-
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.
new to bloodred..
- Thread starter ronlina
- Start date
ecreipeoj
Striped Topaz SK SG Free
Co-dominant
The co-dominant Hypo Salmon gene can be a Super Hypo Gene. This is where an animal is Homo for two co-dominant hypo genes, just like in Paint Horses. This animal when bred to any boa, lets say a normal, will produce all Salmon Boas, but they will be single Homo Salmons. A single homo Salmon bred to a normal will produce 50% single homo Salmons and 50% normals. Salmon X Salmon will produce some Super Salmons, some Single homo Salmons and some normals. It would be very interesting if this was the case with Bloodreds, but it doesn’t seem so.
The Salmons are caused by a mutant hypo gene. I am not sure of the pattern on the Bloodreds, but it doesn’t seem so. If this was the case you could breed a Bloodred to a normal and half of the babies would be Bloodred and they would not be an in between stage.
The co-dominant Hypo Salmon gene can be a Super Hypo Gene. This is where an animal is Homo for two co-dominant hypo genes, just like in Paint Horses. This animal when bred to any boa, lets say a normal, will produce all Salmon Boas, but they will be single Homo Salmons. A single homo Salmon bred to a normal will produce 50% single homo Salmons and 50% normals. Salmon X Salmon will produce some Super Salmons, some Single homo Salmons and some normals. It would be very interesting if this was the case with Bloodreds, but it doesn’t seem so.
The Salmons are caused by a mutant hypo gene. I am not sure of the pattern on the Bloodreds, but it doesn’t seem so. If this was the case you could breed a Bloodred to a normal and half of the babies would be Bloodred and they would not be an in between stage.
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
Joe,
Using your Salmon boa vs. Super Hypo genetics example, let me show you what I am saying:
Super Hypo Salmon is the equivalent of a Bloodred Pattern mutant
Salmon is the equivalent of an animal het for the pattern mutation
Breed a Super Hypo to Super Hypo and you get all Super Hypos (Breed a bloodred to a bloodred and you get all bloodreds)
Breed a Super Hypo to a Salmon and you get 50% Salmons and 50% Super Hypos (Breed a bloodred to a het for bloodred and you get 50% bloodreds and 50% het bloodreds)
Breed a Super Hypo to a normal boa and you get all Salmons (Breed a bloodred to a normal and you get all animals showing the het for the pattern mutation specifics -- checker free stripe down the belly center, etc.)
Breed two Salmons together and you get 25% Super Hypos, 50% Salmons, and 25% normal boas (Breed two het for bloodreds together and you get 25% bloodreds, 50% hets for bloodred, and 25% normals).
Joe, if you can see that Salmon is a co-dominant trait, because it works as it is lined out above, why can we not say that the pattern mutation common to all bloodreds (pewters, butter bloods, lav bloods, et. al.) is also co-dominant when it acts in EXACTLY the same way?
You said, "The Salmons are caused by a mutant hypo gene. I am not sure of the pattern on the Bloodreds, but it doesn’t seem so. If this was the case you could breed a Bloodred to a normal and half of the babies would be Bloodred and they would not be an in between stage."
However, you are mixing apples and oranges here, because the bloodred pattern is not analogous to the Salmon boa. The bloodred pattern is the result of being homozygous for a mutation, while the Salmon boa is the result of being heterozygous for a mutation. If you compare apples to apples, you would say that bloodred is just like a Super Hypo boa. If you breed a Super Hypo to a normal, you get something that is in between -- The Salmon. If you breed a bloodred patterned animal to a normal, you get something in between -- the het bloodred!
I'm just trying to get us all on the same page here. I am not trying to be offensive in this in any way, even though I am somewhat passionate about this subject.
Using your Salmon boa vs. Super Hypo genetics example, let me show you what I am saying:
Super Hypo Salmon is the equivalent of a Bloodred Pattern mutant
Salmon is the equivalent of an animal het for the pattern mutation
Breed a Super Hypo to Super Hypo and you get all Super Hypos (Breed a bloodred to a bloodred and you get all bloodreds)
Breed a Super Hypo to a Salmon and you get 50% Salmons and 50% Super Hypos (Breed a bloodred to a het for bloodred and you get 50% bloodreds and 50% het bloodreds)
Breed a Super Hypo to a normal boa and you get all Salmons (Breed a bloodred to a normal and you get all animals showing the het for the pattern mutation specifics -- checker free stripe down the belly center, etc.)
Breed two Salmons together and you get 25% Super Hypos, 50% Salmons, and 25% normal boas (Breed two het for bloodreds together and you get 25% bloodreds, 50% hets for bloodred, and 25% normals).
