Another question

[captaincaveman]

hi again. just a quick question with hets. if the offspring of say an amel and caramel is het butter. what percentage is that and whats the difference between 66%het and 100% het. what defines the percentage? And what difference does it make for the next generation(eg two 66% het together or whatever)

Hope that makes sense

Thanks

 

[SaulsMom]

Phenotype and genotype

Just by looking at any one snake, you cannot tell what recessive genes the snake carries. The way the snakle looks is called its phenotype. The actual genes it carries is called the genotype.

The "66% het" versus the "100% het" relates the the probability that any offspring which looks like the dominant characteristic (phenotype) will carry the recessive gene in its genotype. For example, if you breed Aa to Aa, you will get 1/4 offspring which looks like aa, and 3/4 of the offspring will look like A (Whatever it is that A stands for). (Assuming no codominant features.)

Of that 3/4 of the offspring though, 1/3 will be AA in their genotype, not carrying the recessive gene at all, and 2/3 will be Aa: looking like an A phenotype, but carrying the recessive gene in its genotype. You can only separate the AA from the Aa offspring using further trials.

Therefore, if you breed an Aa to an Aa, and you sell the A-looking phenotypes, you don't know if they are carrying the recessive gene or not. But there's a 66% chance that they do. So they are marketed as 66% het (a).

Did that make sense?

SaulsMom

 

[captaincaveman]

sort of makes sense With the example with the caramels and amels. it says they will all by het butter. does that mean that they are 100%het butters in that case and i would definetly get butters off them or have i missed something?

 

[Weebonilass]

sort of makes sense With the example with the caramels and amels. it says they will all by het butter. does that mean that they are 100%het butters in that case and i would definetly get butters off them or have i missed something?

If you get something that is 100% het butter, yes you would be more likely to get your butters. 100% means they are, in fact, carrying the het, where as with the 66%, it's likely, but not positive.

 

[captaincaveman]

ah ok. so if i breed the two mentioned, then i should know they are definite 100% hets for butter

 

[Weebonilass]

ah ok. so if i breed the two mentioned, then i should know they are definite 100% hets for butter

I'm still trying to get a grasp on snake genetics (horses are much easier) and I'm not sure how you can determine that a snake is 100% het for something. But just breeding two 66% het for butters, would not necessarily give you butters.

My new girl is 100% het for charcoal and motley. The breeder has determined (some how) that baring something weird, she has those two genes. Breeding her to a charcoal that is 100% het for motley.

Gives me a 12.50% chance of getting a normal motley and a 12.50% chance of a charcoal motley. May get one and may not

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Amel + Caramel = Butter

Which is why Amel x Caramel = Normals 100% het Butter

You know a snake is 100% het if one of the parents is expressing the morph in question.

 

[Weebonilass]

Amel + Caramel = Butter

Which is why Amel x Caramel = Normals 100% het Butter

You know a snake is 100% het if one of the parents is expressing the morph in question.

Sorry Kat, now you have me confused. If 100% means the parents are expressing it... where is the 66 or 50% come in?

Apparently, I need it explained slower.

 

[Lore]

Sorry Kat, now you have me confused. If 100% means the parents are expressing it... where is the 66 or 50% come in?

Apparently, I need it explained slower.

100% - The snake DOES carry this het
66% - The snake "has a pretty good chance" to have this het
50% - The snake may or may not carry this het

At any rate if I am looking to get a particular het, I do not mess with poss hets, 66% & 50% is not a sure enough thing for me.

However I did purchase a ghost that is "66% poss het" blood, based on the fact that he does carry the "het blood" ventral trait.



EXAMPLE:

Normal X Bloodred = Normal 100% het Bloodred

Normal X Normal het Blood = Normal 50%poss het Blood

Normal het Blood X Normal het Blood = Normal 66% poss het Bloodred & Bloodreds

 

[Susan]

Sorry Kat, now you have me confused. If 100% means the parents are expressing it... where is the 66 or 50% come in?

