Reptile & Amphibian Forums

A while back ago I read a post saying "Dont be scamed by Spider hets". I know he probally meant people selling normal ball pythons and saying they were hets for the Spider trait, but there really are Spider hets. Im just going to clear this up just in case anyone is curious. There are three different hets: Simple Recessive, Codominant, and Dominant.
Simple Recessive - Hets look normal and carry the morphed trait. (Albino, Clown, Piebald, etc...)
Codominant - Hets are visible morphs but when breed to another het with the same morph they produce a "super form", which is the homozygous. (Hets for codominant - Pastel, Fire, Yellowbelly, etc...) (Super form homozygous - Super Pastel, Ivory, Super Cinnamon Pastel, etc...)
Dominant - Hets for dominant look like the homozygous form. The only way to find a het for dominant traits is to breed the animal back a normal. If you do not get all visible morphs back you have a het. And no the normal looking animals in the cluth are not hets, they are normal. (Spider, Pinstripe, Granite, etc...)
I hope I helped at least one person. If anyone sees anything wrong with this post please let me know.
Thanks for taking the time to read this,
James

There is no such thing as a het spider. As far as we know, a spider is a dominant trait as you pointed out. I have heard rumors of a "super spider" and if this is true, the heterozygous animal would look remarkably similiar to the super version. Better put, the spider hets would look similar to the spiders sold here on Kingnsnake for several thousand dollars.

There is no such thing as a normal looking animal that's het for spider.

Did he say anywhere in his post that the het spiders look normal? No he didn't.. As a matter of fact he says in his post "The normal looking animals in the litter are not hets, they are normal".

Here is a cut and paste of his codominant and dominant explanations.. Reread them..

Codominant - Hets are visible morphs but when breed to another het with the same morph they produce a "super form", which is the homozygous. (Hets for codominant - Pastel, Fire, Yellowbelly, etc...) (Super form homozygous - Super Pastel, Ivory, Super Cinnamon Pastel, etc...)
Dominant - Hets for dominant look like the homozygous form. The only way to find a het for dominant traits is to breed the animal back a normal. If you do not get all visible morphs back you have a het. And no the normal looking animals in the cluth are not hets, they are normal. (Spider, Pinstripe, Granite, etc...)
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.
www.aircapitalconstrictors.com

Once again, there are no such things as spider hets, period.
A spider can be het for something such as a spider het for albino but there are NO heterozygous spiders.

Like I said, there are rumors of a "super spider" but I haven't heard anyone with concrete results yet. If this is true, spiders would be co-dominate, not dominate. Dominate implies that a super form does not exists and to date, spiders are still classified as DOMINANT phenotypes.

Hope this helps.

I’m going to break this down for you. There is a difference between a het Spider and a homozygous Spider.
Het x Normal = 2 het Spiders and 2 normals
Het x Het = 2 het Spiders, 1 homozygous Spider, and one normal
Homozygous x Normal = 4 het Spiders
Het x Homozygous = 2 het Spiders and 2 homozygous Spiders
Homozygous x Homozygous = 4 homozygous Spiders
The only differences between a het Spider and a homozygous Spider are stated above. When a het is breed to a normal you get 2 hets and 2 normals. But when a homozygous is breed to a normal you get 4 hets. There are no other differences. They look the same, eat the same, grow the same, etc. This goes for the rest of the dominant traits also. If you don’t believe me visit Markus Jayne’s web site and see for yourself.
James

That is very interesting, because if you are shopping to buy a "Spider", meaning a BP that looks like a Spider, you may want to buy one that is from "Spider" X "Spider" breeding because in that case you won't have any "Normal" looking BP when breeding this "Homo Spider" to a "Normal" (correct me if I'm wrong). Only "Spider" looking babies in a clutch would be nice. Has anyone done this before?

Rob Reiding.

The homozygous Spider is better when breeding Spider x Normal. I'm sure many breeders have done this before. All I'm trying to do is educate people on the real hets so less people get scammed.
James

There is such a thing as a Heterozygous Spider. The terms "heterozygous" and "homozygous" refer to the genotype only...not the phenotype.

