Reptile & Amphibian Forums

if they are both co-dom then why not? thanks.

JIM

Without gettin' technical about it, there has to be a pastel gene in there somewhere. In normal x normal there isn't. Normal have ' normal' genes.

Quig

but if you breed a pastel to a normal you still get some pastels right? but if you breed a albino to a normal you dont get any albinos! so what am I missing here? thanks.

JIM

yes when you breed a pastel to a normal it can produce pastels and normals

and yes if you breed a albino to a normal it will produce all 100% Het. Albinos

Pastel is co-dominant witch means when pastel is bred to a pastel it can produce super pastels, pastels, and normals
and when pastel is bred to a normal it can produce pastels and normals.

And Albino is simple recessive witch means when a albino is bred to albino it will produce all albinos. And albino bred to a normal will produce all 100% Het. Albinos and when a 100% het. albino is bred to a 100% het. albino it can produce albinos, 100% het. albinos and normals, you can not tell if a 100% het. albino is 100% het. albino because normals and 100%. het albinos look the same. So when breeders sell 50% het. albinos means that there is a 50/50 chance it will be a 100% het. albino or just a normal. Hope This Helps Scott Glover

when a 100% het. albino is bred to a 100% het. albino it can produce albinos, 100% het. albinos and normals,

Scott,
The above staement is incorrect. When a 100% het is bred to another 100% you should get albinos, 66% hets, & normals. Ron
-----
The Crawl Space

no he was actually right ........the 66% is the chance of it being a 100% het.......there are no 50% hets or any other fraction other then 100%......a het is a het is a het.......the numbers and the %'s are the chance in 100 that it will be a "100%" het

I understand what he meant. However since you can not tell the 100%ers they are called 66%ers. It seems this forum gets to technical at times. If I were a newbie I be totally confused. But thanks for the clarification. Ron
-----
The Crawl Space

>>I understand what he meant. However since you can not tell the 100%ers they are called 66%ers. It seems this forum gets to technical at times. If I were a newbie I be totally confused. But thanks for the clarification. Ron
>>-----
>>The Crawl Space

Right, but do you understand? The combination of 2/3rds 100% het and 1/3rd normal is what gives the 66% het number. So you do not get 66% het and normals.

I learned math a long time ago. Lets do this the simple way. From a 4 egg clutch you'd (theoretically) get 1 albino 2 100% hets and a normal. I'm sure we can all agree on that? Unless you have a crystal ball you HAVE to call them 66% possible hets. From some of the newbie questions I seen the way it was explained in correct but confusing since thats not what they will be sold as. So to represent the hatchlings correctly you would call them 66% possible het. That is the point I was making. Ron
-----
The Crawl Space

I think the confusion centered around you stating that you would get "66% hets and normals". It is perhaps better to state either "66% hets" (not mentioning normals at all) or "100% hets and normals". See the confusion?

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

Albino is recessive. It takes the albino gene in both parents to make an albino. A normal looking to normal looking breeding that produces an albino means that both normal looking parents carried the recessive albino gene.

Pastel doesn't work that way. One or both parents has to show the visual gene to produce a pastel.

Jason

ok so it was thw recessive and co-dom part that I was not sure about . thanks.

JIM

Yep!!. Thanks Scott Glover

that genes work in pairs, and co-dominant genes and simple-recessive genes don't work the same way. The albino gene is a simple recessive gene, meaning that the "normal" gene will be dominant over the recessive "albino" gene.--so all babies end up hets. in your albino crossed to normal example.

This doesn't apply to the co-dominant genes because the "pastel" gene is just as likely to be dominant over the "normal" gene, as the "normal" is to be dominant over the "pastel" gene.--thus you have a 50% chance of each baby being a pastel.

Rodney

Actually the pastel gene is totally missing in the normal animals. The normal gene isn't dominant over the pastel gene, The babies that have one normal and one pastel gene are pastels and the ones that have two pastel genes are super pastel. The 50% is just the odds of the offspring getting a pastel gene from one of the parents, that is why with a super pastel it is impossible for the offsprong to obtain normal genes from both parents. And if you have two normal pastels breeding you actually have a 75% chance of getting pastels, 25% chance for normal, and 25% chance for super pastels, and each individual snake has its own odds that is why you can get all pastel or all normal. The super pastel form would be a pastel with an additional pastel gene. Recessive genes is another story. And random mutations are not likely to happen but it is how all the morphs got here in the first place so I guess two normals could produce a pastel in theory, but not likely.

>> "And if you have two normal pastels breeding you actually have a 75% chance of getting pastels, 25% chance for normal, and 25% chance for super pastels, and each individual snake has its own odds that is why you can get all pastel or all normal."

That should be 50% pastel, 25% super, 25% normal. And the normal gene is co-dominant with the pastel gene, which means they share dominance.

