Reptile & Amphibian Forums

For instance, if we started calling super pastels, pastels

Then what we now call pastels, we could call hets., or markers for pastel.

Then we could look at everything as normal simple recessive genetics that everyone is more familiar with.

Right?

No, I guess that wouldn't work. Then we would have to change the definitions of genotype and phenotype, because what we now call pastels are clearly a phenotype.

OH well, it was worth a try.

Rodney

With the Pastel this seems easy -- Lesser Pastel.

But what about the Mojave? Do we call this a Lesser Leucistic? Maybe a Lesser Luecistic Type 3? Gets complicated, huh?

I like the idea, though.

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

You posted while I was typing.

Because "lesser" and "mojave" where named before we knew their relation to each other and to the homozygous versions of each it does get messy. No fault, we had to call them something, it's just that at this point phenotype names like "super" and "lesser" and even morph type category's like co dominant and dominant are getting confused with the genotype terms heterozygous and homozygous which I think could be less confusing if people can get past their recessive application.

Maybe, "heterozygous for leucistic, SK line" and "heterozygous for leucistic, RDR line" for Mojave and Lesser Platinum’s respectively? Of course we still aren't completely squared away on the relationship of those two and what I think is a separate dilute gene that makes a Platinum.

It wouldn't be that big of a change to start using the genotype terms like heterozygous for the pastel gene and homozygous for the pastel gene rather than the respective phenotype terms - pastel and super pastel. Then people would see the common genotype inheritance rules regardless of mutation type - recessive, co-dominant, and dominant.