Each animal carries two (2) alleles for the corresponding gene (Spider trait). If only one "Spider" allele is present and the other allele is "Wild Type", this is considered a Heterozygous Spider -- two (2) different alleles. If both alleles are "Spider" alleles, this is considered a Homozygous Spider -- two (2) identical alleles. The phenotypes (outward appearances) are the same, while the genotypes (genetic makeup) is different.

Does this help?

Chris
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

I'm not here to debate on this topic any further and with that said, I still do not believe spiders are codominate until proven otherwise. I have yet to hear of a reputable breeder announcing the posession a "super spider" to date.

On that note, this is my final post to this thread.

...only that Heterozygous Spiders exist.

Chris
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

Who said Spiders are co dominant? I think they are dominant. Dominant morphs have hets just like co dominant and simple recessive. I think you’re totally getting the wrong idea here. I’m going to link Markus Jayne’s genetics page for dominant traits and I really want you to take a look. And as far as a “Super” Spider, I think it’s just a new mix. Spiders look great with just about any morph. Please take the time to look at the page.
Thanks,
James

Thanks Markus Jayne!!!

Spiders are Co Dominate....... Period, no question. The homo spider is a "super spider" that is not visualy different from a "het" spider. It is an animal that displays no difference in appearence BUT both allies are of the dominate spider gene.

I have not personally seen proof of a "Super Spider" however I have been told by several breeders that it does in fact exist.

The simplest way to explain this is using pastels as an example.

A pastel is a het super pastel. A super pastel is a visualy Super form of an animal that has both allies of the pastel gene. This animal breed to a normal produces all pastels as each of his offspring will recieve a pastel gene. Those offspring are then visual hets (pastels) of the super pastel.
If infact a homo spider exists it is then a super spider with both allies carring the gene and all spiders, just like pastels are het for the homo animal.

If infact a homo spider does not exist (no super spider that has both allies of the spider gene that when breed to a normal produces all spiders) then there are no het spiders. They are simply a dominate mutation.

I'm still up in the air as to my final conclusion on this, BUT the genetics are simple. No hets if no super, if no super, then is not a codome. IF there is a super then there are visual hets (spiders) with the final homo animal (the super) showing no difference from the het animal.

Calling pastels or spiders hets while being a true statement is more or less assinine as it will confuse people. Calling womas het for pearl while techinically the same thing is not as bad as not as many people are aware of what womas or pearls even are.

Back to orginal point of this topic, ANYONE selling het pastels or spiders is an idiot and probably trying to rip someone off. They are visual morphs and should be called what they are. To quote someone else, Knowledge is power, know what your buying and who your buying it from before the transaction.....

I am pretty certain the Spider will stay as a dominant mutation, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any Spider hets. For example, Pinstripe has hets also. And Pinstripe is a dominant trait. If you breed a dominant het to a normal you get two hets and two normals. If you breed a homozygous dominant to a normal you get four hets. The only way to get a clutch of homozygous dominant traits is by breeding a homozygous to a homozygous. Here is the definition for a dominate het courtesy of Markus Jayne.
Heterozygous - means a pair of non-identical alleles. Alleles are different versions of the same gene. The usual case is a normal allele paired with a changed (mutant) allele. An individual that is heterozygous for a dominant mutant gene look like an individual that is homozygous for the dominant mutant gene.
I hope this helps,
James

How about I break this down in simple terms, and then you can explain to me where my logic fails...okay?

Heterozygous - two (2) different alleles
Homozygous - two (2) identical alleles

Daddy Spider marries Mommy Normal. Along comes Baby Spider. Baby Spider looks just like proud Daddy Spider. Baby Spider received one allele (Spider mutation) from Daddy Spider and one allele (Normal) from Mommy Normal. Different alleles means heterozygous -- Heterozygous Spider.

Baby Spider gets older and starts dating the nextdoor neighbor, Spiderina. They marry and soon arrives Baby Spider Junior. Baby Spider Junior looks just like his father, Baby Spider Senior. Baby Spider Junior received one allele (Spider mutation) from Baby Spider Senior and one allele (Spider mutation) from his mother, Spiderina. Identical alleles means homozygous -- Homozygous Spider.