What I am talking about is actual chances, not mathmatical probability which is different. An example is if there was no super pastel 75% of the babies would be pastel. So you have a 75% chance of getting a pastel and a 25% chance that one of those babies will have the additional pastel gene making it a super. It is still a pastel it just has both pastel genes. I am just showing that if you had four babies the ideal would be 1 super, 2 pastels, and 1 normal. But if none of the snakes get both of the pastel genes you will have 3 pastels and 1 normal, not 2 pastels and 2 normals, of course that is just the average odds not what will actually happen. You could get ten eggs and them all be supers or all be normal, being that is is totally random how it happens.

>>What I am talking about is actual chances, not mathmatical probability which is different."

There is no difference between probability and actual chances. If you had 100 babies from this cross, about 25 would be supers, about 50 would be pastels, and about 25 would be normal.

>> "An example is if there was no super pastel 75% of the babies would be pastel. So you have a 75% chance of getting a pastel and a 25% chance that one of those babies will have the additional pastel gene making it a super."

This is also incorrect, you have a 33% chance that those with one pastel gene with also have the other pastel gene. (1/3 of pastels are supers). It is not necessarily true that you would get 1:2:1 anymore than 0:3:1 or 0:2:2. With only 4 eggs you could get any combination including 4 supers. These are all possibilities.
So to make things clear without any confusion, it is much easier to say 25% super, 25% pastel, and 25% normal, these are your actual chances (whether or not you hit them is a different story).

There is a huge difference between probability and actual chances. That is why we use averages. If you flip a coin 50% of the time it will be heads and 50% tails, but the odds of you flipping it ten times and getting five heads in a row then five tails in a row is very small, even though the odds are 50/50. And you have a 75% chance of making pastels and a 25% chance of making super pastels, yes if they are combined that makes a 33% chance that one of the pastels will be a super, but I included the normal snakes into the scenario. My point is also that if you have a pastel and breed it to normal you should get 1.1 pastel and 1.1 normals with four eggs. How often does that happen? Almost never. Because the odds of all four snakes meeting the 25% probabilty is VERY small. THIS IS WHY WE USE AVERAGES. So we can have an idea of what should happen. Ask every breeder how many times they have had a perfect ratio of even sex and morph. I am willing to bet it is less than 5% of breedings have a perfect ratio. And the more eggs that there are the lower the probability. The more breedings that there are, the closer that the actual numbers will match to the mathmatical numbers. How many people have bred two pastels and out of eight eggs got 1.1 supers, 2.2 pastels, and 1.1 normals? Or even 2 supers, 4 pastels, and 2 normals. The odds of a perfect clutch are rare. But it averages out. If you breed a pastel and a normal and it lays ten eggs there is a 1 in 11 chance you will have 5 pastels and 5 normals, even though the averages say your clutch should be 50/50.

Not sure what you are rambling about, but probability has only ever applied to situations where the sample size is infinitely large. So of course, if you only consider a few data points, your results are irrelevant. I would love to argue with you more on this point, but you haven't really made any sense so far, so I don't really now what to say.

But neither are "co-dom"......
-----
www.NEWReptiles.com

Sorry about posting this here, but I keep reading statements like "this is how co-doms work...simple recessive is a different story." (Or similar statements.)

Actually, it is probably much easier to figure out genetics if you understand that co-doms, dominants, and simple recessives all work the same way. They all produce hets and homozygous offspring. The genetic rules (percentages) are exactly the same.

The only difference is that with co-doms and dominants you can easily spot the heterozygous offspring, because they look different than the normal offspring. And with co-doms you can easily spot the homozygous offspring, because they look different than both the heterozygous and normal offspring.

But the genetics (percentages) are all the same, regardless of co-dom, dominant, or simple recessive.

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

Nicely Put!!!. Thanks Scott Glover

Because the rules are the same when you talk about genotypes I think it would be less confusing if we started talking about heterozygous for the spider and pastel genes (regular spider and pastel phenotypes) and homozygous for the pastel gene (super pastel). A het for the spider gene X normal has the same percentages as a het for albino gene X normal. The only difference is that with the spider gene the hets are visible!

The reptile community (among others) is learning genetics the hard way...and in an almost incomprehenible way. Instead of trying to grasp three separate genetic concepts from three different genetic traits (co-dom, dominant, and simple recessive), it is much easier to learn a single concept that applies to all genetic traits.

Maybe someone should build a website...

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

without reading all the rest..........

.yes......it is possible..........somewhere in the past it has happened...........

it has happened that 2 normals bred and out popped all the morphs....................

...........odds are great...........

the only odds I remember is that a 1 in 300,000 chance of a robin being an an albino..........(and I think the pic listed was actually a hypo robin).........maybe it was 30,000
-----
.................