Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Conda dorsal patterns are quite variable.
Some condas that are offered for sale are very questionable.
When in doubt, what other markers do you check?
What if it has the correct dorsal pattern but doesn't have a black belly?
With regard to recessive gene Condas, amels, axanthics, pink pastel, etc. which traits are more dominant? Dorsal pattern? Belly pattern?
If my question is not clear.
Do amel condas always have a clear belly, no melanin or do you have any that have a typical amel belly pattern?
Same for axanthics or pink pastels?

The black belly is not a definite marker when it comes to condas and neither is the dorsal pattern. There are some very low expression condas that have normal looking dorsals and bellies. And there are normal that have all black bellies and dorsals that resemble condas.

One thing that is consistent with the conda gene that does not appear in normal is the "white wall" that separates the dorsal from the belly. That is the only true marker of the morph that does not change no matter how low expression the conda is.

When it comes to the co-dominant conda gene being mixed with recessives, the bellies can also look normalish in those combos. Again, the only consistent marker is the unbroken white wall on the snakes lateral.

So there can be non visual anacondas then. Has that occurred yet? Or is it because no one is keeping track of non visual hogs in a co dom type of breeding. Thanks

No, they are still visual condas because of the white wall lateral. There can be low expression condas that are harder to identify at a quick look. However, upon closer inspection, you can easily pick a low expression from a normal.

That's not what I am asking about. you have a range of expression from supers or whatever you call them, to being barely detectable. Common sense indicates that the actual limits exceed what you are now seeing and below what you are now seeing.
I am fairly sure, breeders are not testing non visuals out of a Anaconda, normal breeding, to see if they would produce visuals when bred together. Or has someone purposely tested this?

The answer to that question is, yes, it has been done many times by numerous breeder including the originator. I have even done it. Not because I was trying to prove anything, but because I have gotten normals from clutches of condas that I really liked. Normals will not in any way make condas.

With co-dominant morphs, the normal offspring in the clutch do not carry the gene for that morph so it is impossible for them to pass it on.

Low espression examples of the morph will pass on the gene for the morph the same as high expression example will. When you breed 2 animals that carry one copy of the gene, you will get "supers". These animals have both copies of the gene and take on a totally different look from normals and condas. The "super condas" are patternless.

It just seems odd that it can go to that small amount of expression and not less or better yet, undetectable.
I am not trying to argue, I have no horse in the race. Its just not logical. Just from the evidence, I would bet there are non visual anacondas. I guess the future will tell.
I am sure your giving me your honest opinion.
I am looking at this from a distance. That is, in the past, you guys did not see the range your seeing now, Which indicates that in the future you will see an even greater range of what this morph will express. In my opinion, it will increase both ways.

Hey Frank,
With co-dominant genetics, a non-visual can not carry the genetics. The het form (conda) will always show the trait. In the case of the condas, the only real defining marker is the white wall on the lateral. That will always be present.

If you look at it like recessive genes, the conda is the heterozygous form and the super conda is the homozygous form. Saying that a non-visual can produce condas is like saying a non-heterozygous of a recessive will produce a visual recessive. It just wont happen unless it is a spontaneous mutation that pops up.

This is simple genetics we are talking about here. In over 7 years of crossing and outcrossing of the morph, there has never been a non-visual conda that produced more condas.

Merry Christmas Gregg, I believe you sir, please understand, I have no problem with your past experience, but I will hold my judgement for what occurs in the next 7 years.
Please understand, Cells and their parts, chromosones are not stone. Its just more carbon based parts that are mostly liquid.
My long term experience prompts me to think that a gene that has increased its expression as much as condas have in a mere 7 years, mostly likely will keep increasing its expression. With the pairing of super-super's to super-super's and low expression to low expression, I feel will reveal a wider range then is known now. And the conda gene coupled with yet unknown genes will surely have an effect.
I could offer you a number of examples for conversation if you like. Simply put, color and pattern is some reptiles like snakes is not lock down solid. There is a trend of quick change to suit changing conditions. I think Co dom genes is a very normal path of normal phenotypic expression. In most cases its how all couplings work. Only in the hobby is how normal non successful(non normal phenotype, morph) characters are passed on. These tools in nature are simple to understand, its a method of change without endangering the whole population. Again Merry Christmas

Frank,
Hope you and the family had a great Christmas.

I agree that current genes mixed with unknown, or even known genes can produce new or currently unkown phenotypes. That is one of the fun things when we Frankenstein genetic mutations together. One never knows what lining up genes can accomplish.

With the condas, it is pretty much straight forward or so it has been thus far. Low expression conda bred to low expression conda will produce totally patternless supers, the same as high expression condas do. Low expression condas bred to normal will still produce high expression condas. The level of expression has no bearing on the expression of offspring. It is a really cool gene to work with.

If you breed super to super, your entire clutch will be supers. Conda to super conda will produce a half clutch of condas and a half clutch of supers. Super to normal produces all condas. Conda to normal = half normal, half conda.

You wrote....
"I think Co dom genes is a very normal path of normal phenotypic expression. In most cases its how all couplings work."

That is typical of polygenic traits, not co-dominance. The thing is, simple Mendelian genetics like recessive, co-dominant, incomplete dominant and dominant are set in stone because 2 sets of the gene is needed to show the full genetic mutation. The outcome of such pairings can also be reliably predicted on a punnett square. Polygenic traits on the other hand need to have several genes line up in order to express a certain look and is much more random, variable, and unpredictable.

Thanks again Gregg, Your reply was great, I am not doubting the genetics at all, just the level of expression. Easy examples are, what was the standard definition of anaconda, 4 years ago? I think many of the ultra low expression individuals were called normal. Then you learned that those you considered normal, were indeed just lower expression individuals(conda genetics)
Time will tell. And surely its not important. Its just that I have seen this in the past.
Now for a weirder question. When talking about polygentic and co dom. How do you separate or do you separate normal phenotypic traits compared to morphs. I understand that non normal traits(morphs) are easy to track. What as normal traits have a "expected" element and are normally not looked at.
What is polluting my brain is not captivity, instead the sites I am looking at in the field. One site is extremely variable in color types, and contains a number of pattern types. But zero mutations in pattern. With most species we see, pattern mutation such as striping is not all that rare. Examples are gophersnakes. A similarly blotched snake like hognose, yet its common to observe connected blotching and striping. At times, finding totally striped gophersnakes was not uncommon. Most of our Crots have blotch striping fairly common as well. ALso totally striped crots pop up from time to time, the fella I am making cages for, just picked up another(atrox). Crots also have a similar pattern to hognose. Any thoughts sir?

gregg,

great info. thanks for sharing. just for clarity, you stated, "again, the only consistent marker is the unbroken white wall on the snakes lateral."

will you please clarify that statement? does the whitewall have to run entire length of the belly and be totally white? can it have a whitewall the entire length and have some clear checkers in it?

please refer to the pic. i posted this pic several months ago of what i believe are 2 toffee condas that i hatched. i asked brent and a couple other people that concurred that they were tc's. they both have clear bellies and whitewalls although, one has more prominent clear checkers in the whitewall. the other has checkers, but less prominent.

i'm not trying to be argumentative. i'm just trying to get clarity on my snakes

thoughts?

hatchling pic.... i will get updated pics. they just ate tonight though...

.