Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have read the Thread below as well as a few others in the past; just want to be sure I understand. The "pied markers" on a "het" or, more importantly, a possible het do not mean the snake is actually het? So, if I bought "possible hets" that had the "pied" markers, it would really mean nothing as to the snake actually being a het? The odds of a possible het without markers being het are just as good as a possible het with markers being het? Also, many balls with markers are not het for pied at all? Hope I asked the same question enough ways that one of them makes sense.
Thanks in advance.

>I have read the Thread below as well as a few others in the past; just want to be sure I understand. The "pied markers" on a "het" or, more importantly, a possible het do not mean the snake is actually het?

That is what I have gathered from these discussions.

>So, if I bought "possible hets" that had the "pied" markers, it would really mean nothing as to the snake actually being a het?

That is my opinion. I certainly wouldn't pay more for possible hets with markers than for possible hets without markers.

>The odds of a possible het without markers being het are just as good as a possible het with markers being het?

I don't think anyone has tried to work out what the odds are.

>Also, many balls with markers are not het for pied at all?

Again, that is what I have gathered from these discussions.

With prices what they are, I can understand why people would want to improve the odds of getting a het from possible hets. I just don't think these markers do what people hope they do. YMMV.

Paul Hollander

Paul, that is what I gathered too. But I have read a few statements that possible hets with markers are 70 to 80% more likely to bet than thoughs with markers. But, I have notice no one posted any factual study here. The majority seem to state it really does not matter.

I was wondering if there was a way to increase your odds even slightly with Poss het female. Sounds like there isn't.

Thanks again

The 80% quote was from Corey Woods on the % of het pieds that can be identified by sight. The 70% was from someone who reported that is what Peter Kahl said for the % of visually identifiable het pieds. I've also heard a few quotes from breeders who aren't the largest pied breeders in their respective countries who indicate 100% are identifiable. However, I've heard several reports of 100% from reliable sources without the marker so I'm inclined to think the 100% claims just aren't working with a large enough sample size.

My personal experience with ch is that only a few % have the marker. I did see a claim that 50% of them have it but I don't trust the agenda of the poster. Go to your local pet store next April and decide for yourself.

I believe the evidence is strong that there is a statistical link between being het pied and having the white belly three scales wide or very nearly that wide with thick straight black lines along the edges, particularly in the last 3rd of the snake.

I think a lot of people try to discount the link because not all hets have it and some presumed normals have something similar. Unfortunately nature isn't textbook neat. It would be nice if pied would be perfectly recessive or completely co-dominant but it looks like it's part way in-between. In pieds the white comes up from the belly leaving two black lines on the back in the non white areas. In the markered hets the white isn't as clean and only spreads across the belly leaving the black lines on the edge of the belly. Could be co-incidence but I'm seeing a relationship, especially given the tendency for the het pieds to show this marker. There is good evidence for sporadic het signs in Burmese pythons too. I don't know what the mechanism is by which a gene sometimes acts recessive and sometimes co-dominant but it seems to be possible.