How come this scenario doesn't make sense? Why can't Spiders be a DOMINANT mutation able to yield BOTH heterozygous and homozygous offspring?

Confused,
Chris
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

I'm with you Chris. I think you and maybe two other people on here agree with me. I'm just glad I'm not alone. Where did these guys get the co dominant thing started anyways. We never said the Spider was co dominant. I believe the Spider is dominant. Any way Baby Spider want to meet my catholic school girl Pastel? I think they'd hit it off.
James

OK - not contesting the theory - in fact I'm starting to grasp the idea - but - where did the original mamas normal gene go? How do you tell if the first generation has two dominant genes or a dominant and recessive gene? And then how do you know when pairing them up what genes get passed where? Wouldn't they technically be possible hets?

SOMEBODY SHOW ME THE DAM DIAGRAM WITH THE SQUARES I'M GETTING CONFUSED!!!!!!!!!!! (lol)
-----
Tosha

8.10.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
7.9.5 Fish (1,2,3,4...)
0.0.1 Frog rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.2 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

Let's have some fun with this. The Spider gene is G, the wild type/normal is g.
So Daddy Spider more than likely is Gg due to all the outcriossing in spiders. Momma Normal is gg. So F1 is Gg x gg, which theoretically would result in 1/2 Gg and 1/2 gg. Baby Spider would then be Gg, and more than likely so would his girlfriend Spiderina. The F2 generation, which Baby Spider Jr would be, is 1/4 GG, 1/2 Gg, and 1/4 gg. Baby Spider Jr has a 1 in 3 chance of being a homogynous spider GG and a 2 in 3 chance of being a heterozygous spider Gg.

Momma Normal's gene doesn't necessarily "go away." She will only give a g in her half of the chromosomes. The next generation, Baby Spider (sr) has a 50/50 chance of passing her g gene on. It's like the X and Y chromosomes (X=girl, Y=boy). Any father has a 50/50 chance of giving one or the other. Say a man has 4 daughters...did his Y chromosome disappear? Nope, just luck of the draw as to which one gets passed along. Each parent only gives one set of chromosomes (or we would all have some really strange number of chromosomes by now!) so which one makes it to the final product (the offspring) is a matter of a coin flip.

Clear as mud yet?

Now I'm the one who brought up this whole het thing. I wanted to show the newbies that there are hets in co dominant and dominant. After reading your post Im starting to doubt myself. Im just kidding!!! The best way to look at it is this.
Daddy Spider (het) x Mommy Normal = 2 baby het Spiders and 2 normals.
Daddy Spider (homozygous) x Mommy Normal = 4 baby het Spiders.
I actually dont like the square. Its a really good way to get people confused. Ive seen plenty of squares that gave me a head ache, like the 1st time I seen a square that had a Snow in it.
I hope this helps,
James

Now this is what I thought. (Yeah! I'm not crazy after all). In the F2 generation you theoretically have a 25% chance at getting a homo spider that looks just like it's het spider sibblings. So whats the big deal? Would I pay more for a 25% possible Het Homo Spider - doubt it, I could get another normal female or seven and end up with just as many spider offspring. Will someone capitalize on this theory - probably.
-----
Tosha

8.10.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
7.9.5 Fish (1,2,3,4...)
0.0.1 Frog rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.2 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

If you have a proven (by breeding) homozygous spider MALE, you will get 100% spiders from breeding him to normal female, and 100% bumblebees from breeding him to a super pastel female...then throw in the recessive crosses like albino or hypo, and you are that much quicker to the recessive designer crosses. One homozygous male spider could really give you a great breeding season. Females would put you up on bumblebees, as I don't know (off the top of my head) who would breed one to anything but a super pastel.

I keep hearing Super Spider. The Super Spider is the homozygous Spider. The best thing I can do for ya'll is send you to this link. It's on Markus Jayne's web site. We're all close to the same page and I'm afriad if I start trying to explain things we're all going to go in different directions. As you can tell, I'm not the best in explaining genetics. I'm even worse at giving directions .
James
Thanks Markus Jayne!!!

