Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Isn't that a little tricxy?

At first I did not know if they were joking or not.

I mean someone could believe it.

Albino Het Sunglow... Wow, that one is really good one!

Especially considering there is no such thing as a Het Hypomelanistic. And, all Het Sunglows are Hypos Het Albinos, none are Albinos Het Hypo.

I figure it was a joke when I read "they are eating mice." Anyone knows at that a 4'ft Boa should be eating Large Rats.

Is fabulously funny! It craked me up when I read it...

Enjoy, Luis.

Edited for TOS violation

Edited on June 8, 2004 at 16:59:31 by PHGinger.

Maybe it's a mistake... Let's hope anyways. Regardless, I had to chuckle a bit. The animals are fairly priced, and they are pretty boas... though their description is misleading. Was thinking of inquiring... they deserve to be in my collection. Unfortunately, I have eyes for other animals at the moment... Namely Perus... So, I think I'll pass on these for now. Hope I haven't missed my opportunity... Joe???
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

>there is no such thing as a Het Hypomelanistic.

Sorry, there is such a thing as a Het Hypomelanistic. A creature is heterozygous if the two genes in a gene pair are different rather than identical. A boa with a hypomelanistic mutant gene paired with a normal gene fits the definition so is het hypomelanistic.

If you claim that a het hypomelanistic boa looks hypo rather than normal, then I agree with you. That is part of the definition of dominant and codominant mutant genes -- the heterozygous form does not look like a normal individual.

Paul Hollander

What is your take on the reduced pattern boa that was posted below???
-----
Come see us and our friends at the

It should also be known that recessive and co-dominant/dominant mutations operate in the same fashion. They just appear differently. What I mean is that;
het/Hypo X het/Hypo = ------- het/Albino X het/Albino =
25% dominant ------------------- 25% Albino
50% co-dominant -------------- 50% het/Albino
25% Wild type ------------------- 25% normal

even;
Hypo X het/Hypo = --------- Albino X het/Albino =
50% dominant ----------------- 50% Albino
50% het/Hypo ------------------ 50% het/Albino

also;
Hypo X Hypo = ----------- Albino X Albino =
100% dominant ---------------- 100% Albino

Hypomelanism in boas is a dominant mutation... meaning the heterozygous, as well as the dominant form are identical and cannot be separated by the naked eye. This may also apply to Arabesque.

*I believe* the Jungle mutation in boas is a co-dominant morph... meaning the heterozygous and dominant forms are dimorphic. Their appearance is completely different and can easily be separated by the naked eye. This may also apply to Motley.

When speaking of dominant/co-dominant mutations, heterozygous (het) always refers to the co-dominant form. As Paul pointed out above.

Wild type refers to normal appearance. Heterozygous forms of recessive genes also occur as wild type.

Just thought I should put it out here in laymens terms for all to see. These things confused me when I began caring for morphological creatures... 2 + 2 = apple? Now I feel I have a much better grasp on their genetic combinations and outcomes. Things are more clear to me now... 2 x 2 = 3

Hopefully, things are in better perspective now for those who were having trouble. With any luck I haven't confused anyone further on Boa genetics. If I have made any mistakes feel free to learn me the truth. Ahlwaiz en niihd uv prahpur edjukayshun, YAR

-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

...

100% het means that an animal is a definite carrier for that particular mutation and was produced with the dominant form of that mutation... Possible het means that an animal is not a definite carrier for that particular mutation and there is a slight probability it is just a normal or non-carrier... The lower the percentage, the greater the chance of it not proving out. (Of course I'm only referring to recessive mutations here)

We'll use albinism since it is the most widely recognized.

