Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Albino arabesque X Ghost to make quad hets or, for that matter, does anyone expect any snowglows or arabesque snows this year?

You can't make quad hets., there is only 2 recessive traits.

A genetic trait does NOT have to be recessive to produce a het! so yes,quad hets are possible.

Rainshadow, correct again. I do think some added explaination is helpful.

Hypomelanism in Boas is inherited through dominant inheritance. The common/standard hypos/salmons etc. are heterozygous for the "Super." Heterozygous animals have one allele for the trait, homozygous have a matching pair. When a homozygous animal is bred to a non-gene carrier all offspring will carry one allele for the trait. In Hypos and Arabesques these heterozygous offspring exhibit an altered phenotype. Arabesque being co-dominant and Hypomelanism (in boas) being dominant (incomplete dominance to be exact) will when bred to an animal not carrying the gene, will yeild heterozygous animals with an alteration from the wild phenotype.

There is no "het" hypo, as in no animal that is normal appearing that will carry the gene (not reffering to Boawomen Carmel Hypos or recessive forms in other species). However if the animal carries one allele (the non super) it is heterozygous for the "Super" form.

Make sense, minus spelling errors?

To my knowledge there has been no evidence to support the claim that Arabesques are "co-dominant"(for this to be the case,there would need to be a reliably visual distinction between the het. & homozygous forms of the trait.(maybe there are & I just haven't followed close enough?)...when using the term "co-dominant" think "Tiger Retic" this is a classic example of "co-dominance".(as it applies to reptile mutations.)In any given clutch of "Tigers" produced from two gene carriers,it is quite obvious which are "supers",and,which are not. As for the traditional hypo trait being "incomplete dominant",I don't see it at all. it has proven over "multiple generations"(far too many to count!) to be a simple dominant trait,when plugged into Punnet's square as such,you get an exact representaion of how the trait has worked for the last 10 years or so,and,still does today...so there IS such a thing as a "het. hypo",but no,it doesn't look "normal" in appearence.(it expresses the trait characteristics...ie;"dominant" )

Steve Hammond produced a litter last year from Arabesque to Arabesque. There were a number of completely "reverse striped Arabesques" for lack of better definition, ie: no saddles. It is believed that these are the Supers, makeing the homozygous a different phenotype from heterozygous.

Hypos being incomplete dominant was said in Rich Ihle's defineing article. Also, when an incompletely dominant trait is crossed with another mutant gene, the incomplete dominant trait is expressed in a blendin of traits, such as a white and red flower yielding pink. I am unsure on this being true about hypos, but if anyone should be trusted it would be the man who worked through generations of trials to prove out the genetics. Also, from what I know, Dominant and Incomplete Dominant traits are passed and inherited in the same way, it is the combination with other genes that causes the varience.

If the Purple Patternless, and Black Patternless do end up being definate Super Motleys, we will have a co-dominant example for the Boa world.

Conversations such as these are great for people to read and learn from. So much is posted misleadingly, and if not corrected leads to false truths corrupting our understanding. The method for Salmon/Hypo inheritance, Pastel definition, and Harlequin Dominance all need thorough discussion. A new topic for the next chat session!

I'm sorry, I'm sure you have bred numerous litters to back this up! What exactly would you create and what would they be het. for? Besides all boas in a Albino Arabesque x Ghost breeding being het. for snow..... what else would your offspring be het. for? Maybe I can get some normals het. for arabesque and salmon.

The Hypo offspring contain one allele for hypo, they are het for Super Hypo, the HOMOZYGOUS form. Likewise with Arabesques. The normal appearing are just het Snow.

If you bred a Super Arabesque Albino to a Super Ghost you would get all Hypo Arabesques het for Snow. Quad hets for the homozygous Arabesque Snowglow.

they would be quad hets. However, the only thing I disagree with is that the arabesques are co-dominant. I believe they will prove out to be simply dominant. I realize that there were some extreme examples in Steve's arab x arab breeding, however we still don't know if any of the siblings that look like normal arabesques will prove out to be supers. My guess is that it will prove out just as the salmons did; that is that the more extreme examples in a litter are more likely supers, however this is not always the case.

