm not breeding birds any more but there are still people working to try to figure that out!

On a separate issue in this thread, I'm not sure how breeding an animal that always produces some babies with its own or similar weird pattern, as was mentioned in another post in this thread, suggests co-dominance. If it were a co-dominant trait wouldn't half the babies show it? And when two of them were bred together, wouldn't one-fourth of their babies be homozygous and show a different effect? Or do co-dominants have to have one appearance as single factor animals and a different look when double-factor, as is the case with the retics? There is always the chance a characteristic that shows up in youngsters but that proves not to be recessive, could be like tricolors and tangerines, where there are multiple steps along a continuium, and breeding a tricolor x a tangerine may, in a certain pair, almost always produce some tricolors (or some tangerines--most typically both and numerous animals with characteristics in bet3ween those extremes, at least in my experience, but that doesn't make either one of them a codominant, does it? It's always seemed to me to be the result of the interaction of multiple genes. Interesting to continue observations and try to sort it out. The explanations may not always be simple ones.

terry