Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Anybody have pics of one of these guys?

because it's not my picture I'll just give you the URL you can go to it yourself -
Wills Banana

-----
Tosha

"One of these days i am going to wake up..look around...and realize my place looks more like "Ace Venturas"s than my own." Coldthumb

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 "JP"
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.2 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.1 lizard rescued from vicious feline

Thanks for the link! Really cool looking ball....

Will has more pics of bananas on his site. www.bananaball.com

Try looking down a few posts in the thread forpics of the banana clown and go to www.bananaball.com

These are also known as caramel albinos?

Look pretty similar.
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

Not the same mutation as xanthics (Caramel) which are simple recessive.

These Banana's which are also knowned as Coral Albinos are dominant.

They do look like brighter Caramels

Brian A.

No, Banana's are a different mutation then the carmel and they are also a co-dom//incomplete.

Then were is the Super Banana?

The original Banana was female, and as of this years breeding, no males have been produced. Hopefully Will will get a male in one of next years clutches.So a super for, providing there is one, is still a few years off.

Agreed but you said Banana's were Co-dominant, if no Super is yet produced, then for arguments sake, they are only dominant...

Not trying to flame here, just calling a spade, a spade

Just because a Super Banana has not been produced yet does not mean Bananas are Dominant. It just has not been proven yet.
So calling the Banana a Dominant animal would be incorrect ALSO.

GOD Bless
Andre
ASFReptiles

since you want to be a smarty, then what is a Spider?

It IS dominant. THAT much has been proven. What has NOT been proven is whether or not it is co-dominant. Co-Dominant IS a type of dominant mutation. The ONLY thing known for sure, is that the banana balls are SOME KIND of a DOMINANT mutation.

Now why don't you go and split a few more hairs?

Mark

>>Just because a Super Banana has not been produced yet does not mean Bananas are Dominant. It just has not been proven yet.
>>So calling the Banana a Dominant animal would be incorrect ALSO.
>>
>>GOD Bless
>>Andre
>>ASFReptiles

If you are going to use correct terminology, if the banana does prove out to have a super form then it actually won't be codominant. Here is the definition for codominant from a medical dictonary, and a link to it so you can check it out for yourself if you would like. Also, if you check most any genetics textbook, it will tell you the same thing:

co·dom·i·nant (k-dm-nnt) adj.
Of or relating to an equal degree of dominance of two genes, both being expressed in the phenotype of the individual.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/codominant

Below is a crappy diagram I drew up that is similar to one from my genetics textbook showing a truely codomint example, and an incompletely dominant example (where the red would be like a super pastel, white like a normal, and the pink like a pastel). So, mutations like pastels are actually NOT codomint (as has been brought up many times in this forum before) and the correct terminology would be incomplete dominant. Therefore, the banana has not been proven to be dominant yet, it could also be incompletely dominant. We will just have to wait and see. How is that for splitting hairs? I know very few of you actually care about this stuff, but if you were ever going to talk to a geneticist about this kind of stuff, calling the pastel mutation, or others like it, codominant would not make any sense at all to the geneticist.

-----
Ben

Maybe it'll turn out to be Incomplete Dominant (like the pastels) or maybe it'll be codominant (can't think of a snake mutation off hand that actually is codominant) or maybe it'll turn out to be complete dominant (also known as simple dominant) like the spiders are suspected of being. All that is known at this point is that it is a dominant mutation of some kind.

Mark

>>If you are going to use correct terminology, if the banana does prove out to have a super form then it actually won't be codominant. Here is the definition for codominant from a medical dictonary, and a link to it so you can check it out for yourself if you would like. Also, if you check most any genetics textbook, it will tell you the same thing:
>>
>>co·dom·i·nant (k-dm-nnt) adj.
>>Of or relating to an equal degree of dominance of two genes, both being expressed in the phenotype of the individual.
>>
>>
>>http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/codominant
>>
>>Below is a crappy diagram I drew up that is similar to one from my genetics textbook showing a truely codomint example, and an incompletely dominant example (where the red would be like a super pastel, white like a normal, and the pink like a pastel). So, mutations like pastels are actually NOT codomint (as has been brought up many times in this forum before) and the correct terminology would be incomplete dominant. Therefore, the banana has not been proven to be dominant yet, it could also be incompletely dominant. We will just have to wait and see. How is that for splitting hairs? I know very few of you actually care about this stuff, but if you were ever going to talk to a geneticist about this kind of stuff, calling the pastel mutation, or others like it, codominant would not make any sense at all to the geneticist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----
>>Ben

and all I was meaning when I said, "if the banana does prove out to have a super form then it actually won't be codominant" was that if it does have a super form like pastel's do, it still won't be codominant, it would be incomplete dominant. I do agree with what you are saying that it could end up being a real codominant, but as we both know, there is not much of a chance of that. But, with genetics you never do know. I also misunderstood what you were meaning in the post above, and that was why I mentioned in my post below that I thought we were talking past each other and really meaning the same things. Anyway, thanks again for the food for thought, and good luck with your animals!
-----
Ben

I think kingsnake deleted my first few replys. They didnt know that you and I are friends.

