Pied questions

I know there is no het pied to say, but can a sibling pair that show no pied markes that came from pied parents make pied? Or if ever one parent is pied and the other not make pied? Thanks

This is one I haven't cared enough about to research properly. Many insist that there is a pied gene that just expresses poorly sometimes. I'm not totally convinced that's true, but I'm also not totally convinced it isn't. To my knowledge, siblings from pied parents do frequently produce more pied, but I don't know if a single pied parent can produce more. Perhaps if not, it is evidence that there really is a pied gene?

I'm just curious if the pair I purchased as so called het pied will make more. I wish I had done a bit more research before purchasing them. I had no idea that it had not been proven ressesive when I purchased the pair. None the less I should have a nice pair of fires. Thanks

Because of its varied expression, I think it's a little hard to prove out. It seems to follow the rules for a recessive mutation, but again I haven't done much research into it and I don't have any known pieds, just a weirdo cayenne fire that seems to have a little pseudo-pied expression.

SOOO, when did someone decide that the PS (pied-sided) Bloodreds (both alleles) are not mutations? Just wondering what data was involved in such a decision. Don't forget that the first pairing was a Visual p/s from me (SMR) to a Visual McDonald p/s and no p/s progeny resulted. We then discovered that they were not allelic. Hence, this is why they are sometimes difficult to assign a mutation. When you can breed two visually p/s Bloodreds together and get no p/s progeny, one knee-jerk reaction is to declare that they are polygenetic (instead of mutational). Since there appears to be no visual distinction between the two mutations, don't expect traditional Mendelian Punnet Square proportion results, since it's not possible to visually distinguish between the two? You might be breeding a McDonald Visual P/S Bloodred to a Bloodred that's het for SMR P/S, but NOT het for McDonald P/S? Or you could have one P/S Bloodred that is both McDonald AND SMR. OR a McDonald P/S that's het for SMR or vice-versa. SO, back to my initial query, where is the data that says they are not mutations??

I'm not sure which line my are from. I bought a pair of siblings from vms that were labeled fire het pied side 66% possibly het anery. Just wondering if they may make more pied because that's what I was going for. Thanks

You have a 25% per egg chance of getting a P/S animal when breeding two Hets. The actually amount of white is variable. High whites do not always produce high white offspring and the same is true of low whites and everything in between.
Some people who sell animals don't understand genetics completely, if at all, and mislabel animals. Sean at VMS is very good at keeping records. So if he sold them as Het P/S then I would trust it to be accurate info.
I'm curious. Why did you say in your original post that there is no such thing as "Het for Pied Sided"? Where did that assumption come from?

Terri

Well I meant that it hasn't been proven to be ressesive, right? I trust sean, I've watched his site for years and figured if he still in bissness then he has to be doing something right. I'm just really confused on the pied genetics, kinda surprised that it hasn't been totally figured out yet. I guess all good things take time. From my understanding it's linked to the bloodred gene and it has not been separated from them as of yet. I've read that 2 pied don't always make pied. So wondered if I can expect to get pied from my pair. My comment about no hets is because I would think that it would have to be a proven gene to be considered a het. I'm sorry for not being up to date on everything, I've only really worked with leopard geckos and way less going on with them. Just curious, what would you consider the pied gene to be? As if you had to give it a label, ressesive, codom, dom, and so on. Like I said it's been all of 5 years since I've really studied any of this stuff. Thanks

Like Don stated it is a proven recessive gene. As for getting a P/S when breeding two Het or even two Homo animals there is a slight twist. The expression of the gene is varied. We as a community have come to think of the white up the sides of an animal as being the expression of being Homo P/S, but there is more to it. Animals can still be Homo P/S with very little if any white. I've worked with both the McDonald and SMR lines for over 12 years sussing out the mechanics of the gene. In both lines, as well as the two combined, varying amounts of white laterally will be produced. The most lateral white seems to occur when the lines are both Homo in the parents. Lateral Blushing is actually thought to be a form of high white P/S that is obscured by reds created by iridophores (similar to what we call "Red Factor") in the scale layer. We see this when we remove the scales in P/S animals. The scaleless hatchlings have far more lateral white visible than do their scaled siblings in repeated clutches.
The expression is linked with the Diffused/Bloodred gene. And can be demonstrated in any morph combined with that gene given enough selective breeding trials. (Pewter P/S, Granite P/S, Caramel Blood P/S, Fire P/S, etc.)
On a side note, my testing has also shown that white crossing the dorsal ridge, i.e. spine, is associated with spinal deformities. So we may never see white markings in corns similar to what we see in BP's arising from the P/S gene.

Terri

Thanks terri for clearing that up for me. I hope to make a couple, they are one of my favorite looking corns.