Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I did a little bit of research on hypomelanism, hog island boas, and co-dominant genetics. And from what I understand, is that in boa constictors, hypomelanism is a co-dominant gene...which is a type of recessive trait...but that it works differently than a normal recessive. If a boa with the gene for hypomelanism mates with a boa that doesn't have that trait, then you will get a boa that still expresses some degree of hypomelanism. However the look wouldn't be as dramatic as a hypo x hypo.

If I am correct in my thinking, that is why a hog x normal will still show some traits of the hog...such as high pink/peach and the ability to change colors. However, that offspring won't be as pink/peach as a 100% hogg.

Now in the case of the nic. that I started this conversation with, what I was actually told, was that the snake had SOME hypomelanism in its blood. For all I know, it could have been the result of:

hypo x normal = 50% hypo x normal = 25% hypo x normal = 12.5% hypo

you still have some hypo blood in there and a little bit of that hypo might be getting expressed, but not enough to differentiate it and a very well color nic.

However, if you take that 12.5% hypo and breed it to a hogg that is crossed with something normal (and my understanding is that hoggs are naturally hypo), then what you have is:

12.5% hypo x 50% hypo = 31.25 hypo

Am I understanding this correctly?

when hogs are cross to other boas the babies will show a mixing of the two parents color traits. hogs unlike hypo colombians or nics, who have one gene that cause the hypo trait have many genes that control their hypo traits. the easyest way to explain this is to look at the snow boa. the snow has two genes that must work together to make it a snow a albino and anery gene. both genes are at two different place in the dna strand. if the albino gene is seen then the first gene is on and the second anery gene is off. if the anmal is an anery then the first albino gene is off and only the secound gene for anery is on. if both the first and secound gene is off the the boa is normal. if both first and secound gene are on then the boa is a snow. the hog island boa is like the snow boa but has more the just two genes that control its color thats why hog cross show many of the hog traits and many of what ever else it is breed withs traits.

now as for the nic. the hypo gene shouln't be called a co-dom gene, it is a incomplet doment gene of prashal penatrance. this means the if the gene is present in an animal then it controls that animals color and the animal is a hypo if the animal looks normal then the gene is not present and can not be passed on to its babies. because of its prashal penatrance nature some animlas are ok and some are screamers some have more hypo expressed and some have less. but if it has the gene it will be epressed. it is possable to have hom animals that look like a het animal because both gene are only prashal active, it is also possable it have a het animal that has great amonts of penatrance to look as good and even better then a hom animal. hope this helps sorry about the miss spelling.

From what I understand, is that a co-dom. trait means that there are no "Hets" that you either have a hypo or normal, like in the example:

Tiger retics are the het for Super Tiger, being the Super Tiger is the homozygous dom. trait, and the tiger is the het for that trait.
If you breed a Tiger retic to a normal, you will get Tigers and normals, and the normals are just that! normals. And if you breed two tiger retics together you will get super tigers. I believe that is the same with Hypo Salmons.

I don't think you can have a het for Hypo Salmon

Well put. There are no hets for hypo.
-----
Voices in the darkness... scream away my mental health. Can I.. ask a question.. to help save me from myself? Enemies fill up the pages, are they me?... Monday till Sunday in stages, set me free!!! " Diary of a Madman " Ozzy Osbournewww.bahreptiles.bravehost.com

"Salmon","Orange-tail","Hypo" boa constrictors are expressing a simple DOMINANT genetic trait...as with ANY genetic trait that is controlled by a single set of specific genes,heterozygous animals are a basic part of the equasion...You CANNOT have homozygous expression without them somewhere in it!!! In simple recessive traits you cannot "see" the trait influence in the "hets" to distinguish them from their normal counterparts,(this is WHY they are called recessive traits!) In the various types of dominant traits,the "hets" express the trait characteristics,to one degree,or,another in the very first generation bred outward from the source,(conversely,this is WHY these are called DOMINANT traits!)...With that being said,there are no "normal" appearing babies from a breeding involving a "hypo" that are "het" for the trait...there most certainly are "het hypos" though,these are the ones that everyone continues to call "co-doms",or,"co-dominant"...because when bred to a "normal" boa 50%(statistically) will be "hypo",and,50% will be "normal"...well,guess what? following simple Mendellian genetic theory,breeding a het for albino to a "normal" yields the same result!(50% hets-50% "normal"on statistical average.) sooo I guess boas that are het for albino,or,anerythristic are "co-dominant" too? (if we use the same broken logic applied to "hypos"???)These "co-dom" hypos are het for the "super",or,dominant hypo,just as the tiger retics are het for super tiger...doesn't this make fairly simple sense ?