100% het/Albino is produced from an Albino crossed with a normal or a het
66% het/Albino is created of 2- 100% hets bred together
-this combination normally results in 1/4 of the offspring being Albino, and the rest being of the wild type... sine 2/3 of the normal appearing animals are gene carriers, then statistically, it has a 66% probability of being het for albino
50% het/Albino comes from a definite (100%) het/albino bred to a normal or unproven het animal.
-in this scenario since both adults are wild type, all of the resulting offspring will be of normal appearance. Half of the babies will receive 1 copy of the gene, the others will receive none. Out of the entire litter you have a 50/50 chance of ending up with a het.

All of the other percentages don't need to be explained and are normally referred to as simply, possible hets. Chances of producing an albino from these animals are little better than winning a jackpot on the lesser lotteries (cash 3, play4).
I will not go into Double heterozygous here. If someone else cares to... Have at it. I hope I have answered your queries.
Blah,
Ray
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

Paul,

A Hypo is a co-dominant...

A Super Hypo is a Dominant...

A Sunglow is an Albino a Hypo...

A Super Sunglow is an Albino a Super Hypo...

There is no way an Albino can be Het Hypo with out being a Sunglow.

Is there?

An Albino Het Sunglow can not hide the Hypo look and be pass on as a Het.

You do make a point a Het is a term which has a tecnical meaning and you are right.

But in Herpetoculture we generaly do not use Het for Codominant or dominant mutations.

Or do we?

Just some thoughts. Not picking on you at all.

I think the whole Albino Het Sunglow is a Hoax.

Just my two cents, Luis.

He was just picking at you.
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

>A Hypo is a co-dominant...
>
>A Super Hypo is a Dominant...

A hypo is heterozygous for a dominant or codominant mutant gene named salmon. A super hypo is homozygous for a dominant or codominant mutant gene named salmon. Salmon is a dominant mutant gene if the heterozygote can't be reliably distinguished from the homozygous form. Salmon is a codominant mutant gene if the heterozygote can be reliably distinguished from the homozygous form. I've never worked with salmons so haven't made up my mind as to whether salmon is a dominant or codominant mutant. "Some sort of dominant" is where I am now.

>A Sunglow is an Albino a Hypo...

Okay.

>A Super Sunglow is an Albino a Super Hypo...

Okay.

>There is no way an Albino can be Het Hypo with out being a >Sunglow.
>
>Is there?
>
>An Albino Het Sunglow can not hide the Hypo look and be pass on as a Het.

If it's albino and lacks the hypo look, it's an albino. It's not a sunglow of any sort.

>You do make a point a Het is a term which has a tecnical meaning and you are right.
>
>But in Herpetoculture we generaly do not use Het for Codominant or dominant mutations.
>
>Or do we?
>
>Just some thoughts. Not picking on you at all.

Good thoughts. Unfortunately, many people in herpetoculture do use genetics terms improperly. We encourage young children to use standard English rather than sticking with baby talk. I try to publicize the standard genetics definitions so some of the herpers on this forum will grow out of herpghetto genetics talk. Nothing personal was intended. The starting post was simply a target of opportunity.

Paul Hollander

>A Hypo is a co-dominant...
>
>A Super Hypo is a Dominant...

A hypo is heterozygous for a dominant or codominant mutant gene named salmon. A super hypo is homozygous for a dominant or codominant mutant gene named salmon. Salmon is a dominant mutant gene if the heterozygote can't be reliably distinguished from the homozygous form. Salmon is a codominant mutant gene if the heterozygote can be reliably distinguished from the homozygous form. I've never worked with salmons so haven't made up my mind as to whether salmon is a dominant or codominant mutant. "Some sort of dominant" is where I am now.

Paul,

A Hypo is a Hypo.

A Salmon Boas was the name coin by Rich Ihle for his Hypo Boas. But, all they are is Hypo Boas.

Just like Jeff Gee, he coin the name Orange Tail Boas. Again it is nothing more than a Hypo.

From the same blood line by the way! They genes are no different from each other.

You can not tell appart a Hypo from a Super Hypo.

The only way to distinguish the two is by breeding them to Normal Boas.

If it is a Hypo the gene is expresed in a co-dominat way with 50% of the litter being Hypos. Similar to the Tiger Retic gene.

