Reptile & Amphibian Forums

i was reading a post below that describes pastels as being an incomplete or chaotic dominance. what exactly does this mean? how is it different from the co-dom's ?
thanks, vicious

co-dom means there is a super form...ie pastel, cinny, spotnose. Incompete dom means there is no super YET...spider, granite, pin, and so on....

DOMINATE refers to a morph that can be reproduced when bred to a normal snake.....

I actually follow what you mean. It doesn't continue to produce supers because you're mixing the normal gene back in the mix, duh. So you end up with Rr all over again. I never thought you were wrong or I wouldn't be asking you for answers or to clarify to us un-egumakateds what you meant. But thanks, I do follow what you're saying now and see where I was going wrong.

Okay, here you go.

Incomplete dominance is when two phenotypes are combine to make a third phenotype that is a melding of the two original phenotypes. Example is a red flower x white flower creating a pink flower.

Codominance is when two phenotypes are combined to make a third phenotype that still show both of the first two phenotypes. Example is a red flower x white flower creating a red flower with white spots. Another example is a brown cow x white cow creating brown and white spotted cows. If the cows came out as an overall lighter brown cow, then that would be incomplete dominance.

Hope this helps,
Matt

Actually the term co-dominant is a phrase that people use in place of the actual term incomplete dominant, as both terms mean EXACTLY the same thing , the prefix "co" actually means partial or incomplete, you guys are making this into rocket science again , it's pretty simple... True Dominant or complete Dominant genes produce nothing but more visual gene carriers , the Super Pastel is an example of a Dominant gene , when a Super Pastel breeds a normal ALL the offspring are Pastels, the Super is produced by breeding 2 incomplete , AKA Partial Dominant regular Pastels together... The incomplete or Partial Dominant simply refers to the fact that not all of the offspring are visual morphs, some are just regular normals, it's pretty simple , some just make it more complicated than it needs to be! Another way to look at it is that a true Dominant is homozygeous for Dominant (RR) and a Partial Dominant is Heterozygeous for Dominant (Rr), by breeding of pair of Partial Dominants together (Rr) 1 in 4 will in theory be Dominant, AKA "Super" , this is true EVEN if you can't see or pick out the SUPER by appearance, there still is a 1 in 4 chance that you have produced a Dominant ,Homozygeous , "Super" , the Spider Ball comes to my mind, you can produce the Super by breeding 2 Spiders together and not be able to "see" the Homozygeous expression, however once you breed the animal if he produces nothing but 100% Spiders (no normals) in EVERY clutch, then he must be a Dominant, Homozygeous, Super, you just can't tell by looking at him/her because it looks the same as a regular Spider does, genetically it is Dominant though!!!! Are you guys following this or did I lose ya again???? Hope this clears up a little of the confusion, perhaps my friend Paul Hollander up at ISU can add to my post so it makes even more sence , he's the guy I learned alot of this stuff from, take care Paul, Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

So are you saying that the single allele for Pastel is both dominant and incomplete dominant? And that the type of dominance in the single Pastel allele changes with regard to the second allele?

This is what I'm reading:

If the Pastel is homozygous (Super Pastel), then it is dominant. If the Pastel is heterozygous (Pastel), then it is incomplete dominant.

I don't think it works this way. We cannot base the form of dominance on the pairing of alleles. We must base the form of dominance on how a single allele affects other alleles. (ie. Is the single Pastel allele completely dominant over the normal allele or is it partially dominant?)

Does that make sense?

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Ok let me say it slower .... Super Pastel is a DOMINANT (RR) we know this because they produce ALL regular Pastels (Rr) when bred to a normal, do you know how to do a Punnett square? A regular Pastel (NONSUPER)is a incomplete dominant animal (Rr) simply because it carries both normal and Pastel genes in it's makeup, the "R" is actually the Dominant Pastel gene and the "r" is actually the normal gene , however the R gene Dominants the r making it a Pastel... Perhaps some of you should go back to Biology 101 before stepping in and saying I am wrong, because I am right and anyone who TRUELY understands what I am saying would agree, your big words don't mean much to me all it means is you graduated from High School, actually print off my post and take it to your Biology teacher and let him slowly explain it to you, obviously their is a reason why those of us from Iowa have a higher degree of intelligence than most states!!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

Wow! Somebody is a grumpy-head...