I am in no way, very knowledgable on this subject, but what I have thought about this may add to understanding. First off, The hogg Island is its' own species. It is a normal boa for all intents and purposes. It is normal in the hypomelanistic phase. This is why I believe it acts as a crossed animal when bred to anything. It expresses its' genes as a normal. When talking about HYPOS, I have only read about 2 genetic lines. Jeff Gee and Rich Ihle. If there are more please tell me. Thanks Andy Federico

If what you are saying is true, then there are no co-dom genes. What about pastel balls? They react the same way when bred to a normal. I think what is happening is normals are gradually lacking more and more black pigment. People are looking for the more pastel type look in their normals. this is washing into the hypo market and I personally think there are alot of so-called hypos being sold that are not even hypos...just crosses. This is just my personal opinion. Andy

I really can't answer in regards to ball pythons,I just haven't kept up with all the various genetic lines/traits currently in production.(belive it,or,not I just breed boas! *lol* although I've often thought of breeding balls to finance my boa habit! )..however,I believe what I'm saying is true,not because,I want it to be,or,because I say so...but,because the last ten years of collective breeding efforts have provided evidence that support this conclusion...There ARE "co-dominant" traits though,they are the ones that produce a "het" that is clearly different from the "normal",wild type,and,also consistantly visually distinct from the homozygous form of that trait.(a perfect example is the Tiger trait in Retics; a tiger is easily distinguishable from "normal",and,a "super" Tiger is distinctly different from both het & normal.)An example in boas would be the "Jungle",(also the Motley is looking more & more like a true co-dominant trait.)although there is variation in in it's appearence from one to another,when you see a "super" Jungle it is obviously different from the het & both are distinguishable from "normal".... with Salmons/O-t's/"hypos",there are often dramatic differences in the supers,when compared to the "hets",and,there are certain criteria used to judge a given individuals higher probability of potentially being a dominant hypo...if you are able to view the entire litter,it can sometimes be fairly obvious which ones are supers,and,which are just hypos,(or,hets.)...HOWEVER,because there is often variation in penetrance,there have been numerous examples of animals thought to be supers that,when bred proved to be "het" & vice versa. for this reason most breeders offer animals from two hypo parents as "possible supers" to provide the information to a potential buyer that,based on genetic formula the offspring have a possibility of being homozygous.the chance percentage follows typical genetic guidlines, het X het yields roughly 25% homozygous. het X super= roughly 50% super. super X super= 100% super. super X "normal"= 100% het. You cannot produce a homozygous hypo without both parents being hypo,knowing the genetic status of one,or,both makes it easy to calculate the results just like we do with any recessive genes.

I would change two things. Yes, I am nitpicking.

"'Codominant' trait" would be better as "'codominant' gene".

And "penetrance" should be "variable expressivity". Incomplete penetrance occurs when the gene(s) for a trait are present but the animal looks normal because of environment/unknown genes. Variable expressivity occurs when environment/unknown genes cause considerable variation in a trait even when the mutant genes are identical in two animals. In hypo, there is enough variation that some homozygotes express the hypo trait like some heterozygotes.

With those changes, you are centering the bullseye rather than half an inch off.

And the people who do not believe that there is such a thing as "heterozygous hypo" should check the definition of "heterozygous" at www.dictionary.com. It says nothing about the appearance of the heterozygote. The appearance of the heterozygote determines whether a mutant gene is dominant, codominant or recessive to the normal allele.

Paul Hollander

Based on my understanding of your explaination,I'd concede to those changes (I'm still learning too! sometimes finding the right words is the hardest part!) I appreciate your input,as always. I know alot of people wonder why I'm always getting involved in this discussion,it usually ends with flat out denial of the obvious,and,sometimes hard feelings,(I think sometimes people feel like their "reality rug" is being pulled out from underneath their feet!)I'm always surprised at the people that claim to be experienced breeders that have such a hard time accepting such fundamentally basic genetic facts. I'm certainly not claiming to be some sort of genetics wiz...I'm just a "small-time-breeder-hobbyist" by my own admission & choice. I love what I do,because what I accomplish today can change the way I think about things I thought I knew yesterday...I think that genetics,as well as snake breeding,should be a continuously evolving endeavor,both for the keeper & the kept...My hope is that I will never become so locked on any one concept,that I cannot allow the possibility of a new viewpoint.I know that if we keep knocking away at the doors,eventually we will get through though....it's just a matter of time...and,of course the seemingly endless "knocking".

