Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What would the offspring of a 50% het for pied male and a normal female be? how about with a 100% for albino female?

Chris
-----
0.0.1 Senagel Chameleons-Bud
0.1.0 Red-tail Boas-Xena
1.0.1 Bearded Dragons-Ruff and Alexis
1.0.0 Ball Pythons-Donnie
0.1.0 Carpet Pythons-Lindsey
0.0.1 Savanah Monitors-Izzy

50% Het-Pied to normal = 25% Het-Pied
50% Het-Pied to 100% Het-Albino = 25% Het-Pied 50% Het-Albino

50% x normal = 25%
50% pied x 100% albino = 25% pied / 50% albino

I'm still on my first cup of coffee so don't jump down my throat if I'm wrong (Chris). LOL
-----
Tosha

8.15.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
1.0.0 Angolan Python
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.3 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

You can't really say that a 50% het X normal would give you 25% hets...

You have to look at it this way:

If your 50%er turns out to in fact be a het, then you offspring would would each have a 50% chance of being a het.

If your 50%er turns out to not be a het, then all of your babies will be normal.

In the original scenario, it would be inappropriate to term those babies 25%. Personally, I would call them low % possible hets.

Without knowing the genotype of the 50% you can't truely call the offspring 50%ers either. If you do know the genotype then theres no question of what to call it. Personally, I think 50% x normal offspring should be considered normal until proven otherwise, but theres those that insist on putting a % on everything and I think 25% works well, maybe not accurate, but it works.
-----
Tosha

8.15.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
1.0.0 Angolan Python
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.3 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

I think it is inappropriate (and perhaps a bit confusing) to call the offspring 25% Hets. The reason for the 50% status is because the offspring MUST have a 50% chance at being heterozygous -- one parent animal is confirmed as a gene carrier. If neither parent animal is confirmed as a gene carrier, then we can not assign a percentage to the offspring.

For instance...if the sire in question (50% Het) does NOT carry the desired gene and is therefore completely Normal, his offspring (when bred to a female Normal) could NOT be considered 25% Heterozygous because there is NO CHANCE of the offspring being gene carriers. Neither parent animal carries the gene in order to pass it on to offspring.

With a Heterozygous (100% Het) x Normal, we know WITHOUT A DOUBT that there is a gene somewhere in the immediate ancestory...therefore we can give theoretical percentages.

Without the proof of any presence of genetic trait, we could be giving someone a false hope...a Normal x Normal will NEVER yeild Possible Heterozygous offspring.

However...I think the original post was meant to find out if any visual morphs would be produced. The simple answer is no.

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

[RE: Heterozygous (100%) X Normal]

Q: I have a penny. I flip the penny. What are the chances of seeing Lincoln's face?

A: 50%

[RE: Possible Heterozygous (50%) X Normal]

Q: I have a coin. It may or may not be a penny. I flip the coin. What are the chances of seeing Lincoln's face?

A: Hmm...

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

>>Q: I have a coin. It may or may not be a penny. I flip the coin. What are the chances of seeing Lincoln's face?
>>
>>A: Hmm...

Actually..it should be

Q: I have two coins (100% or normal), one is a penny(100%) and the other is a nickel (normal). I flip one of the coins (100% or normal). What are the chances of seeing Lincoln's face.

A: 25% (there are only 2 possible coins with each having two sides, just like a 50%er can only be 2 possible genotypes with two possible outcomes)

So actually if you believe the lineage, there can be a 25% chance of het, just the same as there can be a 50% chance of het. The 25% chance just occurs over two generations instead of one.

Wrong. The problem lies in the fact that the offspring from a Heterozygous X Normal MUST have a 50% chance of carrying gene. In other words...when flipping just a penny, we are GUARANTEED that Lincoln's face is somewhere to be found.

If I keep flipping the nickel all day long, we will NEVER see Lincoln's face. Therefore telling someone that the chances are 25% of seeing Lincoln's face is simply wrong. They will NEVER see his face no matter how many times I flip the nickel.

Not only is calling the offspring 25% Het wrong...but it is quite misleading.