However, if it is a Super Hypo, the gene is dominant and every single offspring should be Hypo (Hypo not Super Hypo) Kind of like the Super Tiger Retic gene.

This is all in theory, because the Hypo gene is a partial Co-dominant gene and it is not a 50/50 but more like a 40/60.

Anyhow, the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as Het Hypos. They are either Hypos or they are Not Hypos.

There is no way to get Hypos from breeding Normal looking littermates and/or Normal looking offspring from Hypos.

Het Hypo is a hoax! It is like a Normal Retic Het for Tiger. That is imposible!

Hypos are beautiful animals you should consider owning a few...

Rgards, Luis.
.
.

But, Paul is correct,you should re-read his explaination,and,try to comprehend what he is saying...your suffering from the same affliction that 90% of the people in this hobby seem to have,you've gotten stuck on an inappropriate,incorrect assumption,and,you've mistaken that for the "genetic gospel"..."Co-dominance" is not based on transmissive percentages of breeding results,it is based on the ability to reliably distinguish hets from homozygotes,(like the Tiger example you used,which is correctly described "co-dominant".)...and,you said it yourself:"the only way to tell a hypo is *super*,is to breed it."...heterozygous hypos DO EXIST,they are the ones incorrectly being refered to as "co-dominants"...if we use the logic you are suggesting,then I have some het for albino animals that are "co-dominant",because when bred to a "normal" I'll get 50% hets/50% normal???(we don't assign two distinct genetic lables to one specific trait! albinism is recessive,my hets are simply an intermediate form of the trait,they do not represent,or warrant a separate genetic condition.)What we are calling "hypos" are various forms of a DOMINANT genetic trait,this is not a theory anymore,but,a simple fact that has been proven over multiple generations now...and,we all need to update our understanding of it,and,use the proper terminology.the only hoax we're dealing with are "co-dominant" hypos.(and,"co-dominant" het for albinos! )

>Het Hypo is a hoax! It is like a Normal Retic Het for Tiger. That is imposible!

We differ on the definition of heterozygous. The standard definition is that the two genes in a pair are not alike. Nothing more. You are defining heterozygous as two genes in a pair are not alike causing the resulting animal to look normal. A tiger retic with one tiger mutant gene paired with a normal gene does not look normal, but by the standard definition it is still heterozygous for the tiger gene. Or if you prefer, it is a tiger retic that is heterozygous for the normal gene at the tiger locus.

Let's make a little table. I don't know how to do a table here, but you can draw it on paper.

The table has three rows and three columns.

The three columns are marked A) homozygous mutant (with two identical mutant genes in the gene pair) B) heterozygous (with one mutant gene paired with a normal gene) C) homozygous normal (with two identical normal genes in the gene pair).

The three rows are marked
1) mutant gene recessive to normal gene
2) mutant gene codominant to normal gene
3) mutant gene dominant to normal gene

Now we fill in the table with the appearances of the appropriate animals:
1A) looks different from 1B and from normal 1B) looks normal 1C) looks normal
2A) Looks different from 2B and from normal 2B)looks different from 2A and from normal 2C) looks normal
3A) looks different from normal 3B) usually looks like 3A 3C) looks normal

This table is where I am coming from.

Let's see where the albino mutant gene falls. When a boa has an albino gene paired with a normal gene, the snake looks normal. When a boa has two albino genes, it looks different from normal. So albino is in the row marked "mutant gene recessive to normal". IOW, albino is a recessive mutant gene.

Let's see where the hypo (salmon) mutant gene falls. When a boa has a hypo gene paired with a normal gene, the snake does not look normal. When a boa has two hypo genes, it does not look normal. Usually the snake with two hypo genes looks like the snake with a hypo gene paired with a normal gene. (My interpretation of what was written in the post above this one.) So hypo is in the row marked "mutant gene dominant to normal". IOW, hypo is a dominant mutant gene.