If what you are saying is right then you are misleading buyers when you post your hypo harlys for sale.You should be posting them as het hypo harleys.There is also a flaw with your het albino,anery analagy.If you breed a het albino to a normal you will not get an albino,but if you breed a hypo to a normal you will get hypos.Also you cannot tell a dominant hypo from a co-dom hypo visually.Jeremy Stone proved it when he bread in his words a butt ugly hypo to a normal and got all hypo babies.Doug from Boa Basement also proved it when he bread a ghost that no one wanted because it wasnt very nice looking to a know co-dom ghost and got all ghost babies.A hypo is a hypo.
Season greetings
Jeff

(and,several others,as well,)Is that the trait is "simple dominant" NOT "co-dominant",(which,if you read & comprhend what I wrote above,IS what I'm saying.)The only way to be reasonably certain that a given individual "hypo" is homozygous prior to breeding it,is to have produced it using two homozygous parents!(period!!!)even then breeding results would be best to confirm it...as for me misleading anyone...if I thought,for a fraction of a second that anyone would be able to grasp what I was talking about,I would happily offer any heterozygous hypo I produced as exactly THAT! I have NEVER,in any single ad,or,personal conversation offered ANY "co-dominant" hypos for sale,because they DO NOT exist. There is no flaw in my analogy,only a flaw in your comprehension of genetics...the reason you cannot produce an albino from breeding a "het" for that trait,to a "normal" (non-gene carrier.),is because the albino trait is RECESSIVE...the reason you can produce a "hypo" from breeding ANY status expressive gene carrier for that trait to a "normal" is because the trait IS DOMINANT!(any "hypo" produced this way is guaranteed to be a "het"!) It's easy to adopt someone elses views,and,simply regurgitate what they feed you,using your own brain to actually think things through,and,arrive at the truth requires a bit of work,but,it's usually worth it,try it.

If you believed in this so strongly then you would list your animals as het hypo period.Practice what you preach.
Take care,
Jeff

Some compelling point of contention to support your disagreement with what I'm saying,other than "A hypo is a hypo",(*lol*)I'm open minded enough to consider listening to it? if all you've got to bring to the "table" is that "I'm misleading people."... I'd say your counterpoint is pretty weak...If you choose not to believe what I'm saying,but,have no factual explaination why,that's fine with me,but,try dwelling on the point,rather than trying to create some misdirection about my character as the "meat" of your arguement.(it doesn't really make what I'm saying,any less true.)

That was my point.If you belive yourself but choose to call your animals something else then in my opinion that does say something about your character.But the fact still is that if you breed a het albino to a normal you will not get an albino(or breeding an albino to a normal wont produce an albino).But breeding a hypo to a normal will produce a hypo.Clearly shows they are acting different.Thats all i have to say on the matter.
Take care.
Jeff

*lol* I didn't make up the rules of genetic science,or,theory...I just plugged the available information & evidence into it,and,the results seem painfully obvious to me? If you can honestly pose the examples you gave(twice)and,still not understand why you're not making a single valid point of contention in regards to this discussion...well,I just hope the lightbulb comes on for you at some point,or,another...(rather than putting too much energy into worrying what I'm doing with my animals,you might want to save some,and,examine your own representations? just a suggestion) I'll look for some of those "co-dominant" het albinos from you soon!

so for anyone to sell hypos or any other morph resulting from a dominate gene as het is pointless because the trait shows. Suggesting that Rainshadow is being dishonest in the representation of his animals because you don’t understand 9th grade biology is irresponsible. When was the last time you described a person with black hair as "het for black hair" or described a person’s brown eyes as "het for brown eyes"? These are traits that are dominant in humans and therfore show up even if a person is only het. Your mixing up genetics with appearance.

>so for anyone to sell hypos or any other morph resulting from a dominate gene as het is pointless because the trait shows.

It makes a difference to the hypo breeder who wants to maximize his income. He would prefer a homozygous hypo so that all (not half) the babies would be hypos.

Paul Hollander

would be listed as such. Het albinos look normal so they have to be listed as het if someone wants more money. Likewise a homozygous hypo looks like a het so again the seller is likely to list it as such or lose out on the extra money.

The term het has nothing to do with the appearence of ANY animal it means "different" just as homo means "same". If one gene is normal (from a normal parent) and the other is hypo (from a hypo parent) the offspring's genes will be hetero regardless of appearence, period. In humans, if a child has a blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent and the child is born with brown eyes, he is only het for brown eyes even though the trait shows. The reptile market place can't just go and change around the meanings of words.