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

I don't think you want me to list my stuff , I would make you feel really silly!!!!! And I am not grumpy, I just am confident in myself and what I post here, actually I'm in a good mood, and I am having the BEST year ever, with Albinos, Pieds, Pastels, Het Ivories (maybe even Ivories),Spiders, etc in the incubator, need I say more????? Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles...

No. I think you've said it all.

Have a great season.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

If the super was the dominant form of the gene wouldn't a super produce all supers? Take the spider. It remains dominant, weather it is hetero or homozygous. The only thing that changes is weather or not there is a pairing of that gene dictating the number offspring having that gene. Point being there is no super spider. A homozygous spider, a heterozygous spider, any spider just produces more spiders. A pastel being co or incomplete dominant doesn't keep producing supers in it's homozygous from unless it's bred to another homozygous. If it were dominant that wouldn't matter. I forgot where I was going with this. If I'm getting on anybody's nerves I'll stop. I just like the intelligent conversation. Having fun and trying to learn at the same time, not tick anybody off. I mean we all know what we're talking about and how to predict what will produce what when bred to what and that's really all that's important.

Would someone else who TRUELY understands genetics (such as Greg Graziani, Scott Micheals or Paul Hollander)step in and explain this stuff to these boys, I have been doing this long enough to know what I'm talking about BUT my patience as a teacher is not very long!!!!! SUPER IS A DOMINANT morph how else would it produce all Pastels when bred to a Normal, the babies from the SUPER are incomplete/partial dominants/co-dominants call them what you want all those terms mean EXACTLY the same thing, again go back to school and stay awake this time, maybe you'll learn something!!!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

"SUPER IS A DOMINANT morph how else would it produce all Pastels when bred to a Normal"

Maybe because it is homozygous. Could this be the problem? Could you possibly be confusing the terms "dominant/incomplete dominant" with "homozygous/heterozygous"?

(Just a question. No disrespect intended.)

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Chris you are correct , it is a homozygeous animal , but it is a DOMINANT HOMOZYGEOUS animal (I'm refering to the SUPERS) .. You are obviously not seeing the fact that a Dominant animal is the same as a Homozygeous recessive animal genetically, in otherwords a Super Pastel is genetically going to do the same thing as an Albino would when bred to a normal, you see a Super Pastel makes all regular Pastels (Rr) and an Albino makes all Hets for Albino (Rr) the ONLY difference is that the Pastels are VISUAL GENE CARRIERS OF THE PASTEL ALLELE, AND THE HET ALBINOS look normal but carry the recessive Albino ALLELE. Their is no reason to make this difficult it is VERY SIMPLE, don't make it complicated, this is the kind of stuff that gets people confused , because they are thinking to much about it. DOminant genes are Homozygeous hence the letters (RR) just like albino letters would be "aa" note that I used lower case letters for Albino , that's because it is recessive , but it still is homozygeous, are you gettting this yet , if not I have work to do , about 175 balls need fed and cleaned, good luck to you , hope you read and reread this until it makes sence to you!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

I think everyone can attest to the fact that I'm not very good at this genetics thing it just makes my head spin - I was ok with recessive, co-dom and dom - but now with all this other stuff I get befuddled.

Is it safe to say that a dominant animal (super) has the matching dominant genes (RR) while an incomplete dominant is an animal that shows the dominant trait (pastel) but does not have a matching set (Rr).

And if this is true - what the hell is co-dominant cause I just got lost. Am I missing something? It's been many many years since I sat in a biology class.