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

Thanks for all the answers. I never had a need to learn the genetics issue till now, and thanks to those who answered I have a good enough understanding of the basics now.
-----
0.0.1 Senagel Chameleons-Bud
0.1.0 Red-tail Boas-Xena
1.0.1 Bearded Dragons-Ruff and Alexis
1.0.0 Ball Pythons-Donnie
0.1.0 Carpet Pythons-Lindsey
0.0.1 Savanah Monitors-Izzy

>>Wrong. The problem lies in the fact that the offspring from a Heterozygous X Normal MUST have a 50% chance of carrying gene. In other words...when flipping just a penny, we are GUARANTEED that Lincoln's face is somewhere to be found.
>>
>>If I keep flipping the nickel all day long, we will NEVER see Lincoln's face. Therefore telling someone that the chances are 25% of seeing Lincoln's face is simply wrong. They will NEVER see his face no matter how many times I flip the nickel.

The part that you don't understand is that you have a 50% chance of it being a penny or a nickel, so you aren't flipping a nickel all day long, it could be a nickel or a penny...50% chance.

Therefore you have a 50% chance it is a penny and a 50% chance that you will get heads, just like you have a 50% chance that it is a het and a 50% chance the offspring will be het. In both cases the probability is exactly 25% that you will get the desired result. If you have issues with that, then you should study up on your math a little.

The simple explanation is, there is no simple explanation.

A simple observation from one who has read these for a while now LOL

Quig

The difference is probability wise and genetically wise. Once you get past 100% hets you are speaking in terms of probality not genetically. Either it is or it isn't a het, there aren't really any 66% or 50% or 25% but in all probablity that's your chance.
-----
Tosha

8.15.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and currently un-named)
1.0.0 Angolan Python
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope)
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.3 Lizards rescued from pool skimmer

I really don't think it has much to do with the math. If your Possible Het sire is just a Normal, then you can not claim that his offspring have a 25% chance of producing a morph. They have zero chance. They are Normal.

Regarding the coins...in this experiment the mystery coin is a nickel. There is no Lincoln face. No matter how many times I flip the nickel you will NEVER see Lincoln.

You can not argue that the offspring can be 25% because you believe there is a chance of flipping either a penny or a nickel. If the sire is Normal (nickel), then there is NO PENNY on the table to flip. (To consider the option of flipping a penny for the offspring means that the Normal miraculously passed on a gene that he never carried himself.)

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

A = Normal
a = Albino

The Heterozygous Albino (Aa) male breeds a Normal (AA) female. The offspring have a 50% chance at receiving the "a" from the Heterozygous father. The offspring may be either Heterozygous (Aa) or Normal (AA). Who knows? But it's a 50/50 shot that the offspring possesses the ability to produce an Albino.

Now...if the above offspring is Normal (AA) and breeds another Normal (AA) then the resulting 2nd generation offspring will always be Normal (AA) and will NEVER possess the ability to produce an Albino. To claim that this Normal (AA) 2nd generation offspring has a 25% chance of producing an Albino is ridiculous and misleading.

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

You are assuming the 50% het is a normal. Without proving the 50% het by either breeding it to a definate het or visual morph you can not say for certain it is a normal, therefore the offspring of breeding a 50% still has the possibility of being a het. Until you prove that 50% either way you have no idea what his offspring may be therefore saying they are 25% het would make sense.

Hypothetical situation, you buy a 50% het albino and breed it to a normal. You sell all the babies as normals cause you say they can't be hets. Next year you have an albino female and breed it to your 50% het and get a couple albinos out of the clutch. Now you have proven out your 50% male and all the babies you sold last year are actually 50% het albino's, the idea of calling the babies 25% just lets the new buyer know there is a low percentage that it could be harboring the albino gene in there somewhere. I wouldn't pay anymore than a normal price but at least it is nice to know that there could be a possibility.
-----
Nita Hamilton
4.13 Normal BP's, 1.0 Het Orange Ghost BP, 1.0 Het Pied 1.0 50% poss Het Orange Ghost BP's

I know I started this whole thing with a question, but now that I understand it here's my addition to what I started lol...

Now, if you take a 100% and a normal, you get offspring with a 50% chance of carrying the gene.

If you take one of those, and a normal, you get offspring with a 25% chance.

NOW...if you take one of those "50%"'s and prove that it DOESN'T carry the gene, THEN the offspring are simply normal. But, UNTIL then, the offspring, in theory, carry a 25% chance.

thank you

Chris
-----
0.0.1 Senagel Chameleons-Bud
0.1.0 Red-tail Boas-Xena
1.0.1 Bearded Dragons-Ruff and Alexis
1.0.0 Ball Pythons-Donnie
0.1.0 Carpet Pythons-Lindsey
0.0.1 Savanah Monitors-Izzy

My daughter was up all night tossing and turning and unable to sleep. As per the usual, I rock her to sleep at my computer via iTunes and old The Cure songs. This gave me the opportunity to read this entire thread all over again. My conclusion? Quig (sneakypete) is the only one who isn't wrong.

