Reptile & Amphibian Forums

i was wondering if someone could tell me all the co-dom morphs that ball pythons come in. thank in advance.

~JQ
-----
1.1 normal KSB
0.1 flame KSB
0.1 anery 2/3 het albino KSB
1.0 cal kingsnake
1.1 betta
0.1 ferret
1.1 hypo and albino cornsnake

co-dom:
Lemon Pastel
Cinny Pastel
dom:
mojave
pinstripe
spider
lesser platty
help me out I am drawing a blank from here guys.

Paul and Jason
HTDesigns

Mojave and lessers are co dom....Luecy
Kevin

http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics.html

this web site will help.

Paul
HTDesigns

Whats the difference between co dominate and dominate. Excuse my ignorance but I'm to ball pythons and am only fimiliar with recessive genes.

thanks,
Louie

It ‘s a confusing area.

Some times you see "Dominant" used as a catch all for any non-recesive type until we figure it out. For example, we know that spider, pinstripe, and spot nose aren't recessive but I don't think a homozygous version of any of those three has been proven out yet so we don't know which type of dominant they are.

You also sometimes see "Dominant" used for what I like to call "completely dominant" to avoid confusion. This is a version of a gene that completely dominates another version of the same gene. Even one copy of the dominant gene overpowers the gene it's being compared to. For example, if the spider gene turns out to be completely dominant over the normal version of the same gene then the homozygous spiders (with two copies of the spider gene) will look the same as the heterozygous spiders (with only one copy of the spider gene). If the current heterozygous spiders are as “spider” as they get (i.e. the homozygous exists and there is no visibly different “super spider”) then even one mutant spider gene is enough to completely cover the remaining normal version of the spider gene.

Then you get into the co-dominant (which some argue should technically be called "incomplete dominant" type. In this type of gene having only one copy of the mutant gene has an effect but apparently having one copy of the gene you are comparing it to (usually the normal version) also has an effect because the homozygous mutant version looks different (and usually more extreme) than the heterozygous version. An example of this is pastel. The heterozygous for the pastel mutant gene animals are visible mutants so even one copy of the gene is enough to show. However, two copies of the pastel gene (homozygous pastel) make the super pastel phenotype so apparently the one normal copy of the pastel gene in the het pastel had some effect to prevent it from being the super pastel phenotype.

If you read the Mendel theory, you will see that all of these morphs are infact incomplete dominant. It seems that after years of use, the dom/co-dom tag just stuck.

Thanks for posting that Randy.
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

Pastel is co-dominant witch means when a pastel is bred to a pastel it can produce super pastels, pastels and normals, And here is another way a pastel is het. for super pastel. And when a pastel is bred to a normal it will produce pastels and normals

Spider is dominant because there have been no super spiders produced. So when a spider is bred to a normal it will produce spiders and normals And when spider is bred to a spider it will produce spiders and normals. Hope This Helps Scott Glover

Here are a couple more

Black backs

Granites

Butters

Phantoms

Yellow Bellys (Het. Ivory)

Calicos

Black Heads

Fire Balls (Het. Leucistic)

Womas (Het. Pearl)

Red Axanthics

Spot Nose

Thanks Scott Glover

I am not aware of any super forms of the Black backs,Granites, Butters, Calicos, Black Heads or spot nosed balls.
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

Sorry I meant dominant morphs for those morphs I posted. I do not know if I put this in my last post but the black head ball python was proven co-dominant by RDR in 2004, And VPI is breeding a spot nose to spot nose this season. Thanks Again Scott Glover

Sooo a spider bred to a spider is just a homo spider...

Spider bred to normals = normals/spiders...

How come when you breed a homo spider to a normal, you don't get all spiders?

Maybe I'm REALLY confused...let me re-read Randy's post one more time...

Ryan

"How come when you breed a homo spider to a normal, you don't get all spiders?"

Because a spider has 2 alleles, 1 spider gene and 1 normal gene. Therefor half normal and half spider.
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

A "regular" spider is the same as a "homo" spider?

Ryan

There is only 1 spider, what are you talking about a homo spider and a regular spider? There are 1 and the same...........
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

>>There is only 1 spider, what are you talking about a homo spider and a regular spider? There are 1 and the same...........

