Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Because is is not. It is by definition a dominant trait.

I write this because my post in the Mohawk thread was evidently deleted, and I believe this is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

A co-dominant trait, in it's homozygous(super) form, should be obviously visually different from the heterozygous form, which is also visually different from a non-gene carrying wild type.

The CA Motley is the only current morph that has proven itself to be a co-dominant trait. The Purplr Patternless may be the Colombian version of this, but it has yet to be officially proven.

A dominant trait is one that looks visually different from the wild type in its het form, but appears generally the same as the het in its homozygous form.

1.How can this be changed?

2.Is it reasonable to just let it ride?

I mean no disrespect to anyone by bringing this issue up. But, it bothers me that a group, that I feel I am a part of misrepresents something, strictly based on ignorance, or the want to just be a part of the majority.

I do not want this to be an argument. But I genuinely implore some civilized discussion about this topic. Thanks all....

Jesse Van Atta

It is due to an early on mislabeling that this has become the "correct" term when describing the genetic trait.
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.
www.aircapitalconstrictors.com

I always appreciate your opinion. Do you think that since we have reached the point that it is a blanket mislabeling by all(including myself), we should should continue to use the terms incorrectly?

Jesse

Other then the wide misuse in boids the proper terminology is used among corns, geckos etc. I personally think it would be better to start using the proper terms as it gives an impression of ignorance to those who are familiar with other animals or genetics and then who come into the boid hobby. Of course there will be a high number of people who disagree, and even more who will refuse to use proper terms so even if a small group of individuals begin to use the proper terminology a complete removal of misused terms will be nearly impossible to attain.
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.
www.aircapitalconstrictors.com

I agree with you, but am at a loss for what to call a homozygous hypo other than super..... Rather I do not feel it is my place to decide what it should be called.

I mean calling them all homos couldn't be good for business, though.... =)~

Yes you are right. I am working on a descriptor for genetic modes of inheritance that will be posted when finished. Co-dominance is improperly used, the phenotype is identical in the heterozygous and homozygous salmons (non super and super respectively). This makes the trait dominant, the animal only need one allele in its genotype to be represented.

I had always wondered why breeding was necessary to "prove out" a super salmon or a dominant hypo, and why the appearance didn't reflect the "super" trait. But I was just accepting that it was codominant, as with pastel jungle ball pythons or tiger reticulateds. As a friend says, "the obvious has now become apparent". Thanks!

Essentially the transfer of genes is the same in hypos as in Tiger retics. Simply put, the homozygous is just not visually different. Think of co-doms and in this case non homozygous hypos to be the heterozygous, the supers are the homozygous. It is analogous to recessive traits, except that in this instance you know which are at least hets and which are normal.

.....in the full article he wrote on Salmons for Reptiles Magazine.

Rich states....

"Thus, this cross and the others described previously provided t;he first evidence that the salmon trait in boas was a dominant trait to the normal condition (equal to the wild type)."

Sounds correct to me. I believe it was the choice to call the homozygous form a "super" that began the snowball that is now a boa industry standard, and widespread misnomer. Those who were familiar with the term super, in its co-dominant fasion regarding other species, maybe just assumed it was so, and therefore it was.

Somehow, I feel this needs to change. The first step is talking about it. This seems like the best venue for discussion I know.

Jesse Van Atta

I've been trying to get this point across for a couple of years now...I believe the trait was misunderstood,because most genetic mutations acknowledged in reptile species,at that time,(back in the late 80's/ early 90's)were simple recessive in transmissive nature...the erroneous thought process at work at the time the salmon/hypo thing came to light,was, that: If the trait were simple dominant,ALL the resulting offspring should express the trait!...this is,of course correct from homozygous forms,however the initial breeding trials were conducted using HETEROZYGOUS representatives,and,it took several years to raise/breed/prove the "supers"...in the rush to describe it,both for science & the reptile community,it was erroneously thought that the explaination for the 50/50 transmissive split,seen from the first several breedings was an example of "co-dominance".(there is a sometimes dramatic visual difference in the homozygous examples,however,as we all now know,it is not consistant in its expression.)and,the moderators of this forum have deleted many of my posts as well,(hey at least I know someone's reading them! ) I'm not trying to step on toes by bringing this up,it's just high time we put the "co-dominant hypo myth" to sleep,and,sometimes you just have to keep ringing that bell to get through...glad to see the light coming on for some other enthusiasts as well....have a great weekend,I'm outta here...

Great info. Thanks for the post and clarification. I never understood the conflicting use of these terms.

Thanks again,
Scott

the codominant mode of inheritance has been used for so long it is now part of our everyday "boa morph language."

The problem lays in the fact in a litter of potentially homozygous dominant and heterozygous hypos, there is phenotypic cline from "barely a hypo" to nearly blackless, fleckless animals (which many times prove out to be supers, or homozygous dominant hypos). There is such a degree in variation we want the mode of inheritance to be more than complete dominance. Even within known heterozygous hypos there is a high degree of variation.

In classical codominance, both alleles are generally expressed equally to yield a phenotype indicative of both allles. At the organismal level, this may result in heterozygotes having an intermediate phenotype (i.e. somewhere between a homozygote dominant and a normal).

In Rich's (and others) article on the Salmon hypo in the Journal of Heredity states the mode of inheritance of this character as being incomplete dominance, as the hypo mutation (or allele) incompletely dominates the normaly functioning allele yielding intermediate phenotypes.

If we were able to definitively decifer between a homo and hetero hypo from a litter, we would not be having this discussion. We would just say it is either codiminant or incomplete.

The whole thing is convoluted, but I agree, the safest thing we can say is this particular trait results from complete dominance.
-----
Ron Michelotti

Class Reptilia
www.classreptilia.com

I don't understand all the big word's. could somebody dumb it down for me? I though there was no such thing as a het. for hypo and whats this about a wild type?

Wild type is a normal animal, a heterozygous hypo is what the boa community refers to as a codom hypo and a homozygous hypo is what is refered to as a Super hypo or Super Salmon.
-----
Randall L Turner Jr.
www.aircapitalconstrictors.com