Thanks.
-----
Tosha

"Stupid is forever, ignorance can be fixed." Don Wood

"Of course, that's only my opinion...and I believe I am God." =) Chris Bianco

7.33.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Dessert Tortoise (Pope John Paul)
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.0 Pool skimmer rescues for this season

Your on the right track now , again Co-dominant is the same as the Het stage, the term "co" mean partial , in otherwords it's part normal and part gene carrier (Rr) , just think of Codominant as being a visual Het , like the Yellow Bellies for example they are "Het" for Ivories , Yellow Bellies are the "co-dominant" stage that produces an Ivory one out of 4 times when bred together... again Co-dominant is not really a "scientific" name it's a name us herpers use , actually the "scientific" name for co-dom is Incomplete or Partial Dominance, they ALL MEAN THE SAME THING, so don't let that confuse you... Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

Than it should be impossible for a homozygous of any morph to be codom/incomplete dom, right? It's always going to be AA for albino or PP for pastel in the homozygous form. So a homozygous albino would no longer be recessive, it would be dominant? So a homozygous albino would no longer be recessive, it would be dominant?

No, a recessive always stays recessive you can't pick out the hets in a recessive like you can pick out the hets of a co-dom... An albino is always going to be rr NOT RR because it's recessive, it produces Rr or rR babies whichever way you want to look at it when bred to normal it has one allele of normal which masks the recessive allele of albino, the normal pigment is stronger than the recessive albino gene making the "het" look normal, I think you get what I mean... Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

I actually knew that. Why I needed it explained is beyond me. That's like one of the first things you learn when you start learning about this stuff. In any case I see your point but I see Chris' as well. I was thinking the same thing he is a few hours ago. The fact that one gene (pastel) can produce two different phenotypes here but one gene over there (spider) is going to keep producing the same phenotype over and over makes it confusing. So the fact that you can pick out a heterozygous from a homozygous in something like pastel is waht makes it co/incomplete untill you have that super. once you have that super that is a dominat animal because that gene will over ride any normal genes which is why you can see the hets? A spider is considered dominant becasue it is what it is, it's a spider. You won't know het or homozygous until you breed it. Actually I'm starting to confuse myself again.

"...once you have that super that is a dominat animal because that gene will over ride any normal genes which is why you can see the hets?"

This is exactly what Anthony is saying. The problem is with Anthony's application of the punnett square. The Super Pastel's genes do trump the Normal's genes. Yes. But we are not trying to compare two different animals. We are trying to compare two different ALLELES within the SAME animal.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

"You are obviously not seeing the fact that a...Super Pastel is genetically going to do the same thing as an Albino would when bred to a normal, you see a Super Pastel makes all regular Pastels (Rr) and an Albino makes all Hets for Albino (Rr) the ONLY difference is that the Pastels are VISUAL GENE CARRIERS OF THE PASTEL ALLELE, AND THE HET ALBINOS look normal but carry the recessive Albino ALLELE."

Yes. I understand this. I've always understood this. In fact, I've stated the same thing quite a few times before. Geneotypically, the simple recessives work the same as any of the dominant types. Cool.

I still think the form of dominance should be based on a single allele and the influence that single allele has on its paired allele. (ie. If the single Pastel allele is completely dominant over the Normal allele, then it is considered Dominant. If the single Pastel allele is only partially dominant over the Normal allele, then it is considered incomplete dominant.)

The Pastel and the Super Pastel are not two different and distinct genetic types. They are only two different expressions of the same genetic type -- a homozygous form and a heterozygous form.

The genetic type of the Pastel allele remains the same in either case -- incomplete dominant.

However, for the sake humility I will research this one more time.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

"The Pastel and the Super Pastel are not two different and distinct genetic types. They are only two different expressions of the same genetic type -- a homozygous form and a heterozygous form."

Let me amend the above statement.

The Pastel and the Super Pastel are not two different and distinct dominance types. They are only two different expressions of the same dominance type -- a homozygous form and a heterozygous form.

Again...the dominance type is based on a single allele and the influence this single allele has over the second paired allele.

Sorry for the confusion.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

There you go with those big words again, a Super is "RR" and a Pastel is "Rr", why do you think their is about $9,000 difference in price between a Super Pastel and a regular Pastel, it's not just the looks that are different, genetically they are not the same as you seem to think !!!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

I know the Super Pastel (PP) and the Pastel (Pp) are not genetically alike. The Super Pastel has two mutant alleles and the Pastel only has one mutant allele.