While there is only one spider pheotype there are two spider genotypes. One WT allele and one spider gene and one that has two spider alleles. Theoretically yes a homo spider would produce all spiders if bred to a normal.
-----
Tosha

8.13.0 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

Sorry after I posted I realized it was a kinda giberishy so here it is again:

There is one spider phenotype and two spider genotypes. One genotype has 1 wild type allele and one spider allele. The other genotype has a matching set of spider alleles - this is the Homo Spider. When bred to a normal a Homo spider will pass on the spider allele to each offspring so they would all be spiders.
-----
Tosha

8.13.0 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

So then whats up with "There is only 1 spider"... When you breed a spider to a spider you don't get the same thing, do you?

>>So then whats up with "There is only 1 spider"... When you breed a spider to a spider you don't get the same thing, do you?

So far all indications have pointed to the fact that there is no "Super Spider" there was a big discussion about it last week. I don't think there have been many spider to spider breedings yet, I think in the next couple of months we'll start seeing some Homo Spiders popping out of eggs, then we'll know for sure. But from what I gathered from the previous discussion the Homo Spider looks the same as a "het" spider. Hope this helps.
-----
Tosha

8.13.0 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've heard many people debate that the homozygous form of spider is leathal. Think about how many super pastels have been proven out...yet no homozygous spiders have ever even been claimed.

I'm guessing it is leathal.

>>I've heard many people debate that the homozygous form of spider is leathal. Think about how many super pastels have been proven out...yet no homozygous spiders have ever even been claimed.
>>
>>I'm guessing it is leathal.

That's always a possiblity, spiders have been around for what, about 5 years? You'd think by now we would have seen something. But maybe it was a just matter of adding in some new blood before crossing, we'll have to see.
-----
Tosha

8.13.0 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

There really just isn't much public information available on what is going on with spider but hopefully enough breedings will be done this year by breeders who tend to post results that we can start to sort the possibilities out.

It seems to me that it might have been as long as two hatching seasons ago that NERD posted that they had done "enough" spider X spider breedings to be confident that there wasn't a visibly different homozygous spider. Just by odds, about 1/4 of the clutch from breeding a pair of the heterozygous spiders we are used to seeing together should be homozygous spider. If the spider mutation is completely dominant then these homozygous spiders would have the same spider phenotype (appearance) as the heterozygous spiders but when you bred homozygous spider X normal you would get 100% heterozygous spiders.

The assumption seems to be that if a visibly different looking homozygous spider hasn't been seen in all the spider X spider breedings so far then it must be because they look just like the regular heterozygous spiders (i.e. spider is completely dominant). However, until a homozygous spider is confirmed by producing only spiders in a lot of breedings (preferably to normals for spider) then we really don't know for sure.

Last summer there where two public (i.e. posted) cases of relatively small breeders who had potential homozygous spiders that produced initial clutches of all spiders but then produced some normals in later clutches showing that they weren’t homozygous spiders after all (assuming pathogenesis and sperm storage aren't a much bigger problem than we expect). Public information on how many potential homozygous spiders have been bred is hard to come by. There are even rumors that someone has a proven homozygous spider but for some reason doesn't want to come public with it.

Without solid information on the breeding results of potential homozygous spiders I can't really weigh which theory is more likely - that spider is completely dominant or that it's a homozygous lethal gene and no homozygous spiders will ever be produced. If it is homozygous lethal, it doesn't necessarily mean anything bad about the heterozygous spiders we have seen so far which by all accounts tend to grow quickly and breed early. It only means that if a homozygous spider isn't possible we will eventually give up trying to produce one and not bother breeding spider X spider, only spider X other morphs/normals.

YES, you get the same thing, spiders.............
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

Pheontype wise yes there is one spider - genotype wise there are two. Which would you rather have a spider that throws all spiders or one that throws 50%? When thinking of all the combos you might make with a spider, which would you rather work with? Yes, if the Homo Spider does work out, there will be a big difference between one allele and two.
-----
Tosha

8.13.0 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

It's nice to see that someone understands genetics. =)

Chris =)
-----
“Next time don't buy $10K worth of snakes out of the back of a van!” -- Toshamc

-----
Tosha

8.13.0 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've heard about those...kinda weird, huh?

I guess if we just give it a couple of years things will be clarified!

Ryan

No, Spinners are from a pinstripe bred to a spider. Thanks Scott Glover

Thanks Scott!