I think that we are all just about on the same page however our interpertations vary a bit. A dominate trait can and will have (technically) het and homo animals. The homo would come from two spiders breeding. The square would = XX Xx Xx xx any offspring with an big X would be a spider two little xx's = normal. Where I'm verying from everyone else theory is that if the XX homo animal (even though it looks just like a normal spider) when it breed a normal female if it produces all spiders is it not in theory a codom? You have a non visual super spider that you have to breed out to figure out the homo animal.

Everyone else thought process is that its not codom simply because it does not produce a VISUAL super.

Maybe I'm confused because right know, I'm actually questioning the thought process of all "dominate" traits as they invitably would have non visual homo (super) forms that should produce all offspring matching the parents. This would hold true for spiders, pinstripes and all other traits considered dominate.

Technically, no morphs are CO-dominant. We are in the middle of the genetics section in my bio class, so I will be tested on this in about a week LOL Let's see how good I will do:

Dominant: Simple mendelian means that gene will be expressed over any others, regardless of whether the animal is heterozygous or homozygous. Gg and GG look identical.

Incomplete dominant: A "mixture" of two traits, like pastels, or better yet, when red carnations are crossed with white carnations, and you get solid pink carnations as a result. This is what most people in BP world call "co-dom."

Co-Dominant: Where both traits are fully expressed. Best, really only, example I have seen of it is human blood type. If an A type person mates with a B type person, the resulting child will be AB blood type, which has both blood type characteristics and can receive either blood type in a transfusion without clotting. It isn't a mixture of the two, but the blood cells have both "markers" on them and are recognized by the body as both.

>>Maybe I'm confused because right know, I'm actually questioning the thought process of all "dominate" traits as they invitably would have non visual homo (super) forms that should produce all offspring matching the parents. This would hold true for spiders, pinstripes and all other traits considered dominate.

OK, yeah, the terms that get thrown around can get confusing. Dominant will still be dominant, regardless of if it's a homozygous individual or a heterzygous individual, you will still see the dominant trait in the resulting clutch. The difference between the homo and hets will be the amounts. Let's flip the coin to the other side:
Let's look at mendelian recessives Everyone knows the het will look normal for albino, pied, clown, etc. Everyone knows if you breed two hets together you will get 1/4 homo (visual), 1/2 het, and 1/4 normal, right? Wild type/normal is DOMINANT over albino. In a het x het you know one of those normals is homozygous for normal.

Flip it back, with normal being the Mendelian recessive to the Mendelian dominant spider. If there is no visual difference between a heterozygous and homozygous spider (just like no visual difference between het albino and homozygous normal) then the only way to determine if a spider is a het or homozygous would be to prove it out. So, anyone selling baby homozygous spiders is either extremely confident of their bloodline or blowing smoke up your 4th point of contact. Clear as mud?

Im not going to lie, I suck in genetics. Yes there are co dominants in the sense that when they are bred to each other (ex. Pastel x Pastel) they have a super form (ex. Super Pastel). I dont know anything about blood or flower genetics, and Im not a big fan of the square. Even the big name breeders dont count on the square. It can be wrong just like everything else. I know a little about snake genetics but not enough to teach it to ya'll. Theres tons of people here who know more than me.
Good luck with the class,
James

...only an individual's INTERPRETATION of the square may be wrong.

Chris
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

And I quote... "...I for one have proved the square wrong each and every year I breed...........so lets all have fun with it........and not worry too much about what we should produce because the square tells us so..." There you have it, straight from Ralph Davis himself. If you want to read if for yourself just goto his web site, click Matrix, then click Squares. Sorry, I had to bring that up. The square is useful, but no always right.
James

Not everyone uses the Punnett square for what is is supposed to be. Read NERD's explanantion of genetics...they do a great job of explaining in a wonderful, clear way...oh, yeah they use the square and explain what it is useful for!
NERD's genetics articles

I don't need to read it for myself. Both you and Ralph are wrong in your conclusion. The square does not attempt to dictate your exact clutch ratio. All it does is show mathematical probability. Let me repeat that. All it does is show...mathematical...probability. It is the misguided assumption that these EXACT results are GUARANTEED that leads one to believe the square is wrong. When in fact, it is only the individual who is wrong for not realizing that the square results are only...mathematical...probabilities.