Matt Crabe

Possibly this whole argument was started by my choice of words...I should have said "Hypo abaresque het for snow" Instead I simply said quad hets.

No one has a problem calling a "hypo het snow" a "triple het" so I stuck with the trend...

Back to the question (not one of genetics) , Is anyone working with these animals yet?

To my knowledge no one is working on it. I am sure that Frank Martin has it planned, I am not sure if he is doing anything with Arabesque Albinos though, if he is you can be sure he will be akeing the Quad hets.

You were right in you nameing Quad hets. Just as non Super Hypo het Albino are DH Sunglow (in reference to Homozygous/Super Sunglows). Dh Sunglow to het albino or albino will give you sunglows, but they are technically het for Super Sunglow, they are homozygous for albino but not hypomelanism.

For someone that like to be politically correct, you are wrong! If you did talk to Rich Ihle then you would know that tecnically he understands that a salmon het. for albino is just that. Not a double het! He uses the term because it is what most people understand. The term het. is a term most breeders use to describe a boa carrying a recessive gene, you would know that if you have been around, eventually you won't depend on your science book so much and learn how most breeders describe their projects. Now if you look at the terms Peter Kahl uses you would find that he describes a salmon het. albino as a het. not a "double het." Not everyone here tries to be politically correct. If you did do your research or tried to understand that breeders use certain terms not because of specific genetics but what people tend to understand or are familiar with. Everyone knows that salmons and arabeque boas have the potential to produce supers but that is a different story. Also, when most people think het. they think of a gene the whole litter will have.

The Arab X Arab offspring need tested. The only way to be 100% sure would be to take ALL of them and breed to all non Arabesque animals. If teh Reverse striped version are supers, and the classic Arab pattern non supers then it is co-dominant. If the Normal pattern Arabesques are Super also, even just one, it would be Dominant.

It is kind of like Kahl's Recessive Strip gene. Some animals can have very little stripeing, are the het or striped? Some of the Arabesque Supers may have some missing saddles, how are you sure they are Super before breeding? In both cases I think it better not to market them as Homozygous unless 100% definate. For now the Arab X Arab offspring will be sold as Hypo X Hypo are, possible supers. And as some Stripe Hets, may actually be homozygous stripe, with a tiny little stripe. Also the reason Kahl sells possible Jungles, sometimes the phenotypic representation isn't clear.

By the way, I have not yet bred Boa constrictors. Only Rough Scaled Sand Boas last year. I am 16. My information was gathered through detailed and time comsumeing research and contact with breeders. Especially with Rich Ihle over Salmons and Steve Hammond over Arabesques.

"If" the animals produced prove to be homozygous. "If" they are distinctly & consistantly different from the heterozygous form,then "yes" the trait will prove to be "co-dominant".(that's all I'm saying here.)..the first Arabesque was produced almost 16 yrs. ago.(summer 1989)that's a pretty long time,"co-dominance" can take a while to prove.we have possible "supers" that need to be bred,and,the results examined prior to labeling the trait anything other than some form of dominant. I have seen "super" hypos that,can be extremely different in appearence from the hets in the same litter,there are however,proven examples of the less extreme in appearence turning out to be homozygous. This is not the case with a true co-dominant mutation,the "supers" are reliably different in appearence always,even with variance considered. I think the "Jungle" has shown a good example of "co-dominance",but,time and,future breedings should tell us more...I still do not see ANYTHING "incomplete" about the salmon/o.t. hypo trait,nothing at all. every breeding provides a little more evidence as something evolves.very few things are ever proven beyond doubt in one breeding,our evaluations & understanding needs to evolve at the same time.there's nothing wrong with saying,"Well we thought it was this,but,it's showing us that." this is a form of research,as well as alot of fun.

Information and understanding evolve with time and experience. Science consistently alters itself, one belief may be held gospel to later be disproven. Everything is theory, one contradiction and it is gone.