Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Why there has never been a super arabesque produced? Does it have anything to do with fertility problems? does anyone know the answer?
thanks
John Peraza

I believe that it is because there just aren't that many arabesques out there. Although they have been around for a while, you just don't see that many of them. You see many more motleys for sale than you do arabesques and motleys have only been available for a few years. I've heard rumors that we should see the first super this year, but I'm not sure. The other reason we don't see them is because many have used their adults to do other things like produce arabesque sunglows.

Matt

I'm still a little shaken with the super motley. How a motleyxmotley produced a black boa, I'll never understand. But what do you think a Super Arabesque would look like. More pattern? Anyway, like the others said it's co-dom.
Thanks-
Matt Schubarth
Pet Nebula
2100 Stephens #116
Missoula, Montana 59801
406 541 9929

It is sponsored by kingsnake. Then apologize to John, he just got back, cut him some slack. Curb your E-motion, Stop the E-rroneous info, and Shut you E-hole.
Later-
Matt Schubarth
Pet Nebula
2100 Stephens #116
Missoula, Montana 59801
406 541 9929

np

-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

between dominant and co-dominant traits.
A dominant trait IS one that is not visually distinguishable as heterozygous or homozygous, such as hypomelanism in boas... You cannot look at a hypo and tell with 100% certainty that it is/isn't a super.
A co-dominant trait IS one that is, most certainly, visually distinguishable as either a heterozygous or a homozygous animal. You can tell in this case which is which. A few examples would be... tiger in retics... pastel jungle in balls...
There has YET to be proven, with absolute certainty, that there is a co-dominant trait in boas. Hope this has cleared up any confusion.
Best of luck,
"Ghettospeak" Ray Martin
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

So your saying that if you take a hypo and breed it to a normal and only produce hypos in half of the litter that you cant say with certainty that the animal which sired the litter is a codominant animal. By the same example you take a different hypo and breed it to a different normal and produce all hyposin the litter that that animal isnt a dominant animal with certainty?? Listen to what your saying Ray its flawed resoning. I feel that the proof is in the pudding and it not only has it been proven that there are dom and co dom traits in boas, but has been done so many times over. jmho
John Peraza

You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Your arguement is based on the outcome of certain breedings... What I am stating is the difference in certain genetic traits. Can you not look at a tiger retic and a supertiger retic and tell the difference? What is the result of the pairing with a normal? This trait is a co-dominant trait... meaning you can tell from the second they are born, what they will produce.
In the same respect you cannot be absolutely positive in a hypo to hypo (in boas) breeding, which of the offspring are supers until they are bred to something other than another possible super hypo. The trait is dominant... its appearance is the same throughout the spectrum. The term Dominant has been used in the wrong fashion for years... Maybe I can get someone with a more knowledgeable tongue to explain it better... BBS, Ray
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

Oh comon ray we both know that 99% of the times you can pretty much tell which one is a super and which one isnt. Sure there is always the exception to the rule hence the possible super label but that servs more of a sales tool supers just have a different look than regulars. wheather you think that the whole codominance/dominance term has been misused how can you argue with the breeding results ? to me results is the proof what your saying is equal to reffering to the world as being flat just by reading the old rules of the times even though it has been proven to be round time and time again . i understand where your comeing from but those thoughts are antiquated . once again the proof is in the actual breeding ray and im suprised to even hear you stateing things like this go back and read your old posts you had a totally different way of looking at things back then
John Peraza

Sorry, but it doesn't. By that standard ALL hypos are dominant wheather they are Super or not. Dominance passes the phenotype to all of it's offspring (EX. Super Salmon, Super Jungle).

From a Hypo to a normal (Hypo in a Hetero state) you will throw roughly 50/50. Wheather you agree that it is Co-Dom or not...that is how a Co-Dominant allele behaves.

Take care, Chris Olson
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

...

np
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

All i wanted to know was why there hadent been a super arabesque produced . I figured it was because all the adults were engaged in other projects. i just wanted to make sure that it wasnt due to weak breeding on either males or females arabesque. seeing as i plan on picking up a pair at daytona this year. and wanted to make sure i wasnt wasteing my money . i guess scandl just follows me huh chris?

John Peraza

All hypo boas are dominant... As I stated before the term dominant has been used in the wrong fashion for years... Dominant has nothing to do with breeding results, but rather with appearance. Let's see if Mr. Stone or Mr. Ihle have anything to say on this. I'm sure they can put it in better perspective.
Ray
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

The term dominant has become synonomous with super. However this is not true. All hypos ARE dominant, but they are not all super.

The arabesque has not been proven to be dominant or co-dom. My guess is it will prove to be co-dom, and I bet the super will be completely patternless on the back but maintain the connected pattern down each side of the back. This is all of course just a guess.

Matt Crabe

>The term dominant has become synonomous with super. However this is not true. All hypos ARE dominant, but they are not all super.

Agreed that the term dominant has become synonomous with super. But it would be more correct tow write that the hypo (salmon) mutant gene is a dominant mutant gene, meaning that it is dominant to the normal gene. A hypo boa is not dominant, the gene is dominant to the normal gene.

>The arabesque has not been proven to be dominant or co-dom. My guess is it will prove to be co-dom, and I bet the super will be completely patternless on the back but maintain the connected pattern down each side of the back. This is all of course just a guess.

I don't have a clue as to what the appearance of a boa with a pair of arabesque mutant genes will be. I'll wait til one shows up.

One of these days I must write a comparison between standard genetics definitions and herpghetto genetics definitions.

Paul Hollander

http://kingsnake.com/boamorphs/hypo.htm

http://kingsnake.com/boamorphs/arabesque.htm

These were written by people that know a lot more than I do...but I'm sure there are people out there that know a lot more than they do...they're words are not scripture....

Weather your def. is correct for the anatomy of genetics or not, I'm not sure...I'm well read in this area, but I am not an expert, it is entirely possible and reasonable for the hobby as a community to coin certain words from science to help simplify the geography of our conversations...."Supers, Dominant, Co-Dom, are all words we use in this hobby to explain results.

For the practical use of the Hobby, Hypomelanism is Co-Dominant.
I agree that it should be important to more people to understand with precision, but the world doesn't need that many geneticists.

Thank you, Chris Olson
-----
www.chrisolsonreptiles.com

>>between dominant and co-dominant traits.
>>A dominant trait IS one that is not visually distinguishable as heterozygous or homozygous, such as hypomelanism in boas... You cannot look at a hypo and tell with 100% certainty that it is/isn't a super.
>>A co-dominant trait IS one that is, most certainly, visually distinguishable as either a heterozygous or a homozygous animal. You can tell in this case which is which. A few examples would be... tiger in retics... pastel jungle in balls...
>>There has YET to be proven, with absolute certainty, that there is a co-dominant trait in boas. Hope this has cleared up any confusion.
>>Best of luck,
>>"Ghettospeak" Ray Martin
>>-----
>>Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

....