Let's see where the tiger mutant gene in retic pythons falls. When a retic has a tiger gene paired with a normal gene, the snake does not look normal. When a retic has two hypo genes, it also does not look normal. Usually the snake with two tiger genes does not look like the snake with a tiger gene paired with a normal gene. So tiger is in the row marked "mutant gene codominant to normal". IOW, tiger is a codominant mutant gene.

Paul Hollander

Paul,

I do understand what you are saying...

But I do not know if you understand what I am saying.

You say there is such thing as a Het for Hypo.

I say there is not. There is no Normal looking Boathat is Hypo gene carrier.

I understan that what you are calling a Het Hypo, what it is in fact a Hypo. Which as you see it, a Hypo is a Het for Super Hypo.

Samething with the Tiger Retic. There is no such thing as a Normal looking Retic Het for Tiger Gene. You may call a Tiger a Het for Super-Tiger, if you really have too.

See Personally I use the Het Term for Resesive Genes which you can not see a difference between Normal and Gene Carrier.

Why call a Hypo a what a not Normal looking Boa Het for Super-Hypo. when you can just call it a Hypo. You can see what it is.

My point of argument is this. If some one is selling a normal looking Boa as a Gene carrier for the Hypo.... I say they are either wrong and they just do not know better or they are trying to cheat you somehow.

Just my thoughts. Luis T.

>See Personally I use the Het Term for Resesive Genes which you can not see a difference between Normal and Gene Carrier.

In other words, you have bought into the commonly used definition of "het" in the herpghetto. This is not the standard genetics definition, which in my opinion is the better definition.

>My point of argument is this. If some one is selling a normal looking Boa as a Gene carrier for the Hypo.... I say they are either wrong and they just do not know better or they are trying to cheat you somehow.

I agree. If some one is selling a normal looking Boa as a Gene carrier for the Hypo.... I say they are either wrong and they just do not know better or they are trying to cheat you somehow.

My point of argument is this. Herpetoculture is a tiny corner of the world of genetics. If we herpers use the standard genetics definitions, we can easily move to the wider world of genetics. And people from the wider world can easily understand what we herpers are saying. We have maximum ease of communication with minimum misunderstanding. This is a Good Thing, in my opinion.

Paul Hollander

But in Herpetoculture we generaly do not use Het for Codominant or dominant mutations.

Or do we?

I see it all the time. It was very confusing to me at first, since I was use to working with recessive genes. A Salmon Boa which is not dominant is actually Heterozygous for Hypo. Het for the dominant Hypo gene or caring one copy of the gene and looks like a Salmon Boa. Het is used for dominant or recessive genes and it just means that the animals is caring one copy of the gene instead of two. Homozygous means they are caring two copies of the same gene.

A DH Sunglow is double het boa for one copy of the dominant hypo gene and one copy of the recessive albino gene. It is Hypo Boa caring the recessive albino gene. When they are bred together, they can produce an Albino Hypo Boa or Sunglow Boa.

I think the Hypo gene in boas is dominant. You can not tell a Salmon, or Ghost Boa that is heterozygous for one copy of the gene from one that is homozygous for two copies of the gene.

A co-dominant gene is a mixing of genes like a red rose and white rose produces a pink rose or a Jungle Boa bred to a Jungle boa produces a radical Jungle Boa. The Hypo gene in boas is much more like a semi-dominant gene in Paint Horses. You either get a Hypo boa or normal. It is an all or nothing gene and would be more correctly referred to as a semi-dominant.

Many people suspect that the very clean and reduced patterned Salmons or Ghost are dominant like a Super Jungle Boa, but always say that it has to be proven by test breeding. Why is this test breeding necessary any more if the clean ones are dominant. Enough time has past and enough test breedings have been done, to prove it one way or another if the clean Salmons are dominant. The test breedings have to be done, because they are not always dominant so this suggest that there is no physical way to tell if a Salmon is dominant or het.