Joe, if you can see that Salmon is a co-dominant trait, because it works as it is lined out above, why can we not say that the pattern mutation common to all bloodreds (pewters, butter bloods, lav bloods, et. al.) is also co-dominant when it acts in EXACTLY the same way?
You said, "The Salmons are caused by a mutant hypo gene. I am not sure of the pattern on the Bloodreds, but it doesn’t seem so. If this was the case you could breed a Bloodred to a normal and half of the babies would be Bloodred and they would not be an in between stage."
However, you are mixing apples and oranges here, because the bloodred pattern is not analogous to the Salmon boa. The bloodred pattern is the result of being homozygous for a mutation, while the Salmon boa is the result of being heterozygous for a mutation. If you compare apples to apples, you would say that bloodred is just like a Super Hypo boa. If you breed a Super Hypo to a normal, you get something that is in between -- The Salmon. If you breed a bloodred patterned animal to a normal, you get something in between -- the het bloodred!
I'm just trying to get us all on the same page here. I am not trying to be offensive in this in any way, even though I am somewhat passionate about this subject.
cowtownherper
New member
Wane To decrease gradually in size , amount, intensity, or degree. Waning pattern Butter Just a thought.
goldenburm
Pyro-maniac!
I know this is a corn thread but I have a salmon hypo coming very very soon!
ecreipeoj
Striped Topaz SK SG Free
Salmon Boa, poss Super, poss amel
Darin,
My understanding of a co-dominant gene and yours are different. Perhaps not, now that I just re-read your post, but it seems that the way you are applying it to the bloodreds is not the way a co-dominant gene works. Perhaps, I do not know exactly what heterozygous means, but I thought it meant that an animal was caring a recessive gene that is hidden and not a co-dominant gene that is expressed.
If you breed a Blood to a normal and get Het bloods, isn’t that a recessive trait, that should not show. If it is or was a co-dominant trait you would get half Bloodreds and half normals. I acutely do not know how the Bloodred gene acts. If it is co-dominant, then anytime one of the parents is a Bloodred, you will produce some Bloodreds and some normals. The normals would not be het for Bloodred. They would not carry the gene at all. Do you always get some Bloodreds from a Bloodred X Normal breeding? If so, then it is a co-dominant gene.
Perhaps, I understand how a co-dominant gene works, but do not know if the correct term is homo or het for an animal that carries it. It is also called a semi-dominant gene in other places. I have a great deal of experience breeding a co-dominant gene. The gene in Painted Horses and Spotted Donkeys is a co-dominant gene, just like the Salmon Hypo gene is a co-dominant gene. A co-dominant gene cannot be carried as a het., at least my understanding of het. There is no such thing as a Normal het for co-dominant, at least not in Paints, Spotteds or Salmons and they act the same way
If a boa is caring the Salmon gene, due to the fact that it is co-dominant, that gene is expressed and you can see it as a Salmon. It doesn’t matter if it is a Single Homo Salmon or Double homo Salmon it still looks like a Salmon. If a normal comes out of a Salmon to Salmon breeding, it is not het for Salmon, it does not carry the Salmon gene and can never produce a Salmon offspring. (Well, unless bred to a Salmon)
I deal with the Paint Horse and Spotted Donkeys people a lot. Many of them think that their solid donkey out of a Spotted is het for spotted, so they breed it to a spotted. When they get a spotted foal, they say, see I was right. However, the spotted foal did not come from the solid Jenny, it came from the Spotted Jack. If you breed a pair of solid donkeys out of spotted parents until the end of time, you will never get a spotted foal, because the gene is not there.
WOW, This has got way too long. I have got to get back to feeding. I have bred several Bloodreds to normally patterned Homo mutations this year. If would be sweet if the Bloodred gene is co-dominant then, I will produce Bloodreds that are het for Lava, and Bloodreds het for Lava/Pewters, without having to go to the next step. I don’t expect this, but I have a feeling from the way everybody is talking that I will see some strange things that I will not have an explanation for.
Just in case somebody doesn’t know what a Salmon Boa is here is one of my guys.
Darin,
My understanding of a co-dominant gene and yours are different. Perhaps not, now that I just re-read your post, but it seems that the way you are applying it to the bloodreds is not the way a co-dominant gene works. Perhaps, I do not know exactly what heterozygous means, but I thought it meant that an animal was caring a recessive gene that is hidden and not a co-dominant gene that is expressed.