I am not arguing that fact. I am simply stating that phenotypes are two different expressions of the same dominance type -- incomplete dominance.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

I disagree, the Super is the dominant Expression of the Pastel, we know this because it always produces more Pastels no matter what it is bred into, if a Super Pastel was indeed a incomplete dominant then it would produce a percentage of normals , hence the entire reason they would come up with the term "partial" dominant, perhaps you should look up the word Partial in a dictionary! Call up Greg Graziani and tell him that I said a Super Pastel was a Dominant expression of a regular Pastel and see what he say's.... I doubt he'll tell you a Super is an incomplete dominant animal (it's offspring could be "Rr" but the Super itself cannot be) when in fact it is as dominant as it can possibly get!!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

You are so mean. You attack my intelligence over and over again. Who knows? Maybe you are just having a bad day.

I forgive you.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Chris is right. Pastels are incomplete dominant. The pastel allele is partially dominant over the normal allele it is paired with, so you get sort of a muted expression of what the pastel gene would look like alone if it didn't have to overcome the expression of the normal allele i.e. super pastel. When the pastel allele is paired with another pastel allele as in the super pastel, there is nothing for the pastel gene to "fight" with, so to speak, so you see what the gene looks like.

Incomplete dominant and co-dominant are NOT the same thing! With incomplete dominance, the offspring look different than both parents and are sort of a melding of the two looks. When a super pastel is bred to a normal, all of the offspring are a blending of the two traits. That is they look like the super pastel, only not quite as distinct, because the one pastel allele is fight with the normal allele to express itself. It is not completely dominant over it or the pastel would look just like the super pastel. Therefore it is incomplete dominance.

With codominance, the offspring look differnt than both the parents, but do not have the mixing effect. A yellow belly does not look like you mixed an ivory and a normal. It is a disinct look all to its own.

On a side note, I don't understand why people come on these forums just to be rude to other people. Personally I keep a list of all these people and just never do business with them. If you can't keep a cool head on a forum, I wonder what would happen if you sold an animal that died during shipping.

"On a side note, I don't understand why people come on these forums just to be rude to other people. Personally I keep a list of all these people and just never do business with them. If you can't keep a cool head on a forum, I wonder what would happen if you sold an animal that died during shipping."

I totally agree. I keep a list of everyone who acts mean on the forums. When we choose to participate in this forum, we do so while representing our business name. Acting mean and insulting people is not professional...and not a good business strategy.

Mean people suck.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

If you think I am being rude , I do apologize , however, I don't appreciate it when people get one here that think just because they own "1" Ball Python that they all of the sudden are an expert!!! I have been doing Balls since 1992 so I think I know what I am doing, and my collection shows it !! Call me rude if you want I guess the truth sometimes hurts, I myself happen to dislike people with thick skulls and like to argue wasting my valuable time!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

Now why would anyone ever think you are rude?

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

"Chris is right. Pastels are incomplete dominant. The pastel allele is partially dominant over the normal allele it is paired with, so you get sort of a muted expression of what the pastel gene would look like alone if it didn't have to overcome the expression of the normal allele i.e. super pastel. When the pastel allele is paired with another pastel allele as in the super pastel, there is nothing for the pastel gene to "fight" with, so to speak, so you see what the gene looks like"

Where in a dominant gene like spider dominantes. Peroid. No fight, if it has the spider gene it looks like a spider. So another way to look at it is a pastel is only a partial pastel, a super pastel is a whole pastel? That's kind of over simplifying it but it is the right idea right? That's what I was thinking earlier.

Yes. The Super Pastel would be a whole Pastel. This is also called "homozygous". However, the mutant allele (the thing that causes all the changes) is still incomplete dominant.

So...a Super Pastel would be HOMOZYGOUS for the INCOMPLETE DOMINANT mutant allele (trait).

Does this help clear things up?

