Reptile & Amphibian Forums

There is a difference in the way a dominant and a co-dominant gene works........

****BUT FIRST*****

There is a HUGE misconception, about what the term "co-dominant" actually means. Calling something(hypo boas in this case) co-dominant, beacause it is in its heterozygous form, which is phenotypically different from the wild types(normals), is inaccurate. By inaccurate, I mean it has been turned into a familiar, although improperly used, term that describes the difference between normal,hetero, and a homozygous specimens of the same genetic mutation. The term "dominant" has also been misrepresented in this same fashion. Dominant does NOT mean the homozygous form of a co-dominant trait.

******NOW******

A co-dominant trait will be phenotypically different in its homozygous(super) form than its hetero state. The difference is visible to the naked eye..... from close up or far away. You don't hear anyone calling a tiger retic a co-dom tiger, or a super tiger retic a dominant tiger.

A dominant trait is one where there is not a phenotypic difference between the homo and heterozygous forms. A super can only be proven a super by breeding.

Both dominant and co-dominant genes will show a phenotypic difference fromthe wild type, normal of the same. The terms have been misrepresented in hypomelanistic boas to make a differentiation for a purpose of worth and genetic potential.

And if you think I am rocking the boat now, just wait until I share my thoughts on the anerythristic gene as we all know and love it. Honestly this post was only meant to clarify, what, in my opinion, is a HUGE misconception in our little corner of the universe.

All thoughts and replies welcome........

Jesse Van Atta
Forever Boas
-----
"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh

Thanks, Chris Ginkel

I'd love to hear what you have to say about the anery trait Jesse.

sean
-----
recycle your pets

Although, I do think it will take several of the more well known names in the business to reiterate this to bring it home.
Too many terms have been misused in this hobby, making it harder to communicate between veterans and newbies. Another misuse being Dh Ghost as well as Dh Sunglow... there is no such thing. The proper terminology would be Hypo het Anery and Hypo het Albino. All of these improper teachings facilitate confusion.
I would love to hear your feelings on Anerytherism... When you get a chance.
Thanks,
Ray
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

I would love to hear your theory as well

I'm sure no authority on this subject, but I've always hated the "DH" terminology. It is confusing, especially to those new to this, and trying to learn it.
-----
Linda Hedgpeth
lindafh@frontiernet.net
Sierra Serpents

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!!"

The definition for hetergeneous is consisting of dissimilar elements or parts. So a hypo bred to either and anery or albino all the hypos that show the trait would be hets. As far as what was said in the orignal post it is correct. I have argued before that we should call hypos hetergeneous, homogeneous, or possible homogeneous depending on the breeding. Remembering that a het hypo is still a hypo.
-----
Bryan Self
Quetzalcoatl Reptiles

I do like referring to homozygous forms as supers, whether it is correct terminlolgy or not. I know that when I breed a super to a normal, I will get a litter that is entirely made of hets.
-----
"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh

I thought I understood the topic. But after reading through posts below, I was so confused about the hypo trait, I started to question my sexuality. Sorry, my humor is twisted.
Later All-
Matt Schubarth
Pet Nebula
2100 Stephens #116
Missoula, Montana 59801
406 541 9929

......are my thoughts of anerythrism.

As I lack the experience and knowledge of those who have bred for anerythrism, and seen normals, hets, and anerythristics coming from different breedings for the morph. Especially in breeding verifiable 50% het to normal, and the knowledge of which ones from the litter proved to be heterozygous.

I have a thought that anerythrism is NOT a recessive gene. I will make my own effort to find out. I have the technology. I will do it. But at the moment, I am but a simple hobbyist with ONE litter under my belt to even base it on. If my thoughts are wrong then so be it.....

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE ONES WHO KNOW!

A simple question......

Do your hets for anerythrism have a visible reduction of red compared to the non het of the same?

I was really expecting to be flamed.... and I may still be. But thank you all for your thoughts.

Jesse Van Atta
Forever Boas
-----
"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh

I'd much rather offer constructive criticism.
If not recessive... what would you propose it be? Co-dominant? With the "less red" offspring being the heterozygous form? I have mostly found that the het/Anerys are the more colorful animals... Of course this is in wild-type form. As far as hypos with the gene... I can't see any major difference. Maybe you can open my eyes. There may be a different interaction between the particular lines you are working with. Who knows? Many new genes have been introduced lately... Bill P. may even have a new line of Anerys... only time will tell.
-----
Quit? Never will I ever... forever 'til the end. Always keep on moving... never stop my friend.

This is information which I very much lack from very limited experience with the gene. Thank you for sharing.....

The babies in the litter we had are all 50% het for anery. More then half are very reduced in red. If this is a common thing in litters with the known type 1 anery gene, it would help explain to me the unusualness of the litter.

Either way I have kept quite a few to breed out and see if is anything at all. And time will tell..........