I agree that the offspring (G2) from a Heterozygous Albino (G1) X Normal will have a 25% chance of carrying the Albino gene. This is PROVEN.

However...

Question: What if the G2 offspring is PROVEN to be without the Albino gene (Normal)? Would the G3 offspring still have a 25% chance of carrying the Albino gene?

Answer #1: No. The G3 offspring would have a PROVEN zero percent chance of carrying the Albino gene.

Answer #2: Yes. You can not change (DISPROVE) something that has already been PROVEN.

And so...somewhere between Kiss and Torture there lies a paradox. Choose a side, but unless you're Quig...you're wrong.

(Or to quote a movie: "The only winning move is...not to play."

The moral of the story? When in doubt...The Cure is the cure.

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

LOL, Chris thanks for the vote of confidence. I was just gettin' a genitically induced headache tryin' to sort all this out in my own mind. Ya makes babys, and if they don't come out the way you want you mix em up till they do. Yes this way is much more time comsuming and not nearly scientific, but I'm not in a hurry to make the next bestest pretty ball. Just wanna enjoy em and see what I can come up with in the process. OK, on with the debate!! I'll just read somethin' else for a while

Quig

fingers musta tripped over one another

That's okay. I don't know where the "False" came from in the thread's title. I'm too sleepy.

Anyway...I don't really want to continue the conversation either. I want to sleep.

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

I think that calling an animal a 25% het is reasonable, but
many people will have a hard time understanding exactly what
that means. I'll try to explain below...

First off, let me say that buying 50% hets is risky enough if
you aren't buying from well known people. Buying 25% hets...forget
about it! I would pay 'normal' prices for a 25%er, maybe just
a little more if I trusted the person (and they were selling
their 25% het females...).

25%ers...I believe it is perfectly fine to call an animal
a 25%er if it was produced by breeding a 50% het X normal.
[Side note: Have you ever seen 25%ers listed for sale? It
is because it would be hard to sell them for above normal
prices, so people just sell them as normals (males usually,
since they are probably holding back the females...]
I think that people in the other explanations are getting too
focused on ONE 50% het male (in their examples).
Here's another way of looking at it. What if you took 10 50%
het males and produced clutches from each one. Assuming that
your odds work out, then 5 of those male breeders would have
actually been 100% hets, and the other 5 would have been
simply 'normals'. Then, you mixed up all the babies from the 10
different clutches...what would you call each individual baby at
that point?
Answer: They each have a 25% chance of being het! 25%ers.

Assume that you produced 100 babies breeding the 10 50% het
males...25 of them (statistically) would be hets. Therefore,
you can call them 25% hets.

That's my opinion.

Now...who wants to discuss whether or not picking their 50%
hets from the same clutch gives you better odds of getting
a het (as opposed to picking from different clutches)???
Another great myth/superstition... :-}

Enjoy!
Chris Simone
www.SimoneReptiles.com

Right on Chris. If the big sample average is 25% then it's legitimate to call the offspring of one UNTESTED 50% chance het "25% chance hets" until you get more information on the 50% chance het parent. However, it's also important for the potential buyers of 25% chance hets to understand the all or nothing nature of buying 25% chance hets from the same 50% chance het parent. If the one 50% chance het parent missed the odds then it doesn't matter how many 25% chance hets you buy, the chance of getting at least one het doesn't accumulate. Alternatively, with random (no marker involved) 50% chance hets your odds of having a het always increase the more you buy.

So, a clutch or 50% chance hets is a random sample and it doesn't mater if you buy them together or make your own random sample buying one each from a number of 50% chance het clutches. But with 25% chance hets you would actually do best to buy from different clutches from different 50% chance hets rather than a single clutch so that spread your all or nothing risk around (avoid the risk of buying all from a 50% chance that missed but also miss out on the chance of getting them all from a 50% chance that hit so getting a clutch full of 50% chance hets for 25% chance price).

That's what I meant by saying that many people wouldn't
understand what it means exactly. Unfortunately, there
are too many breeders/hobbiers out there that will not take
the time to educate their buyers...

Regards,
Chris Simone