Ryan

I can't believe that Nerd hasn't tried...they have so many other Spider morphs. Markus Jane's website seems to imply that it has been done, but I have not heard of it yet.

Thanks.

Matt

...........n/p
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

n/p
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

Nobody has a proven homo spider as far as I know. At least noone is claiming to have one. They would demand a lot higher price than a typical spider, since they would make crosses a lot easier with other genetic traits. Some people think it is leathal in the homozygous form and others think there is a conspiracy to keep homo spiders off the market. I think the first, but who knows.

I was saying that there have been several spider x spider breedings.............
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

And you didn't answer that question. Of course people have tried spiderxspider before...it's tough to imagine that Nerd has made all these Spider crosses but hasn't tried spiderXspider. It's unheard of. It's silly.

As far as I know, NERD and others have mated spider x spider in an attempt to get homozygous spiders. None of the baby spiders that they got were visibly different from heterozygous spiders. The most likely explanation (IMHO) is that the homozygous and heterozygous spiders look alike. If so, then spider would be a dominant mutant gene.

Those babies must be raised up and mated to heterozygous spiders and normals. A spider that produces a normal from such a mating must be heterozygous. A spider that produces 25 spiders and no normals from matings with normals has a better than 99% chance of being a homozygous spider.

My impression is that the first possibly homozygous spiders have matured within the last year or two, and some have not matured yet. Some of the possibly homozygous spiders have been proven heterozygous, some of the possibly homozygous spiders haven't produced enough babies yet, and some people have not reported the results from their possibly homozygous spiders' breedings. So somebody may have produced a homozygous spider, but we don't know it yet.

Paul Hollander

Although that is a possible scenario, spiders from spider x spider breeding have been around for maybe three years? At least two breeding seasons if not more. Considering male spiders often breed by the time they are six months if there were homozygous spiders, we would have heard about them by now...either that or everyone suddenly got really good at keeping secrets...

The few that were claimed, produced clutches with normals the following year. Considering you can breed one male with up to ten females, it should be simple enough to prove out a homozygous spider in one year...where are they?? (ans: homozygous lethal)

Another thing to take into consideration is that a number of people will use multiple males to 'back up' their female breeders just to make sure she gets gravid. I know of one instance last year where a breeder got a clutch of all spiders in one clutch, but a later clutch had mixed spiders and normals. HOWEVER, when I asked him about it later he mentioned that he had originally had the female in with another male but hadn't witnessed any breeding, when he noticed that his spider male was breeding so strongly he switched the female over to the spider. I think it's possible that she may have bred the other male before being switched over to the the spider thereby producing a clutch of mixed paternity. The spider he was using was also a potential homozygous spider. (it's parents were both spiders) so I think its possible that a homozygous spider could have been proven already if it weren't for the practice of using multiple males.

Mark

>>Although that is a possible scenario, spiders from spider x spider breeding have been around for maybe three years? At least two breeding seasons if not more. Considering male spiders often breed by the time they are six months if there were homozygous spiders, we would have heard about them by now...either that or everyone suddenly got really good at keeping secrets...
>>
>>The few that were claimed, produced clutches with normals the following year. Considering you can breed one male with up to ten females, it should be simple enough to prove out a homozygous spider in one year...where are they?? (ans: homozygous lethal)

I've also been leaning more to the homozygous lethal theory every year we go without a public proven homozygous spider. The problem is that it's really hard to prove something by its absence, especially when you throw in spotty reporting of breeding results, rumors of a proven homozygous, and now multiple paternity clutches.

I've also been told that a lot of people don't understand the homozygous lethal concept and that it's irresponsible even to mention the possibility publicly. However, if it is homozygous lethal I figure it would take at least several extra years for the big spider breeders to accept the data and let the buying public know. There seems to be a mass hysteria that being homozygous lethal is a very negative thing for a morph. All it really means is that you can't produce a viable breeding homozygous animal. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be anything wrong with the heterozygous ones and to the contrary evidence is that heterozygous spiders tend to grow fast and breed young (and as far as I know woma balls and jaguar carpet pythons are also healthy). Stunning heterozygous examples of a homozygous lethal morph would still be very popular for breeding to normals and combining with other morphs, you just wouldn’t bother to breed them to each other once you know that the homozygous isn’t possible.

who knows everything, so why dont you tell us smart guy?????....LOL.
-----
Chad Bachman

n/p
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com