-
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.
Double Hets
- Thread starter kingnoel
- Start date
What is meant is that the snake is het Anery and het Amel/Albino (thus, able to produce Snows).
DeadMouse
Hungry, hungry Hognose!
This is the correct answer .
Double het Snow basically means the animal is heterozyous for both recessive genes Axanthism (in this case for hognose, not Anerythrism from the best of my research) and Albinism. I'm not sure why people have not used the simple term "het for Snow" and it gets even more confusing when they say "possible het for Snow" simply because typically these pairings are from 100% double het Snows and you won't know what genes that the normals may be carrying from either or both parents until trial breedings take place to ascertain if they are in fact carriers of one or both genes if any at all.
Currently there are only 3 double het recessive traits for hognose that are publicly known and being worked with:
1. double het Axanthic and Albino = "Snow". Originally proven by Brian Barczyk.
2. double het Axanthic and T+ Albino (also incorrectly known as a hypo) = "Ghost". Originally proven by Vin Russo.
3. double het Axanthic and Pink Pastel which has not been proven out yet but should be by late 2012 or 2013. AFAIK, I'm the only one that has publicly announced that I have 3.2 of these (from my own breedings) although I know of a few other individuals who have stated an interest in breeding their own this year to work with.
There are definitely other double het recessive and I suspect triple het recessive hognose currently being worked with although the majority of breeders working with these animals are keeping a very tight lid on their projects until they prove them out.
I hope that is helpful to you. And welcome to the wonderful world of Western Hognose!
DeadMouse
Hungry, hungry Hognose!
A T+ Albino is a completely different recessive gene which is incompatible with other Albino genes. In other words, if you breed a T+ Albino to a normal Albino, you'll get all normals that are het for both recessive genes.
But on the same level, not all Albinos are exactly pure Albinos either as you referred to Red Albinos. The red part of Red Albinos is not part of the Albino gene but is a coloration gene that is separate. Red Albinos come from selective breeding red colored hognose with Albinos until the two traits were mixed. However, you can breed a Red Albino to a normal non-red animals, get all het Albinos, inbreed all of your hets and not produce a single Red Albino or maybe produce all Red Albinos since the red coloration is not part of the Albino gene. But going back to just Albino genes, if you breed a Red Albino to a Yellow Albino, you'll produce Albinos, they just might not be what you are expecting in terms of coloration.
Please, ask away. I love talking hognose and genetics.
Supercondas and anaconda, an anaconda bred to a normal gives a mix of anaconda and normal, ie no such thing as het for anaconda. Correct? Same with super to normal? Superconda to anaconda gives all Superconda and anaconda? These are dominant traits, right? Not co-dominance? Is there blending of the phenotypes or pretty much one or the other? Thank you again so much!
DeadMouse
Hungry, hungry Hognose!
Correct. There is no het for Anaconda, primarily because an Anaconda is the het form of a Superconda. The Superconda is the homozygous phenotype of that particular gene which is a co-dominant trait.
If you breed a Superconda to a Normal, you should get all Anacondas based again on the fact that Anacondas are the phenotypic het form of the Superconda. The gene behavior is the same as in recessive traits with the exception that there is a definite phenotype.
That is currently the belief, that the Superconda gene should behave like a recessive gene in that a homo to a 100% het should yield a 50/50 mix of homos and hets, in this case, Supercondas and Anacondas. However, I am unaware of whether Brent's clutches have proven this out or not considering the fact that Supercondas are still quite rare.
If you are interested in some of the traits and markers of Supercondas/Anacondas, you might be interested in this thread that I started and elaborated here.
No, the Superconda/Anaconda traits are co-dominant. If they were dominant, then if you were to breed a Superconda to a normal, all you would get is Supercondas. Think of it this way, the normal wild type phenotype for all animals is generally the Dominant trait. If you breed a normal to an Albino, you get all normals. Why? Because the normal trait is dominant. A dominant gene is apparent when the base pair is mixed and the trait still appears as it would if it's base pair was the same. I wrote a complete breakdown of how this works in recessive genes based on Snow hognose here.
Again, I wrote an extensive article on this about concerning Codominance and Incomplete Dominance here and if you want to go further down the rabbit hole on how I interpreted the blending of phenotypes, you can read about what some of our opinions are on the definitions of some of these topics, starting off with this post I wrote and read the subsequent replies by CBH underneath. I don't think any of us really created enough complelling arguments to change each others stances too much, but it was an interesting debate all the same.
DeadMouse
Hungry, hungry Hognose!
You're welcome!
The problem with a lot of this kind of genetic stuff is that there's a lot of interpretation and misconceptions about what some of these terms mean, how they should be (and are) defined and how they relate to what those of us are working with in the pet trade under artificial conditions. The biggest problems are that some of the literature can sometimes contradict each other or leave such gaping holes in defining how some of these traits should be considered when mixed with each other. I always tried to include all of my references when I got deep into some of these discussions to help cement my points/interpretations but again, people often times read the same thing and get something entirely different out of it. But definitately read all of the references I included with some of those posts I made and see if you come to the same conclusions that I did. If not, please share your thoughts and ideas as I always love to hear what others think about these things because I don't always think I'm correct in my interpretations either.
The problem with a lot of this kind of genetic stuff is that there's a lot of interpretation and misconceptions about what some of these terms mean, how they should be (and are) defined and how they relate to what those of us are working with in the pet trade under artificial conditions. The biggest problems are that some of the literature can sometimes contradict each other or leave such gaping holes in defining how some of these traits should be considered when mixed with each other. I always tried to include all of my references when I got deep into some of these discussions to help cement my points/interpretations but again, people often times read the same thing and get something entirely different out of it. But definitately read all of the references I included with some of those posts I made and see if you come to the same conclusions that I did. If not, please share your thoughts and ideas as I always love to hear what others think about these things because I don't always think I'm correct in my interpretations either.
rickmoss95
New member
a het snow or "double"het snow is simply a normal appearing hognose that is het for both anery and albino. if that is what you got that is a good grab! anery hogs and especially snow hognose snakes are very expensive still, and will remain so for a long time! last time i looked i think snow hognoses were still like two thousand bucks, and that was not that long ago! i think anerys are in the neighborhood of like six hundred or more. if you got double het snows in the form of a visual albino het anery or anery het albino, im thinking those are both around a grand or more. i think the hog morphs are gonna stay pretty high priced for a while. i could be off a little on that, but of i am its not off by very much at all.