Good job on setting things straight hoser. You know whats funny is i was reading your post and didnt realize it was you. I kept thinking how glad I was that someone taking a crack at the terminology. Then it annoyed me when i realized it was you because youre the one who discouraged me from saying anything. Youre a weener. Ha Ha Ha!

Saffron

I forgot to mention that you did a much better job than I could have anyway so props to ya!

Ya, if your original post was much like the email you sent me, I would imagine that they yanked it pretty fast! You are funny man.

Later,
-----
Ben

In most everyone's terms all Ball pythons are Simply Recessive, Dominant or CODominant. Without years of producing and proving there is no Super form of the Banana you can neither call the Banana a Dominant or CODominant animal, period.

Rumor is that someone produced all Spiders in 2 or more clutches this year.
The father of both clutches was a Spider that was produced from Spider X Spider years ago.
Are you now going to change Spiders from Dominant to CODominant?

In my understanding CODominant or Complete Dominant animals produce all of themselves. NO ANIMAL DOES THIS. NOT EVEN NORMALS. Example Normal X Pastel.

Only thing that looks apparent is that all animals are Simple Recessive but some are visual hets. And some Super forms look and appear like their visible hets. Example Super Salmon Boas.

GOD Bless
Andre

I am willing to say I am wrong but please prove it. And not tons of "know it alls" taking sides. Science only please.

Once again, this is coming from what I have learned in school, so many of you probably won't care, and I totally understand and respect that. It doesn't bother me at all. I refer to pastels as codominant morphs as well. I know that is the terminology that people in herpetoculture use, and I am fine with that. Further, I also hope that I am not coming off as a know it all or anything like that. It is just that I have studied this stuff, and I do like to share what I have learned. That is all I am doing. You can find virtually all the genetics information that I will share in an introductory genetics textbook (but put in a much more eloquent way), so I am by no means a know it all. And I am sure that there will be others that will read this that know more than I do, and I hope they will chime in as well. Anyway, here are my .02 about this comment:

"In my understanding CODominant or Complete Dominant animals produce all of themselves. NO ANIMAL DOES THIS. NOT EVEN NORMALS. Example Normal X Pastel."

First of all, there are no codominant or complete dominant ANIMALS. There are only codominant and complete dominant GENES or ALLELES (depending on how you use this terminology). And maybe you weren't meaning to say literally that there are codominant and complete dominant animals, but that was how it came accross, and I think it is a distinction that many people miss. The mutated pastel allele is codominant to the other "normal" or "wild type" alleles that occur at that specific location in ball pythons' DNA. So, one would say that the pastel allele is codominant to wild type alleles for that specific loci (location).

So when you say, "CODominant or Complete Dominant animals produce all of themselves," that is not really what is meant when we say something is codoiminant or complete dominant. Now, once again, I may have misunderstood what you were saying, and I am sorry if I did this. It is hard to talk about this kind of stuff in a setting like this because people can be very easily misunderstood. But anyway, this is what I have come to understand these terms mean. For a complete dominant gene what is meant is that even in a heterozygous form its phenotype (outward appearance) is expressed (for example, this is what we have thought the spider allele is). So, the effect of this mutated allele "dominates" over normal alleles when in the heterozygous form. For a codominant morph, in herpetocultural language, what is meant is that the homozygous mutant (super pastel) displays the mutated outward apprearance to the fullest extent, while the heterozygous mutant (pastel) shows an intermediate expression of the mutation. So, codominant and complete dominant don't necessarily mean that all babies will be the same as the adult, they are just terms discribing the relationship between the mutant allele and all the normal alleles at one specific location. Anyway, I hope this helped a little bit for someone.

And Andre, let me know if I misunderstood what you were saying/asking. It is late for me, so I might not be comprehending what I am reading very well, and I am sorry if that is the case.