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Exactly. The super pastel should be called a pastel and a pastel should be called a het pastel (or something similar). The problem is the "pastel" came first, and noone knew there was a "super pastel". This doesn't change the fact that the pastel allele is NOT dominant to the normal allele, otherwise a "pastel" or an animal with one mutant pastel gene would look the same as the "super pastel".

Wow, I'm bored with this whole thing. How come it always seems like the ones who insult others' intelligence are usually the ones who aren't intelligent enough to step back and realize they made a mistake?

Matt

If you look back at my posts you'll see that I already have said all this in my own words, not a paragraph pulled out of some genetics book like some seem to want to do, even though you people try to make yourselves look important, I'm following ALL of what your saying, so your going to have to come up with some new bigger words to lose this guy!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

"Call up Greg Graziani and tell him that I said a Super Pastel was a Dominant expression of a regular Pastel and see what he say's.... I doubt he'll tell you a Super is an incomplete dominant animal..."

Okay. According to his site, the SUPER PASTEL is listed as codominant. =)

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

At least I hope you're right because it's making sence to me now. I think what adds to the confusion is that with a dominant gene like spider the hetero and homozygous forms look alike. Pastel, that's not the case. In my case it had me thinking something different was going on. I was hung up on the fact that there is no super.

Spiders are capable of producing a dominant Super, you just won't knwo if ya got one until it breeds, if ALL , EVERY, baby is a Spider it is a Dominant (call it a Super if ya like) form.. This is my whole point a Super Pastel is definitely NOT the same as a regular Pastel neither by Looks or genetically speaking a Super has ABSOLUTELY NO NORMAL genes in it so , my question to you Chris is "HOW CAN A SUPER PASTEL POSSIBLY BE AN INCOMPLETE DOMINANT ANIMAL WITH "RR" IN IT'S MAKEUP AND ZERO NORMAL IN IT'S MAKEUP"???????? Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles. www.ballstothewalls.com

Spiders are capable of producing a dominant Super, you just won't knwo if ya got one until it breeds, if ALL , EVERY, baby is a Spider it is a Dominant (call it a Super if ya like) form.. This is my whole point a Super Pastel is definitely NOT the same as a regular Pastel neither by Looks or genetically speaking a Super has ABSOLUTELY NO NORMAL genes in it so , my question to you Chris is "HOW CAN A SUPER PASTEL POSSIBLY BE AN INCOMPLETE DOMINANT ANIMAL WITH "RR" IN IT'S MAKEUP AND ZERO NORMAL IN IT'S MAKEUP"???????? Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles. www.ballstothewalls.com

Does this help??

Super Pastel (RR)= Dominant/ Homozygeous
Regular Pastel (Rr)= Incomplete /Partial or Co-dominant, think of these as "hets" for Super Pastels (that's where the "r" comes into play it's incomplete because not all of this animals offspring will be pastels some will be normals...

Albino (rr)= Recessive-- yet still Homozygeous (both letters the same in this case I used rr)...
Het Albino (Rr)= heterozygeous , they look normal but carry the recessive gene for Albino, these genetically would produce both het albinos and normals when bred to normal females, the only difference between these and the regular Pastels is the fact that you can't pick out the gene carriers for the albino trait like you can with the Pastels, that is why we call them Possible Hets, there is no such thing as a Possible Het Pastel either it is a Pastel or it's a normal because Pastel dominates normal and is a visual morph that is a partial dominant because some of it's offspring are normals when bred to a normal.... This is the best I can do for you, if this doesn't help I don't know what else to say!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

check out my post or the link that Jesse Wilson has at the bottom of this whole thread. Preferably both as they are different ways of saying the same thing.

Paul Hollander

You got that a little garbled Anthony. But you got it right that for practical purposes, codominant and incomplete dominant mean the same thing.

Mendel coined the terms dominant and recessive. As genes come in pairs, a pair of genes can have two identical normal genes, two identical mutant genes, or a mutant gene paired with a normal gene. If there are two normal genes, the animal is called homozygous normal. If there are two mutant genes, the animal is called homozygous for the mutant. And if there is a mutant gene paired with a normal gene, the animal is called heterozygous for the mutant gene.

