• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Tessera Motley!

First pic: I'd say it is a homo motley until proven differently. Second one: pinstripe motley. Last one: tesserra.
 
Jim Godfrey said:
Am I totally or is there no such thing as a het tessera with it being a dominant morph?
Click to expand...

Nope, you are not crazy. :D There is no het tessera. It either shows as a visual, or the animal does not have the tessera gene.

I think many people still get confused since this is one of the only dominant corn genes. (Aside from Buf)
 
...genetically there is of course a het tessera?!

the only difference compared to amelanism, anerythrism, etc is, even in het form it is visible in phenotype ---> dominant inheritance, but these animals' genotype is of course het. for tessera.
 
JimGERcream said:
...genetically there is of course a het tessera?!

the only difference compared to amelanism, anerythrism, etc is, even in het form it is visible in phenotype ---> dominant inheritance, but these animals' genotype is of course het. for tessera.
Click to expand...
Apart from breeding trials, has any reliable visual difference been found between het and homo tesseras?
 
Thanks Autumn. How did you know crazy was the word I totally left out of my post? I hate typing on a phone. Lol
 
diamondlil said:
Apart from breeding trials, has any reliable visual difference been found between het and homo tesseras?
Click to expand...

Not that I've heard. At home I have a picture of one that proved homo, I'll dig it up and post. Best I could tell, it looked like any other.
 
JimGERcream said:
...genetically there is of course a het tessera?!

the only difference compared to amelanism, anerythrism, etc is, even in het form it is visible in phenotype ---> dominant inheritance, but these animals' genotype is of course het. for tessera.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but a "het" will not breed to a "het" and produce tesseras. Or at least I do not believe it has been accomplished. The "normal" siblings can sometime look wonky, but I don't think people have been able to breed normal tessera sibling to normal tessera sibling and make tesseras. That's what I was getting at.

I was breaking it down in the most simple way possible to avoid someone coming back later and saying "this guy sold me het tesseras, but I can't get them to produce tesseras."
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Well yes, but a "het" will not breed to a "het" and produce tesseras. Or at least I do not believe it has been accomplished.

I was breaking it down in the most simple way possible to avoid someone coming back later and saying "this guy sold me het tesseras, but I can't get them to produce tesseras."
Click to expand...

I believe it's more a problem of missing knowledge about genetics for those people. We all know "het's" as invisble things in corns, but this is just normal in recessive genes. dominant and codominant genes are all visible in het-form, it's the nature of the beast. If you understand genetics, without just looking on corns, it is self-explanatory that e.g. tesseras have to be visible in phenotype in order to be part of an animal.

maybe I got you wrong, maybe I failed to get my point of view across, I'm really not a good english speaker but I tried my best :D
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Well yes, but a "het" will not breed to a "het" and produce tesseras. Or at least I do not believe it has been accomplished. The "normal" siblings can sometime look wonky, but I don't think people have been able to breed normal tessera sibling to normal tessera sibling and make tesseras. That's what I was getting at.

I was breaking it down in the most simple way possible to avoid someone coming back later and saying "this guy sold me het tesseras, but I can't get them to produce tesseras."
Click to expand...

A het tessera is the tesseras we normally see as tesseras, the super form has both tessera genes and will produce all tesseras unlike the het tesseras (who are still showing or are visually tesseras) who produce half tesseras.
You are right there is no such thing as a non visual "het" tessera that would produce tesseras.
I am pretty sure this is correct but have been wrong before!!!!!!!!!!
John
 
JimGERcream said:
I believe it's more a problem of missing knowledge about genetics for those people. We all know "het's" as invisble things in corns, but this is just normal in recessive genes. dominant and codominant genes are all visible in het-form, it's the nature of the beast. If you understand genetics, without just looking on corns, it is self-explanatory that e.g. tesseras have to be visible in phenotype in order to be part of an animal.

maybe I got you wrong, maybe I failed to get my point of view across, I'm really not a good english speaker but I tried my best :D
Click to expand...

No worries at all! :D I edited my post to explain a little better the point I was making. We just misunderstood each other a little bit.

I just worry about someone trying to lie by selling someone a het tessera, and making them think they can produce tesseras from a het to het breeding in the traditional sense of corn genes.
 
JimGERcream said:
I believe it's more a problem of missing knowledge about genetics for those people. We all know "het's" as invisble things in corns, but this is just normal in recessive genes. dominant and codominant genes are all visible in het-form, it's the nature of the beast. If you understand genetics, without just looking on corns, it is self-explanatory that e.g. tesseras have to be visible in phenotype in order to be part of an animal.

maybe I got you wrong, maybe I failed to get my point of view across, I'm really not a good english speaker but I tried my best :D
Click to expand...

I guess I was writing as you where so I missed this but I think you are saying the same thing I was trying to say.
John
 
zorro said:
A het tessera is the tesseras we normally see as tesseras, the super form has both tessera genes and will produce all tesseras unlike the het tesseras (who are still showing or are visually tesseras) who produce half tesseras.
You are right there is no such thing as a non visual "het" tessera that would produce tesseras.
I am pretty sure this is correct but have been wrong before!!!!!!!!!!
John
Click to expand...

Yep. That's what I was getting at John. I did not go into enough detail in my first post, my fault for not being more clear.

Most of the people in the hobby read "het" as the non-visual representation of something.

Lord knows people have read stuff on the forums and twisted it out of shape to scam someone.
 
I know it has not been proven yet with the motley tesseras, but it has with striped tesseras so if stripe and motley are on the same locus why wouldnt a motley from a tessera clutch not be carrying tessera? Im not saying all of the motleys will have the tessera gene but some of them should correct?? Im not 100% sure but I think they will.
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Yep. That's what I was getting at John. I did not go into enough detail in my first post, my fault for not being more clear.

Most of the people in the hobby read "het" as the non-visual representation of something.

Lord knows people have read stuff on the forums and twisted it out of shape to scam someone.
Click to expand...
Normal offspring from a tess clutch are just that, normals. het tessera produces the pattern, as does homo tessera. I suppose someone could try to sell the normals as 'siblings', but they'd get egg on their face pretty quickly
 
diamondlil said:
Normal offspring from a tess clutch are just that, normals. het tessera produces the pattern, as does homo tessera. I suppose someone could try to sell the normals as 'siblings', but they'd get egg on their face pretty quickly
Click to expand...

I do call my normal babies "siblings" as the Tessera gene does often have a visual effect on the normals, but I do not ever imply that anyone can produce Tessera's from normal siblings, as I'm sure some have tried to do.
I view it similar to the Carpet Python Jag gene, where teh normal siblings do not carry the Jag gene, but the Jag gene does tend to influnce the look of the Normals.

Does that make sense? (I'm up way earlier than I'm used to).
 
diamondlil said:
Normal offspring from a tess clutch are just that, normals. het tessera produces the pattern, as does homo tessera. I suppose someone could try to sell the normals as 'siblings', but they'd get egg on their face pretty quickly
Click to expand...

Sadly, it's been done. There was a guy at a local show trying to do just that this year. Some people see "het" as "only carrying" the gene. He was trying to pass off the normal sibs as "het" like het anery or het amels. Several of us quickly outed him as a fraud. It was a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top