Thanks,

-----
Ben

Great explanation! There seems to be so much confusion on what terms like dominant and heterozygous really mean. In brief, recessive, co-dominant/incomplete dominant, and completely dominant refer to mutation types. Heterozygous and homozygous describe whether the individual snake has a matched or unmatched pair of whatever gene you are talking about. It's the relationship between how the heterozygous and homozygous animals look that defines the mutation type.

Yes, thanks Randy. I realized as I was thinking about this more that I wished I had defined things a little more. It is also always nice to hear from you about these genetic questions.

Later,
-----
Ben

I spent over an hour typing the whole thing in and lost the whole bloomin reply. well, back to the drawing board. geez I hate this forum sometimes......

>>In most everyone's terms all Ball pythons are Simply Recessive, Dominant or CODominant. Without years of producing and proving there is no Super form of the Banana you can neither call the Banana a Dominant or CODominant animal, period.
>>
>>Rumor is that someone produced all Spiders in 2 or more clutches this year.
>>The father of both clutches was a Spider that was produced from Spider X Spider years ago.
>>Are you now going to change Spiders from Dominant to CODominant?
>>
>>In my understanding CODominant or Complete Dominant animals produce all of themselves. NO ANIMAL DOES THIS. NOT EVEN NORMALS. Example Normal X Pastel.
>>
>>Only thing that looks apparent is that all animals are Simple Recessive but some are visual hets. And some Super forms look and appear like their visible hets. Example Super Salmon Boas.
>>
>>GOD Bless
>>Andre
>>
>>I am willing to say I am wrong but please prove it. And not tons of "know it alls" taking sides. Science only please.
>>

I hate it when that happens! I am looking forward to reading your reply. I like it when people bring up these kinds of discussions.
-----
Ben

I know the feeling too. Next time write in an email and then cut and paste. I do that sometimes when post is long and I almost always check my spelling with it.

GOD Bless
Andre
ASFReptiles

This time I wrote it in notepad and then cut and pasted it here. There are still probably mistakes I made in editing, but at least it's here now.

Mark

>>I know the feeling too. Next time write in an email and then cut and paste. I do that sometimes when post is long and I almost always check my spelling with it.
>>
>>GOD Bless
>>Andre
>>ASFReptiles

From Shaums Outlines - Genetics forth edition. (ISBN 0-07-136206-1 in case anyone wants to look it up.)

From Chapter two - Patterns of Inheritance.

"A dominant allele is observed phenotypically in the heterozygote as well as in the homozygote. In some cases, dominance and recessiveness might be conceived as the presence or absence of a trait, protein, or gene product; however there is no general mechanism that applies to all cases of dominance in molecular or cellular terms. Dominance is not a causal property inherent in the trait or allele itself, but rather it is a relationship between pairs of alleles."

Now, based on Wills first breeding of his banana ball to a male clown (a phenotypical mutant for a trait that has previously been proven to be recessive), the clutch was evenly split between young that looked like the mother (showing the banana trait) and young that looked like wild-type animals. Now this proved two things. That the banana trait is some kind of dominant mutation (otherwise none of the young would have looked like the mother) and that the mother herself was heterozygous for the banana trait (otherwise ALL of the offspring would have looked like her)

Other terms from the book,
Wild-type and Mutant Alleles
"An allele that is very common in a population is refered to as 'wild type'. Alleles that are less common are referred to as mutant alleles. An organism exhibiiting the phenotype associated wityh the wild-type allele is termed a wild-type organism; an organism exhibiting the phenotype associated with the rare allele is termed a mutant. Often, wild-type alleles are dominant and mutant alleles are recessive; however, this is not always true and should never be assumed. Genetic testing is always required to determine the relationships between alleles."

Codominant Alleles.
"Alleles that lack dominant and recessive relationships and are both observed phenotypically to some degree are called codominant. This means that the phenotypic effect of each allele is observable in the heterozygous condition. Hence, the heterozygous genotype gives rise to a phenotype distictly different from either of the homozygous genotypes, but possesses characteristics of each. "

The book goes on to use an example of coat colors in shorthorn cattle using the coat colors of Red, Roan (a mixture of red and white) and white. I won't type the example in here since I don't know how to do superscripts in html.

Incomplete Dominance
"Alleles that lack dominance relationships and result in heterozygotes that have an intermediate phenotype that is distinct from either homozygous parent are called incompletely or partially dominant alleles. The phenotype may appear to be a "blend" in heterozygotes, but each allele maintains its individual identity and alleles will segregate from each other in the formation of gametes."

Here the book gives the snapdragon example that Ben used in the diagram from his post up above. White snapdragons crossed with red snapdragons blend their traits together to create pink snapdragons.