Chris
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

Not just mathematical probability, but the probability for EACH INDIVIDUAL OFFSPRING. It is a visual representation of the genetic "coin flip."

Flip a quarter and a nickel. How many times will you get two heads? Two tails? One head and one tail? Mathematically, it is 1/4 both heads, 1/2 head/tails, and 1/4 both tails. Look familiar? But if you only do the coin flips 5 times, what are your results going to be? How about 50 times? Or 500 times? After 5,000 flips, you will be extremely close to that ratio, even if the first 10 times were all heads or all tails. Same with the Punnett square, predicted ratios, and all that.

.
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

>>
-----
Tosha

8.10.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
7.9.5 Fish (1,2,3,4...)
0.0.1 Frog rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.2 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

I knew you'd like that. Surely Ralph Davis can read a square.
James

just kidding!

-----
Tosha

8.10.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
7.9.5 Fish (1,2,3,4...)
0.0.1 Frog rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.2 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

.
-----
"Wild balls suck...period...buy American." --jyohe

>>Yes there are co dominants in the sense that when they are bred to each other (ex. Pastel x Pastel) they have a super form (ex. Super Pastel). I dont know anything about blood or flower genetics, and Im not a big fan of the square.

No, they actually aren't CO-dominant, because both traits are not fully expressed. They are INCOMPLETE dominance. The flowers are the best example because everyone knows if you mix red paint and white paint you get pink paint. Same with the flowers...if you mix red carnations (or snapdragons, or...) with white carnations, you get pink carnations, just like mixing paint. Oh, when you mix two pink carnations, guess what you get? Statistically it will be 1/4 red, 1/4 white, and 1.2 pink. Does that look familiar? Substitute the red, white, and pink for super pastel, normal, and pastel.

As for the square, it is a visual representation of flipping two coins. Over a large sample, the ratios/fractions do hold up, they just don't in small numbers like BP clutches. Just like the male/female ratio won't hold in small number (my example of the man with 4 daughters and no sons) over a large population it does (total US births do run about 50/50). It is just a way for people to see the PROBABLITY for each offspring, like flipping a quarter and a nickel and charting the possibilities of combinations.

I could explain this so much easier over a cup of coffee or a beer LOL with my biology book, some scrap paper, and a pencil.

Either the whole breeding community is wrong about co dominate traits, or you’ve been drinking too much beer already. I’m just kidding!!! I’ll make you a deal. You get the case of beer and we’ll talk about this subject until we both understand each other, or until the beer is all gone or we’re both too drunk to care.
There’s my plan,
James

In Mendelian genetic different genotypes can have same phenotype. A heterozygous dominant can have the same appearance(phenotype)as a homozygous dominant. The only way you could tell the difference is by breeding. A homozygous dominant(homozygous spider) bred to a wild phenotype(normal)will yield 100% heterozygous dominant(heterozygous spider)which has same phenotype(appearance) as the homozygous dominant. A heterozygous dominant spider bred to a normal will produce roughly 50% normal and 50% heterozygous dominant.

Dr. Peter Kim

That's the way it is. I've been saying that since last night. The fact is there are Pinstripe hets, Spider hets, and hets for everyother dominate trait. Thanks for the back up.
James

Not debating whether or not there are het spiders, it sounds fair that their would be at least genotype wise. If there is a "Super Spider" I'd have to see it to judge whether or not it's worth crossing two spider. If you have a male and female spider I would think it'd be financially more sound to breed them to normals to get more spiders then to breed them to each other, unless those "Super Spiders" are really (phenotype wise) worth it. Of course this also means that there are going to be fake "homo" super spiders out there selling for twice the "het" spider price.

Anyway, my question tho is if it's a good idea to be doing so much spider to spider breeding (due to the spinning issue?). Wouldn't it be more responsible to produce a more genetically diverse spider population?