Apparently, I need it explained slower.

For simplicity, I will only use one morph gene in the example.

I have a normal, not het for anything, snake. I also have an anery, not het for anything, snake. The normal will be designated by "BB" and the recessive anery will be designated "bb".

If I breed the normal to the anery (BB X bb), each parent will give one of it's genes to each offspring, resulting in phenotypically normal babies (they will all look normal) but genotypically, they will be 100% het anery (Bb). They are 100% het because the anery parent could give nothing but the recessive gene to the offspring.

If I were to breed a pair of the babies to each other (Bb X Bb), each parent could give EITHER the normal gene (B) or the recessive gene (b) to each of the babies. The resulting offspring could be:

Genetically - 25% BB, 50% Bb and 25% bb
Phenotypically - 75% normal and 25% anery.

Since you cannot tell by appearance which of the normal babies are genetically BB and which are Bb, you take those babies as a whole and see that 2/3 of them will be Bb and 1/3 will be BB. Putting that in percentage...66% will be het anery and 33% not het...therefore, of all the normal looking babies, there is a 66% chance of any particular hatchling being het anery.

 

[Weebonilass]

For simplicity, I will only use one morph gene in the example.

I have a normal, not het for anything, snake. I also have an anery, not het for anything, snake. The normal will be designated by "BB" and the recessive anery will be designated "bb".

If I breed the normal to the anery (BB X bb), each parent will give one of it's genes to each offspring, resulting in phenotypically normal babies (they will all look normal) but genotypically, they will be 100% het anery (Bb). They are 100% het because the anery parent could give nothing but the recessive gene to the offspring.

If I were to breed a pair of the babies to each other (Bb X Bb), each parent could give EITHER the normal gene (B) or the recessive gene (b) to each of the babies. The resulting offspring could be:

Genetically - 25% BB, 50% Bb and 25% bb
Phenotypically - 75% normal and 25% anery.

Since you cannot tell by appearance which of the normal babies are genetically BB and which are Bb, you take those babies as a whole and see that 2/3 of them will be Bb and 1/3 will be BB. Putting that in percentage...66% will be het anery and 33% not het...therefore, of all the normal looking babies, there is a 66% chance of any particular hatchling being het anery.

So with my new one who is 100% het for Charcoal and 100% for Motley. One parent was a Charcoal and one a Motley?

I do own the CornMorph guide and I read it once, but apparently too fast...or maybe it's because the horses are so much easier colour-wise that I have a hard time grasping the het thing

 

[pcar]

So with my new one who is 100% het for Charcoal and 100% for Motley. One parent was a Charcoal and one a Motley?

I do own the CornMorph guide and I read it once, but apparently too fast...or maybe it's because the horses are so much easier colour-wise that I have a hard time grasping the het thing

Yes, this would be the only way to get a 100% het for anything.

Breeding a Charcoal to a Motley (asuming no other hets involved) would give you 100% normals het for Charcoal and Motley.

 

[Weebonilass]

Yes, this would be the only way to get a 100% het for anything.

Breeding a Charcoal to a Motley (asuming no other hets involved) would give you 100% normals het for Charcoal and Motley.

But I don't have a normal. I have an Ultramel

 

[SaulsMom]

I'm still trying to get a grasp on snake genetics (horses are much easier)

It's the same genetics as for horses, there are just more genes expressing in snakes than there are in Arabian horses. Just extrapolate bay x chestnut and chestnut x chestnut to understand the dominant and recessive stuff.

The co-dominance is where I get confused.

SaulsMom

 

[Weebonilass]

It's the same genetics as for horses, there are just more genes expressing in snakes than there are in Arabian horses. Just extrapolate bay x chestnut and chestnut x chestnut to understand the dominant and recessive stuff.

The co-dominance is where I get confused.

SaulsMom

The fact that there is so many colours in snakes, is just what makes them more complicated.