Jesse Van Atta
Forever Boas
-----
"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh

The anery gene isnt recessive as the term normally means. My opinion of this is from rather limited experiance with anery, but I agree about the lack of red. Anyway a buddy of mine bred a anery male to a pet store normal female boa, 27 out of 40 babies were anery. Now maybe by some fat chance this female was het but from what he explained to me the animal has been around a while its 10yrs or so old so, I have my doubts but stranger things have happened. Have you ever taken notice to the speckling on het albino boas? ever 100% het albino I have ever looked at that I could verify was a het had an intense amount of speckling, Ive also seen alot of 66ers and many would have an abnormal amount of speckling while others appeared nomral, just a thought
-----
Jason & Danica
Don't wanna wait 'til tomorrow Why put it off another day? One by one, little problems Build up, and stand in our way. Oh One step ahead, one step behind it Now ya gotta run to get even Make future plans I'll dream about yesterday, hey! Come on turn, turn this thing around (Right now) Hey! It's your tomorrow (Right now) Come on, it's everything (Right now) Catch your magic moment (Right now) Catch your magic moment Do it right here and now Do it right here and now, IT MEANS EVERYTHING (Van Halen, Right Now)

Classic Dums frozen feeders

But I've seen a few snakes in my buddies colection that were bought from Doug Matuzak(and others) as anery hets, that exhibited a difinate reduction in black when compared to a true red-tail. I just figured that since most of the wild morphs are Central American, that their tails were predisposed to a reduction in black. What I'm refering to here for anyone that doesn't keep both BCI and BCC is that boas from Central America(BCI) don't often maintain the best tail color into adulthood, while true boas from South America often(always if pure) do maintain the red color of the tail.
Savvy?
Matt Schubarth
Pet Nebula
2100 Stephens #116
Missoula, Montana 59801
406 541 9929

I love genetics and in fact it was one of the subjects which most drew me to my Zoology degree, but I have to agree that terms get "stuck" to morphs that don’t technically have anything to do with the morph they are stuck too. I think that the main problem is that there are a lot of people who don’t know much about the workings of a punett square or the basic concepts of genetics. Unfortunately I feel that in the business of making and breeding snake morphs we are going to have to carter to the majority of people out there who aren’t as well versed as some of the breeders who have invested the time and energy to learn all the little peaks and valleys of genetics. So to you Sojour I tip my proverbial hat and hope that one day all the little kinks in bugs can be cleared up for the majority of snake breeders but until that day it is nice to see someone else out there respects genetics as much as Steve and I do.

I do also believe that there is something going on in certain Anery lines that make the “hets” show more pink then average but it might also be held in one or both of the parents.

Just my 0.02 cents on the matter…

Sincerely,
Rose Hipskind
-----

www.srsnakes.com

It is a very "positive" thing to periodically discuss the particulars and actualities behind the way that these various mutations behave as opposed to the words (however inadequate) we use to describe them. Sojourner has excellent, and valuable advice/opinions on this subject.
One thing, however that I would beg you all to consider is that use of these "conventions" (i.e. Hypo, when meaning het-Hypo, and Double-Het Sunglow when perhaps meaning het-hypo and het for amelanism combined.) are a matter of common usage to simplify our ability to discuss these subjects.
This is quite analogous to referring to polar opposite electromagnetic charges as "Positive" and "Negative"; completely arbitrary, totally inaccurate and very easy to use in order to communicate an otherwise complex concept or set of relationships.

I think it is selling very many people short to believe that you are dumbing down to the Lowest Common Denominator in order to discuss these things. If we had to re-qualify every statement we made regarding genetics, then forums like this would become gargantuan monstrosities of polysyllabic prolixity. I agree that what was said above is very generally correct, but if we want to have fun talking about our real pretty snakes, it needs to be simple to express. Furthermore, if we want to sell these snakes to newcomer hobbyists, then we have to make the information accessible, not esoteric. Thanks for reading all of this.
snakepimp.com

-----
Jeremy J. Anderson
No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful. Everybody dies frustrated and sad, and that is beautiful.

The terminology of DH Sunglow and DH Ghost is accurate. Het being short for heterozygous, which a hypo has to at least be, to be a hypo. My break from convention is in the thought that the hypo gene acts co-dominantly. I assure you that it was not my intention to dumb down anything, or shoot it over the heads of the masses either.

We can all benefit from these sort of discussions if they are kept civil. Thank you for your thoughts.

Jesse Van Atta
Forever Boas
-----
"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh

I do not know that much about hypos, but what you are saying here seems to make very good sense. I also would love to hear what you have to say about anerys....please let me know. Thanks Andy

Yes, I apparently wasted my time trying to explain all this yesterday because some moron deleted everything I wrote. Hopefully your post can stay up for a while. This forum blows, good bye!

>>There is a difference in the way a dominant and a co-dominant gene works........
>>
>>****BUT FIRST*****
>>
>>There is a HUGE misconception, about what the term "co-dominant" actually means. Calling something(hypo boas in this case) co-dominant, beacause it is in its heterozygous form, which is phenotypically different from the wild types(normals), is inaccurate. By inaccurate, I mean it has been turned into a familiar, although improperly used, term that describes the difference between normal,hetero, and a homozygous specimens of the same genetic mutation. The term "dominant" has also been misrepresented in this same fashion. Dominant does NOT mean the homozygous form of a co-dominant trait.
>>
>>******NOW******
>>
>>A co-dominant trait will be phenotypically different in its homozygous(super) form than its hetero state. The difference is visible to the naked eye..... from close up or far away. You don't hear anyone calling a tiger retic a co-dom tiger, or a super tiger retic a dominant tiger.
>>
>>A dominant trait is one where there is not a phenotypic difference between the homo and heterozygous forms. A super can only be proven a super by breeding.
>>
>>Both dominant and co-dominant genes will show a phenotypic difference fromthe wild type, normal of the same. The terms have been misrepresented in hypomelanistic boas to make a differentiation for a purpose of worth and genetic potential.
>>
>>And if you think I am rocking the boat now, just wait until I share my thoughts on the anerythristic gene as we all know and love it. Honestly this post was only meant to clarify, what, in my opinion, is a HUGE misconception in our little corner of the universe.
>>
>>All thoughts and replies welcome........
>>
>>Jesse Van Atta
>>Forever Boas
>>-----
>>"Continuing to cling to the patterns you know, inhibits your ability to discover what you don't know." - Eric Allenbaugh