Albino is an example of a recessive mutant gene. You have two copies of the normal version of the albino gene, and the snake looks normal. If you have two copies of the albino gene, the snake has no black pigment and is albino. When a normal gene is paired with an albino gene, the snake looks normal. There are only two choices as to what a snake looks like because the effect of the normal gene masks the effect of the albino mutant gene. That masking effect in the heterozygous individual is what makes the albino gene recessive to the normal gene and the normal gene dominant to the albino gene. As a result, you cannot look at a normal ball python and say whether it has two normal genes or a normal gene paired with an albino gene. You need a breeding test to tell.

We do not have any really good dominant mutant genes in snakes. So I will use melanism in pigeons. The mutant gene is actually named spread. If there are two spread genes, the bird is solid black. If there are two normal versions of the spread gene, then the bird is a slate gray with a pair of dark bars on each wing. If there is a normal gene paired with a spread gene, then the bird is solid black. There are only two choices as to what a bird looks like because the spread mutant gene masks the effect of the normal gene in the heterozygous individual. That makes the spread gene the dominant gene and the normal gene the recessive gene. As a result, you cannot look at a black pigeon and say whether it has two spread genes or a spread gene paired with a normal gene. You need a breeding test to tell.

If you read those last two paragraphs carefully, you can see that a dominant mutant gene and a recessive mutant gene act like mirror images.

In some cases, like tiger in the reticulated python or pastel in the ball python, one gene does not mask the other gene. A pair of normal genes produces a normal-looking snake. A pair of mutant genes produces a snake that is homozygous for the mutant, like the super tiger retic or super pastel ball python. And a snake with a normal gene paired with a mutant gene produces a third appearance, such as tiger or pastel. In this case, the effects of both genes can be detected, and you can tell what the genes are just by looking at the snake. Breeding tests are not really necessary to tell a heterozygous individual from either homozygous individual.

Short version:
Recessive mutant gene -- the abnormal appearance shows only when there are two mutant genes.

Dominant mutant gene -- the same abnormal appearance shows up when there are two mutant genes or when a mutant gene is paired with a normal gene.

Codominant mutant gene (= incomplete dominant mutant gene) -- One abnormal appearance shows up when there are two mutant genes, and a different abnormal appearance shows up when a mutant gene is paired with a normal gene.

Even if you require a difference between a codominant mutant gene and an incomplete dominant mutant gene, both still fit the above definition. In both, there is a difference between the animal with two mutant genes and the animal with a mutant gene paired with a normal gene.

If you want to make it into rocket science, you can define a codominant mutant gene as one with the above definition that is produced by a mutant gene with a functional gene product. And an incomplete dominant mutant gene is one with the above definition which is caused by a mutant gene with a nonfunctional gene product. As we do not know whether the pastel or tiger mutant gene has a functional or nonfunctional product, we cannot make the fine distinction between codominance and incomplete dominance. And as "codominant" is the shorter term, I use it in preference to "incomplete dominant".

The definitions above are the ideal. But nature is sloppy, and sometimes we find a case where one heterozygous individual does and and a different heterozygous individual does not look different from a homozygous mutant individual. Then we give the mutant gene to the most appropriate of the three classes and add modifiers, like "dominant with incomplete penetrance" or "dominant with variable expressivity".

Clear as mud?

Paul Hollander

Thanks Paul, I knew you would be able to help!! Regardless I think my thinking is correct , you are basically saying the same thing as I am just in a more scientific way, I prefer to try to keep things simple , you have always been a notch above the rest of us on this genetics stuff, you've even got me lost a time or two LOL !!!! Take care man , thanks for taking the time to back up what I was trying to say.... Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

"...thanks for taking the time to back up what I was trying to say..."

I may be totally wrong, but I don't think Paul was backing up your theory. I think he was correcting it.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

WELL if you look again he said the the recessive and dominant work as mirror images of each other ,which is what I was saying as well... And by the way let's ask Paul if he thinks a Super Pastel is an Incomplete dominant animal as you seem to think or if I am right in saying that the Super Pastel is actually a Dominant animal and isn't a incomplete animal at all!!!! The regular Pastel is incomplete , the Super is complete or dominant, right PAUL?????? Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

Once again...I think you are confusing the terms "dominant/incomplete dominant" with "homozygous/heterozygous".