I saw a Ghost Boa the other day that was very speckled and it test bred to be a dominant Ghost. This is strong evidence that the very light clean boas that we suspect are dominant are just a result of selective breeding and the normal variation we would see in a litter of baby boas. If a dark speckled Ghost can test breed to be dominant then there is no Super Salmon or Super Ghost, but a dominant Salmon and if we want to call them Supers because they will always produce a Salmon then that is fine, but they do not seem to be Supers because of the way they look. The very clean, reduced pattern, colorful Salmons do look Super!
-----
Joe Pierce
Snakes Alive!
"Home of the guaranteed feeders"
"If it won't eat, it is not worth a dime!"

The only way to be reasonably sure,(99.9%?)of producing all homozygous Salmon,or,Orange-tail hypos,is by breeding two known,(proven) "Supers" to each other. if you do this,you will notice that there are some within the litter that are at the more extreme end of the spectrum,(virtually no black,or,just a few random specks here,and,there.pale ground color,extreme reduction of pattern,etc...)there will likely,also be some that are less dramaticlly expressive,I believe this is due to the variability of penetrance,(?) if you only hold back & breed the lighter,less heavily patterned animals,the results will improve dramatically over the course of a very short time,so that is the reason that most breeders mention the genetic status of the parents,to convey the probability,or,possiblity of dominance,or,homozygousity within the offspring. another misconception is that you have to breed to a "normal" in order to prove genetic status,(I hear this ALL the time.)this is incorrect also,you can breed the proposed dominant hypo to a known "het",(a first generation hypo expressive.)if this results in any "non-hypo" offspring,your "suspect super" is not a homozygote,as "het X het" =25% non-expressive,"normals"/25% homozygous/50% expressive hets,(in the case of dominant mutations.)whereas "super" X het.=50%dominant/50%hets,(all expressive hypos,with each one having a 50/50 chance of being "super".) I do think that looking at the extreme examples of expression can provide a clue to a higher "probability" of an animal being dominant,but,as you said,it doesn't hold true across-the-board 100% of the time,and,that is what classifies the trait as dominant,rather than "co-dominant".

>another misconception is that you have to breed to a "normal" in order to prove genetic status,(I hear this ALL the time.)this is incorrect also,you can breed the proposed dominant hypo to a known "het",(a first generation hypo expressive.)if this results in any "non-hypo" offspring,your "suspect super" is not a homozygote

Correct. Breeding to a normal simply requires fewer babies before you can conclude what the genotype is. Boas have large litters, so this is less important than in a species with small numbers of babies per breeding, like ball pythons.

Paul Hollander

I had to read it over a couple of times - i had though i was reading it wrong.

I mean its possible that the 4 footer is eating mice.... might be eating like 10 of them =)

I was unable to find the ad so I am not even sure who posted it but there are a few possibilities that are not as sinister as you may think. The typing in the ad may have been a mistake and maybe should have read Albino Het, Sunglow….
Meaning that it was a Salmon/Hypo Het for albino that could produce Sunglow offspring.
Or The guy who listed the snakes may have been taken by someone else and is just reselling the snakes as they were sold to him, with out knowing.
Without contacting the seller for clarification it is really not fair to slam him with out knowing for sure. There has been a lot of ugly posting here in the last few days and this kind of stuff just adds to it (deserved or undeserved).
I’m not saying that if someone is trying to scam someone, not to call him on it, but at least try and find out if that is the case before throwing him under the bus.
As far as feeding goes, yes mice are a bit small for a four foot boa, but I also think that Large rats are too big and can cause pin heading on a boa, with out seeing the snake, the right size food is hard to say. Why not just e-mail the guy and find out what he is talking about? After all Paul is correct about the Het/Hypo issue so we all do make mistakes from time to time.
Maybe now would be a good time for a group hug?
-----
Jim Hopkins "Hoppy"
Hopkins Holesale Herps
Hopfam1@aol.com