Breeding a bay to a chestnut won't give you a totally different colour. Breeding a chestnut to a chestnut will only give you a chestnut. Can't be anything hidden in there to express itself, except a little (or a lot) white and there is no way to determine that. Unless one or the other of the parents are known to throw a lot ala Abu Farwa or Khemosabi If you have a grey, one of those parents had better be grey. The only tricky color I know is black.

You can't even guarantee spots on a Appy or a Paint. Some of them will express it and some of them won't

 

[Ssthisto]

But I don't have a normal. I have an Ultramel

If you have an ultramel who is 100% het charcoal and motley, then we can make some guesses about the parents.

One parent had to be homozygous charcoal, or yours wouldn't be 100% het.
One parent (which could be the same parent) had to be homozygous motley. Same goes - otherwise, it's not 100% het.
One parent carried amelanistic.
The other parent carried ultra.

It's possible, for example, that your snake's parents were:

Blizzard (homozygous charcoal, homozygous amelanistic).
Ultra Motley (homozygous ultra, homozygous motley).

You could also get the same combination from, say:

Motley Charcoal het Amel X Ultra(or ultramel)
Ultra(or ultramel) X Motley Blizzard

Of course, the other way to prove something is a 100% het is by breeding trials. If I breed a 66% het Amelanistic snake to a visual Amelanistic or 100% het amelanistic snake and get even ONE amelanistic offspring, I've proven two things.

1. My 66% het is not 66% het - it's a 100% het amel.
2. At least one of that snake's parents carried Amel - and if it was only a 66er to start with, neither of those parents would have been visuals. Now, which parent was het... that's an entirely different question!

At the moment I'm growing on a Charcoal (+ visual anery?) 100% het bloodred, 50% het amel and hypo girl who will be bred to a Coral Snow 66% het Bloodred male... which will prove some things for me.

If I get even one bloodred-based offspring, I know the coral snow male is het bloodred.
If I get even one amelanistic (ok, probably snow if the charcoal is actually a charcoal/anery) offspring, I know my charcoal girl is het amelanistic.
If I get even one hypo (or probably ghost) offspring I know my charcoal girl is het hypo.
If I get even one NON-anery (normal, bloodred, hypo, amel) offspring, I know that the charcoal girl is NOT visual anery.
And I know that EVERY offspring I produce is going to be 100% het Charcoal (from mum) and Anery, Amel and Hypo (from dad).... and 50% het bloodred minimum....

 

[Weebonilass]

Thanks Ssssss, that helps alot. I have emailed VMS to find out the parentage on my Ultramel, which will help even more. I don't believe that it's a Charcoal motley as no one is breeding them at the moment. Jeff Mohr has some I think that will be ready this year and I know that Rich has some in his back room, but he's not breeding them and I'm not sure how old they are.

This little girl and *WHEN* I find a Charcoal het 100% Motley will be my best chance at getting a Charcoal Motley of my own.

Having examples like that are apparently what my little brain needs

 

[SaulsMom]

The fact that there is so many colours in snakes, is just what makes them more complicated.

Breeding a bay to a chestnut won't give you a totally different colour. Breeding a chestnut to a chestnut will only give you a chestnut.

I think somehow we are agreeing with each other but saying it differently. (What I was getting at is that anyone who's ever worked with Arabian coat genetics has a huge leg up on understanding all of this stuff BECAUSE there's just not that much variation. Therefore, easier to understand.)

Can't be anything hidden in there to express itself, except a little (or a lot) white and there is no way to determine that.{snip}

On the other hand, there are a lot of recessive characteristics to be tracked which are not color-coat related.

SaulsMom

 

[Weebonilass]

On the other hand, there are a lot of recessive characteristics to be tracked which are not color-coat related.

SaulsMom

Since it's off-topic, I sent you a private message about the above

 

[cornspot]

ONE amelanistic offspring, I've proven two things.

Just to throw some more confusion into the mix:
There are occasional RANDOM mutations. It happens in nature & is how the recessives got into existance in the first place (so ONE amel may not necessarily prove your het, but it PROBABLY would be)