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Perhaps you should REREAD PAUL'S Post as he clearly says that teir is NO Difference genetically between the following incomplete dominant ==== Heterozygeous and Complete Dominant === Homozygeous ,, I understand they are all different words (something you obviously get caught up on, I suspect you'd make quite a used car salesman, but genetically they do the same things , that is an incomplete dominant animal is heterozygeous for it's Super condition and a complete dominant animal is Homozygeous for it's condition as well, you really don't get this do you, I'm done wasting my time on some smart--- who thinks he knows more than me , when obviously you don't ... Good luck catching up with the rest of us that do!!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

If you are wrong, will you send me a free Spider female?

(I'll pay shipping.)

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

and what If I'm not wrong ??? What do you possibly have that I need???

Let's take a quick survey. I'll Post it at the top of the forum , everyone put in your 2 cents , the question of the day , the million dollar question is :: IS A SUPER PASTEL A DOMINANT EXPRESSION OR IS THE SUPER A INCOMPLETE DOMINANT EXPRESSION? G0 TO THE TOP OF THF FORUM TO POST YOUR ANSWERS!!! THANKS FOR YOUR TIME PEOPLE!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

I really don't think that a poll is the best solution. Your argument may have persuaded a few people to vote your way...even though they would be wrong.

You are saying this:

Super Pastel = Dominant
Pastel = Incomplete Dominant

This is simply wrong. You are still confusing the terms "dominant/incomplete dominant" with "homozygous/heterozygous".

The dominance type that a mutant allele holds does not change simply because it sits next to another allele of the same dominance type.

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Whatever.... let 's see what others think,, time will tell, I think there are plenty of other people out there that clearly understand genetics, let's just let them decide instead of wasting time going back and forth on here!!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.... www.evolvesomeballs.com

You are right Chris. Confusion between the mutation type terms (co-dominant and dominant) and the genotypes (heterozygous mutant and homozygous mutant) is common even among experienced breeders. Mutation type, genotype, and phenotype are three different and interrelated ways to describe an animal. Keeping these different categorizations straight will help avoid confusion.

It boils down to genotype (heterozygous or homozygous mutant) describes the number of copies of whatever gene you are talking about. Phenotype (super pastel, albino, etc.) describes what an animal looks like. And mutation type (recessive, co-dominant/incomplete dominant, dominant) describes the relationship between the genotype and the phenotype for a given mutant gene.

The mutation type doesn't change depending on if you are looking at a heterozygous pastel or a homozygous pastel. It's defined by the way they look in relation to each other and normal. The super pastel phenotype is the homozygous genotype and since it looks different than the heterozygous pastel genotype which is also not normal the gene is classified as co-dominant (or incomplete dominant per the start of this thread).

Thank you, Randy.

Now all I have to do is breed Ball Pythons for fifteen years to gain credibility. Maybe then people will start listening to me. LOL =)

Good Things,
Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

Very funny! You might have better luck if you get some females to go with your "1" male ball python, it's hard to make a living off one single animal not to mention tough to get eggs from "him", LOL!!! Even though I may have used my terminology loosely I was correct on what the breeding results are, and that's what pays the bills around here, regardless of the words used to explain the final outcome... I still know how to get to the end product and have consistantly been doing just that for along time now, which says something in itself regardless of what you may think! Knock yourself out , I'll just stick to producing some of the hottest mutations on the planet!!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles.

Okay, Anthony...

Chris
-----
1.0 Ball Python
1.1 Chinese Milksnakes
1.0 Whitewater River Snake
0.1 Purple Phase Gorilla Frog
2.3 Sugar Newts

I'm not sure if Paul has any ball python experience but while I have a little at least I don't have any morphs yet. Funny how in this thread there seems to be an inverse correlation between understanding the genetics and owning them. Obviously you don't have to master the finer points of genetic terminology to be successful with them but I wonder if as combinations get more complicated if it might not help a little. Of course with the slow ball python rate of reproduction there should be plenty of time for everyone to figure out what they really need to know along the way with a little help.