Just a thought that crossed my mind while I was smashing a spider crawling on the side of my snake rack earlier.
-----
Tosha

8.10.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
7.9.5 Fish (1,2,3,4...)
0.0.1 Frog rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.2 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

When you breed a homozygous Spider to a homozygous Spider you get all homozygous Spiders, as far as I know. I don’t believe there is a “Super” Spider. I could be wrong, trust me it wouldn’t be the first time. But I just can’t see it. Look at it this way: Breed a Spider to a normal. Take all the Spiders from the clutch and breed them to normals. Trust me on this; you will not get all Spiders back. The reason being, you will have produced hets either with the first clutch for the second clutch. As far as your spinning question, I’m not going to answer that. I have my hands full with all the het arguments. It is a good question though.
James

“I hope I helped at least one person. If anyone sees anything wrong with this post please let me know.”

Technically speaking, your correct referring to spiders as heterozygous and super spiders as homozygous. However, I think the problem is in your verbiage. Most people, trying to keep it simple and less confusing, apply the terms heterozygous and homozygous to recessive genes only. While these terms also apply to incomplete and complete dominant genes, it tends to confuse people. So, they use the terms dominant and co-dominant. In these terms people are not confused that there might be a normal looking snake that is heterozygous for spider. So the real question here is… have you helped people understand or simple confused them? One thing I do know... you got a lot of action out this post Kinda like kicking over a hornets nest!
-----
Larry Walker

co dominant and dominant hets are "the basics". If you don’t know the “basics” you should not be breeding. When I started this post all I wanted to do was inform some of these people so they don’t buy a normal snake for way too much money and think they have something special. By using the term het only for simple recessive traits we are giving low lives a scam to use. People are going to get screwed. There are a lot of people willing to take advantage of uninformed people. And if people don't know about co dominant hets and dominant hets they will buy a snake that's nothing more than normal, with the false hopes and thinner wallet. Truthfully, I’m regretting starting this post. I don’t see how this subject is so confusing. I explained it so it is as simple to understand as boiling water. I also gave Markus Jayne’s web site address several times because he breaks it down so it’s even simpler. All I’ve done since late Sunday night was explain myself over and over again. Now I think this subject has been beaten to death, so let’s move on. I’m not trying to be rude, there’s just nothing else to discuss.
James

I would argue that clearing up the real meaning of "heterozygous" will eventually lead to less confusion. People are confused now because they have been allowed to think it only applies to recessive morphs for too long. As more combinations are made that include dominant type morphs a good understanding of genotypes will help, not hurt, IMHO.

Heterozygous JUST means having an unmatched pair of genes. It does NOT always mean a normal looking animal - it just works out that way with the recessive morph type subset. Heterozygous also doesn't mean half way to a visibly different “super” - it just works out that way with the co-dominant morph type subset.

By remembering that het means an unmatched pair of genes you can apply the same genotype inheritance rules to all breedings involving all morphs that we understand so far (some day we might find a sex linked morph in snakes to complicate this). Spider (het) X Pastel gives the same ratios as het albino X het axanthic except that you can see which hatchlings are het spiders and pastels.

Also, "super" isn't really a genetic term. To me it implies a different looking homozygous animal (such as a super tiger retic or a super pastel) so if a homozygous spider is ever proven and looks just like the het spiders we have seen so far I would think it should be called "homozygous spider" and not super spider since it isn't a "super" phenotype.

n/p

Seeing how there are many pigheaded individuals who refuse to listen to the truth a term such as visible hets would be better suited then simply using heterozygous.
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.
www.aircapitalconstrictors.com

Why did you not post that message yesterday?? I just forced myself to read through that bickering..lol

Perfectly said...

Rob Dempsey

Randy,
I'm glad you piped in... your a natural at teaching and I do believe your 100% correct. It's only through knowledge that we are empowered. It is the best explanation I've heard in a long time. However, even though snake genetics are simpler than say mammal genetics, some people find even the simplest explanations difficult to understand. As an educator, I believe in educating. But, I don’t explain a topic to my high school students in the same way as I do to my college students. You take what they know and (try) relate it to what they don’t know about a subject. Which is what you did in your post. Nicely done.
-----
Larry Walker

It's funny you should post this now. I'm considering taking either two math classes or three science classes online this summer to get an alternate certification to teach either high school math or science (pending a certification test). The thing is no better than I'm doing on my current salary I'd have to finally start actually producing ball python morphs to afford to teach. Kind of sad how that works out but if this is finally my morph year then maybe it's fate.