So we have 3 possible scenarios for the mutant alleles

a) Complete Dominant, where the offspring that carry the trait as homozygotes look identical to the offspring that carry the trait as heterozygotes.

b) Codominant, where the offspring that carry the mutant allele in it's heterozygous form look different from either the wild type form or the homozygous mutant form but still carries traits from both forms.

c) Incomplete Dominant, where you have heterozygous offspring that look visually distinct from either the wild-type form or the homozygous mutant form but look like a "blending" of the two forms.

Now, since there are no living breeding age adult males anywhere to be found. Indeed, I don't believe that there are any males at all currently. It is impossible for there to be ANY snakes that are homozygous for the banana trait. Therefore it is impossible to determine if the banana mutation is Complete Dominant, Codominant or Incomplete Dominant. The ONLY thing that can be implied by breedings done so far to date, is that the banana mutation is some kind of dominant mutation. To state or to imply that it is anything else at this point in time is wishful speculation based on incomplete data at best. Or at worst it could be a crass marketing ploy to designed to imply that a super form can be expected.

Mark

Sorry this was so long, my other response (which I lost) was actually longer but I cut it down somewhat. Any comments on this?

>>In most everyone's terms all Ball pythons are Simply Recessive, Dominant or CODominant. Without years of producing and proving there is no Super form of the Banana you can neither call the Banana a Dominant or CODominant animal, period.
>>
>>Rumor is that someone produced all Spiders in 2 or more clutches this year.
>>The father of both clutches was a Spider that was produced from Spider X Spider years ago.
>>Are you now going to change Spiders from Dominant to CODominant?
>>
>>In my understanding CODominant or Complete Dominant animals produce all of themselves. NO ANIMAL DOES THIS. NOT EVEN NORMALS. Example Normal X Pastel.
>>
>>Only thing that looks apparent is that all animals are Simple Recessive but some are visual hets. And some Super forms look and appear like their visible hets. Example Super Salmon Boas.
>>
>>GOD Bless
>>Andre
>>
>>I am willing to say I am wrong but please prove it. And not tons of "know it alls" taking sides. Science only please.
>>

Very nice Mark! Thanks for putting forth the effort to put that together. I think you, I, and Andre are mostly talking past each other and probably are meaning a lot of the same things but just not understanding each other. I guess that is what happens when you talk fast and loose about things. Anyway, I am also curious to hear any other comments other people have about this. Good stuff.
-----
Ben

You guys have had quite an informative discussion. i know Ive learned some. Thanks

Saffron

Hi Mark. Ben is my best friend. Ive been following the debate between you two. I just wanted to tell you that you both are doing a great job sharing knowledge and Ive become much more enligtened on the matter. I too find the genetics pool fascinating. Thanks for taking the time and patience to share what you have. Its pretty cool.

Saffron

I find that odd...how many exist so far?
-----
Michael Enriquez

I believe Will has produced 7 so far including the Banana Clown and Pastel, all female.

Sounds like there is a good chance that it is sex-linked. If so, you will never get a male and never get a super. The odds of getting 7 females of a morph without a female and it not being sex linked would be 1 in 128. or 0.78% chance...

If I was in Vegas, I would bet sex-linked.

There are examples of dominant sex-linked traits in other species. This would be the first for BPs...only time will tell I guess.
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

I meant 7 females of a morph without a MALE...sorry
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

Kevins' original whitesmoke/coral glow was a male.
-----
www.ESReptiles.com

Where do the banana genetics come in on that one?

I thought that was a T albino hypo?
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

The whitesmoke was proven to be a dominant type mutation. It fathered one clutch of eggs before it died, and produced 2 female offspring that Kevin calls his coral glows. It is suspected to be the same thing as the banana mutation since the babies look so similar to each other but of course this couldn't be conclusivly proved until the coral glow line and the banana line are bred together. Personally I suspect that the banana and the coral glows are the same thing, but if there had been no whitesmoke male I would also suspect that this was a sex linked mutation. But I think that what is really happening is actually just incredible bad luck in producing a male for all breeders involved. I wonder how Kevin is doing with his coral glows? Kevin? Are you reading this???? Let us know what's happening on the coral glow front.

Mark

>>Where do the banana genetics come in on that one?
>>
>>I thought that was a T albino hypo?
>>-----
>>when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

I've heard there is a male coral glow/banana that was imported a year or two ago. It's hard to know what is really out there these days.

Eric
-----
www.ESReptiles.com

Bryan