If you breed a Blood to a normal and get Het bloods, isn’t that a recessive trait, that should not show. If it is or was a co-dominant trait you would get half Bloodreds and half normals. I acutely do not know how the Bloodred gene acts. If it is co-dominant, then anytime one of the parents is a Bloodred, you will produce some Bloodreds and some normals. The normals would not be het for Bloodred. They would not carry the gene at all. Do you always get some Bloodreds from a Bloodred X Normal breeding? If so, then it is a co-dominant gene.
Perhaps, I understand how a co-dominant gene works, but do not know if the correct term is homo or het for an animal that carries it. It is also called a semi-dominant gene in other places. I have a great deal of experience breeding a co-dominant gene. The gene in Painted Horses and Spotted Donkeys is a co-dominant gene, just like the Salmon Hypo gene is a co-dominant gene. A co-dominant gene cannot be carried as a het., at least my understanding of het. There is no such thing as a Normal het for co-dominant, at least not in Paints, Spotteds or Salmons and they act the same way
If a boa is caring the Salmon gene, due to the fact that it is co-dominant, that gene is expressed and you can see it as a Salmon. It doesn’t matter if it is a Single Homo Salmon or Double homo Salmon it still looks like a Salmon. If a normal comes out of a Salmon to Salmon breeding, it is not het for Salmon, it does not carry the Salmon gene and can never produce a Salmon offspring. (Well, unless bred to a Salmon)
I deal with the Paint Horse and Spotted Donkeys people a lot. Many of them think that their solid donkey out of a Spotted is het for spotted, so they breed it to a spotted. When they get a spotted foal, they say, see I was right. However, the spotted foal did not come from the solid Jenny, it came from the Spotted Jack. If you breed a pair of solid donkeys out of spotted parents until the end of time, you will never get a spotted foal, because the gene is not there.
WOW, This has got way too long. I have got to get back to feeding. I have bred several Bloodreds to normally patterned Homo mutations this year. If would be sweet if the Bloodred gene is co-dominant then, I will produce Bloodreds that are het for Lava, and Bloodreds het for Lava/Pewters, without having to go to the next step. I don’t expect this, but I have a feeling from the way everybody is talking that I will see some strange things that I will not have an explanation for.
Just in case somebody doesn’t know what a Salmon Boa is here is one of my guys.
Attachments
Perhaps, I do not know exactly what heterozygous means, but I thought it meant that an animal was caring a recessive gene that is hidden and not a co-dominant gene that is expressed.
Heterozygous has nothing to do with whether or not a gene acts as a recessive, a co-dominant/partially dominant/partially recessive, or a dominant. The term heterozygous literally means the genes are not alike...period. In the case of dominant genes, if you have a parent expressing the trait it may be homozygous (ZZ) or heterozygous (Zz) for that trait. Homo = alike, hetero = different.
In regards to codominance, there is nothing that says the effect has to be 50% between all or none...or even the same in every case. It means that some (1 to 99%) of the trait shows in the heterozygous form. It's not completely absent (0%) or fully there (100%). IMO, this does describe the hets of "bloodreds".
Heterozygous has nothing to do with whether or not a gene acts as a recessive, a co-dominant/partially dominant/partially recessive, or a dominant. The term heterozygous literally means the genes are not alike...period. In the case of dominant genes, if you have a parent expressing the trait it may be homozygous (ZZ) or heterozygous (Zz) for that trait. Homo = alike, hetero = different.
In regards to codominance, there is nothing that says the effect has to be 50% between all or none...or even the same in every case. It means that some (1 to 99%) of the trait shows in the heterozygous form. It's not completely absent (0%) or fully there (100%). IMO, this does describe the hets of "bloodreds".
Serpwidgets
New member
Joe, can you clarify the Salmon thing? I'm not sure whether you're saying there are two or three phenotypes. If there are only two phenotypes, then salmon is not co-dominant, but completely dominant. If there are three phenotypes, it is codominant. 
-----
The term het strictly means that the paired genes are not the same. It has absolutely no dependence on outward appearances. If Salmon is codominant, then you have three genotypes:
Codominance is more easily illustrated in roses:
If Red is dominant to White, here are the possibilities:
-----
The "diffuse pattern" appears to act like a codominant in many cases, and as a recessive in other cases. This is not unprecedented. In horses, the normal counterpart to the tobiano paint gene acts like a recessive in most cases, but occasionally it can be co-dominant. The same is true of the "roan" gene in horses. Pattern traits can vary in their expressiveness, even to the point where a "dominant" gene is almost completely undetectable when present.
Anyway, the argument for the "diffuse" pattern being a single (recessive or codominant) trait is very strong. IMO at least as strong as any of the other accepted mutants.