Oh, definitely. The more complex the combinations get, the more confused everyone will be after having learned things a little screwy.

Of course, there are those who will never care about learning correctly.

Maybe it has something to do with the individual's level of interest in the animals and hobby. Someone who only cares about making money would probably not care about the details. In fact, we hear these sentences all the time: "I just care about what the animal produces and how to produce it." This type of statement is often made by those who are clearly only in this for the money.

Chris
-----
mean people suck

Chris, you need to spend a little time doing some research about me before making a comment like that, obviously you know nothing about me , or what I started out in this industry with! I am one of the few who started out with NORMALS 10 years ago and bought a couple Het Albino males from my friend Bob Clark and took the time and dedication to breed them out (meaning I made my own het females , I didn't buy a single one of them ,I took the long Poss Het route)and since then have worked up into other projects such as Pieds, Genetic Stripes, Pastels, Spiders, Het Ivories, Ghosts , and will be adding Cinnamons , PinStripes and a few others soon enough.. You say you hate mean people, well I hate jealous people ! Until your to the point of making a living solely on Ball Pythons as I do, I suggest you keep your opinion about me to yourself as you obviously don't have any solid backing of your comments and actually couldn't be further from the real truth!!! I have a nice collection of Ball Pythons because I love the species, the $$ is just what keeps me going, it's not the reason I do it, most of the $$ I make goes right back into more Balls, so what does that tell you?? I'll be doing this even when the price of these animals is alot less than it is today, that's when we'll see who's in it for the money and who isn't because the ones who are in it for only the money will sell out and breed something else, you'll never see me doing that! Sit back and watch I'll prove it to you, then you can retract your insulting statment and opologize to me on the forum for wrongfully making me out to be in this for the $$!! And by the way I do understand genetics well enough that I will be able to explain what's coming out of my walk-in incubator, as they say "the proofs in the pudding" !!! Anthony McCain-McCain's Reptiles. www.evolvesomeballs.com

Another way to think of it is that a codominant trait will be expressing two phenotypes at the same time, which may still end up giving something that looks "blended." Incomplete dominance is when the difference in appearance is caused by the difference in the number of working genes.
Here's an example: Lets say that a certain enzyme producing a color gets shut off in a certain mutation. A het would have only one working copy and would still have some of that color. The amount could depend on whether or not the color production is limited by that enzyme - if it is, then the amount of color produced would decrease and the animal would look different. The homozygous version wouldn't be capable of producing any of that color and would be an extreme version of the het. That would show incomplete dominance.
In a codominant animal, each version (allele) of the gene is dominant and is expressed fully, which results in a blending of two traits. This means you have two dominant traits (hets and homos appear the same vs. a recessive trait) that are codominant to each other.
It's not always easy to distinguish between the two, and nothing is really black and white in genetics anyway. If you look close enough (cellular level, etc), some dominant traits show differences and there are most like varying degrees of everything... I would say that pastels are probably incomplete dominant.
I'm trying to be as confusing as possible.

You did a good job. Pastel x Pastel = even more pastel, right? Wouldn't that be a "blending" of the traits? It's one gene creating two different phenotypes, The het, pastel, and the homo, the super pastel. I'm confused in the case of pastel how incomplete and codom differ.

What we normally call co-dom in the snake world us usually incorrect nomenclature as it is usually a case of incomplete dominance. An example of co-dom is AB blood...A blood x B blood=AB blood.

But Pastel x Pastel = Pastel Pastel or Super Pastel, right? Not pastel resembling the mother and pastel resembling the father. I guess either way it doesn't really matter as long as you can predict the outcome correctly. I actually have that link save in my favorites but the topic is kind of side stepped with "Co-dominant/Incomplete Dominant" lumped together. Can't blame him, text books have been written on the subject. Not something to really get crazy with on a website.

This should help.

Jesse Wilson
Link

: