Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Ok...I've got a question...A friend and I are butting heads on this...

Say you have a amel and a anery het amel (pretend that you can't get snow babies out of this...just anery and amel)...because of this combination...would you get ONLY amel babies 100% het for anery???

Approximatley 50% of the clutch would be normal het anery and amel, 50% amel het anery.

Clint Boyer

That's what I meant...amels and normal 100% het anery...

She was telling me that they'd only be 50% het anery...
(aka only half the clutch would be het anery)

I'm the one having the disagreement with her one this.

My argument is if only one parent is het for anery, how call 100% of the offspring be postively het for anery?

To get 100% het babies, both parents would have to carry the recessive gene or a full dominant would have to be mated to a full recessive. For example, when mating a normal to an albino, all the babies would be normal het albino.

But, in this case, Amel x Amel het Anery, it only makes sense that half the babies would be het anery. AA x AN = AA and AN babies, not all AN (A being Amel and N being Anery).

I know cornsnake genetics is rather complicated but if ALL the babies were to be het for Anery, that would defy the laws of the Mendelian Genetics.

The original post said by blkkat said amel anery het amel, according to the predictor you would get 50% normals het snow, (in other words, het amel and anery,) and 50% amels het anery.

If it was amel amel het anery you would get all amels and 50% of them would be het anery.

So it depends all on which combo you are talking about,

amel amel het anery
or
amel anery het amel

there is a large difference.
-----
DogStar

"Many have forgotten this truth, but you must not forget it. You remain responsible, forever, for what you have tamed." --Antoine de Saint Exupery

> The original post said by blkkat said amel anery het amel,
> according to the predictor you would get 50% normals het
> snow, (in other words, het amel and anery,) and 50% amels
> het anery.

> If it was amel amel het anery you would get all amels and
> 50% of them would be het anery.

Ok...so we're both right. LOL!

we're pretending that amel anery doesn't equal snow. I can't use that predicter anyway because I have a mac and it's not compatible...

so...as I had said...

amel anery het amel = amels 100% het anery and normals 100% het anery

You can't pretend you don't get snows...50% would be het snow and the other 50% would be het anery. We're both right! LOL!

Yes, I can pretend I don't get snows. It has nothing to do with what anery and amel can create. because this all started with the patternless cross snow het patternless with the leos. That's what I was comparing it to. SO I WAS RIGHT. IF snow was a genetic trait (which it's not) I would have patternless 100% het snow and normals 100% het snow.

I value our friendship more than I do this disagreement.

In the case of future conversations about breeding, I just have one more thing to say:

I cannot believe that when a trait is only 1/4 of genetic make-up offered to the offspring, 100% of the offspring will be positive het for a certain trait. According to basic genetics, that is an impossibility.

Sybella, you were right about the 50% thing IF it was an

patternless x patternless het snow crossing

but

patternless x snow het patternless is 100% het

get rid of the het patternless...and you'd have all normal 100% het for patternless & snow...which is how you would have double hets...and remember how you asked about triple hets? I think you get that from crossing a morph that 's het for a morph that needs 2 different morphs to create it (ie snow) plus it has a homo morph. Very, very simplified version!

Well, considering that we are both complete amateurs with this, I do not see the point...once we have a few years experience behind us, feel free to bring this back up again. Until then, as I said, I value our friendship more. You can freely have this victory.

"Say you have a amel and a anery het amel"

Amel X Anery het amel = normals and amels 100% het anery.

Amel X Amel het anery = All amels, 50% possible het anery.

You are qouting a different set of genes then were qouted in the first post.

Clint Boyer

I agree with Clint...

If you cross an amel with an anery het amel, the you wil get 50% amels het anery and 50% normals het snow (amel and anery). I glanced through this thread and I didn't really see where this was explained. The reason that ALL of the babies will be het anery is because the snakes have different "sets of color genes" (to put it simply). Say that amel is "aa," anery is "nn"

An anery het amel would be nnAa. An amel not het anery would be NNaa. The lowercase letters stand for recessive genes and the uppercase letters stand for dominant genes. Now break each trait apart....we'll start with the amel gene. The amel snake is aa. It can ONLY give the recessive gene to its offspring because that is all it has to give. The anery has both the recessive and the dominant "amel" gene so it gives each gene to approximately half of its offspring. That means that approximately half of the babies will receive "Aa" and half of them will receive "aa." Half will be normal and half will be amel in appearance (phenotype).

OK...now to the confusing part...why all of the offspring would be het anery. Hopefully I haven't lost you yet. The amel snake only has "NN" (the dominant gene) so it can only give that gene to it's offspring. The anery only has "nn" so it can only give the recessive gene to all of its babies. So all of the offspring will have this make up: Nn.

That means all of the babies are het anery. That trait won't show up because the dominant gene covers it up.

Anyway, the babies will be:
50% aaNa (amel het anery)
50% AaNa (normal het amel and anery [snow])

I am by no means a genetics expert and I hope I explained this in a way that you can understand. All of the anery het amels' babies WILL be het anery because that is the ONLY gene the anery can pass on to them. I hope this helps...