Look at the ancestry of my "bloodred" Mary, and it paints an interesting picture. She came from a Pewter crossed to an Anery het Bloodred and Amel. Now, let's look for the closest ancestor that could possibly be a "pure" (original line) bloodred:
The pewter had to have come from parents that were both het for charcoal. The original bloods were not, so neither of his parents were "originals." Best case scenario is that he came from double-hets, which would make his grandparents "Bloodred X Charcoal." This means that my bloodred, on her father's side, has at best a great-grandparent that was an original bloodred.
On the mother's side, we have pretty much the same deal. That is, an Anery het blood/amel couldn't have come directly from an "original" bloodred parent. Therefore, the "best" case scenario is that the Anery's grandparents were a Snow and a Bloodred, or something very similar. In this case, this gives my bloodred, at best, a great-grandparent on the mother's side, too.
(If Kathy got bored and actually wanted to look up her ancestry and see how close I guessed, she is a 1997 hatch from 92005 X 91113.)
How many selectively bred looks (Okeetee, Miami, Keys, Kisatchie) can be outcrossed and recovered, from unrelated lines, into F3s, from animals that don't necessarily show "the look" in the intermediate generations? Can you take some non-okeetee-looking normals that came from a single Okeetee ancestor and get any kind of consistent recovery of the Okeetee look? No way.
Also consider that my bloodred was bred to a pewter in 2000 and produced a clutch consisting entirely of offspring showing the same pattern. Two of those offspring were then bred to each other and produced "snow bloodred" offspring also expressing that "same" pattern.
This one family line has now carried the same pattern consistently and predictably through at least five generations. Now, if you were to cross one of those "snow bloodred" individuals to Rich's bloodred lavender (which would mean they've been bred in very different directions for a good number of generations, at least six generations on one side) would anyone care to bet that the offspring will NOT show the "same pattern" as the proposed great, great, great, great grandparents did?
Would you make the same bet if I replaced "bloodred" with a "Miami phase" snow corn or an "Okeetee phase" lavender?
-----
The term het strictly means that the paired genes are not the same. It has absolutely no dependence on outward appearances. If Salmon is codominant, then you have three genotypes:
- Normal (homozygous normal)
Salmon (heterozygous normal/salmon)
Super (homozygous salmon)
Codominance is more easily illustrated in roses:
If Red is dominant to White, here are the possibilities:
- Red/Red = RED
Red/White = RED (heterozygous)
White/White = WHITE
- Red/Red = RED
Red/White = PINK (heterozygous)
White/White = WHITE
-----
The "diffuse pattern" appears to act like a codominant in many cases, and as a recessive in other cases. This is not unprecedented. In horses, the normal counterpart to the tobiano paint gene acts like a recessive in most cases, but occasionally it can be co-dominant. The same is true of the "roan" gene in horses. Pattern traits can vary in their expressiveness, even to the point where a "dominant" gene is almost completely undetectable when present.
Anyway, the argument for the "diffuse" pattern being a single (recessive or codominant) trait is very strong. IMO at least as strong as any of the other accepted mutants.
Look at the ancestry of my "bloodred" Mary, and it paints an interesting picture. She came from a Pewter crossed to an Anery het Bloodred and Amel. Now, let's look for the closest ancestor that could possibly be a "pure" (original line) bloodred:
The pewter had to have come from parents that were both het for charcoal. The original bloods were not, so neither of his parents were "originals." Best case scenario is that he came from double-hets, which would make his grandparents "Bloodred X Charcoal." This means that my bloodred, on her father's side, has at best a great-grandparent that was an original bloodred.
On the mother's side, we have pretty much the same deal. That is, an Anery het blood/amel couldn't have come directly from an "original" bloodred parent. Therefore, the "best" case scenario is that the Anery's grandparents were a Snow and a Bloodred, or something very similar. In this case, this gives my bloodred, at best, a great-grandparent on the mother's side, too.
(If Kathy got bored and actually wanted to look up her ancestry and see how close I guessed, she is a 1997 hatch from 92005 X 91113.)
How many selectively bred looks (Okeetee, Miami, Keys, Kisatchie) can be outcrossed and recovered, from unrelated lines, into F3s, from animals that don't necessarily show "the look" in the intermediate generations? Can you take some non-okeetee-looking normals that came from a single Okeetee ancestor and get any kind of consistent recovery of the Okeetee look? No way.
Also consider that my bloodred was bred to a pewter in 2000 and produced a clutch consisting entirely of offspring showing the same pattern. Two of those offspring were then bred to each other and produced "snow bloodred" offspring also expressing that "same" pattern.
This one family line has now carried the same pattern consistently and predictably through at least five generations. Now, if you were to cross one of those "snow bloodred" individuals to Rich's bloodred lavender (which would mean they've been bred in very different directions for a good number of generations, at least six generations on one side) would anyone care to bet that the offspring will NOT show the "same pattern" as the proposed great, great, great, great grandparents did?
Would you make the same bet if I replaced "bloodred" with a "Miami phase" snow corn or an "Okeetee phase" lavender?
SODERBERGD
Active member
OH MY. . .
. . . May I interrupt with a comment applicable 40 posts ago?
I don't think I can pronounce that Greek name suggested by Darin, but I sure like it. Especially if a nick of it sticks to our tongues. One reason I like it is because it is applicable even though it's a different languge. That puts a romantic slant on it IMHO. Also, if we can't all agree about using adjectives that might get confusing, this certainly satisfies that criterion. Okeetee isn't in the dictionary for pattern or color. Same with Miami phase and more. Those are words that are catchy, acceptable and are not adjectives or adverbs about appearance or genetic mechanics. I like it and there's no way someone will get it confused.
I would like to say that no matter where this ends up and presuming there is going to be a name for this "recessive" morph we used to call bloodred, I hope we all keep in mind that the only true distinction for this morphs in my opinion (and in my experience with bloodreds) is the absence of typical belly checkerboard pattern with black. Whatever else is decided, I firmly intend to not change my position about that. If any of these have black checkering on their belly, they're not "bloodred" corns. I don't care what happens north of the belly. I've seen everything from solid and distint pattern to none at all. I still go by the belly. Fade, blur, smudge, dilute, polute, difuse, refuse, confuse; I don't care. As long as the belly is devoid of black checkering and has familiar bloodred color and/or markings.
While I have thoroughly enjoyed the information (and politics) of this thread, I have been neglecting my "planting season". If the 'seeds' don't get planted, there'll be no crops. No crops, no money. No money, no SMR. I'll peek in now and then to see where this 400 page thread is going. Is someone going to print it off and publish it?
Everyone has great ideas so far. Connie and Serp, you guys have sure taught me lots about genetics just in this thread. Never too old to learn, eh?
Don
www.cornsnake.NET
. . . May I interrupt with a comment applicable 40 posts ago?
I don't think I can pronounce that Greek name suggested by Darin, but I sure like it. Especially if a nick of it sticks to our tongues. One reason I like it is because it is applicable even though it's a different languge. That puts a romantic slant on it IMHO. Also, if we can't all agree about using adjectives that might get confusing, this certainly satisfies that criterion. Okeetee isn't in the dictionary for pattern or color. Same with Miami phase and more. Those are words that are catchy, acceptable and are not adjectives or adverbs about appearance or genetic mechanics. I like it and there's no way someone will get it confused.
I would like to say that no matter where this ends up and presuming there is going to be a name for this "recessive" morph we used to call bloodred, I hope we all keep in mind that the only true distinction for this morphs in my opinion (and in my experience with bloodreds) is the absence of typical belly checkerboard pattern with black. Whatever else is decided, I firmly intend to not change my position about that. If any of these have black checkering on their belly, they're not "bloodred" corns. I don't care what happens north of the belly. I've seen everything from solid and distint pattern to none at all. I still go by the belly. Fade, blur, smudge, dilute, polute, difuse, refuse, confuse; I don't care. As long as the belly is devoid of black checkering and has familiar bloodred color and/or markings.
While I have thoroughly enjoyed the information (and politics) of this thread, I have been neglecting my "planting season". If the 'seeds' don't get planted, there'll be no crops. No crops, no money. No money, no SMR. I'll peek in now and then to see where this 400 page thread is going. Is someone going to print it off and publish it?
Everyone has great ideas so far. Connie and Serp, you guys have sure taught me lots about genetics just in this thread. Never too old to learn, eh?
Don
www.cornsnake.NET
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
Beautiful Boa Joe! I wish they didn't get so darn big.
As far as the naming issue goes, I think someone will really have to push it to get anything to come of it. In all honesty, I can't say that I'm excited about any of the proposed changes yet. I'll probably go along the majority if it is something I can live with. But if I just can't stand it..........well, we'll see!
As far as the naming issue goes, I think someone will really have to push it to get anything to come of it. In all honesty, I can't say that I'm excited about any of the proposed changes yet. I'll probably go along the majority if it is something I can live with. But if I just can't stand it..........well, we'll see!
ecreipeoj
Striped Topaz SK SG Free
Salmon Boa Gene, Co-dominant
Hi Connie,
I will try to explain the Salmon Gene, but my genetics vocabulary is very basic. A Salmon is very similar to a Normal Corn het for Amel. except things are reversed. A Nomal Corn het for amel carries one dominant gene for normal and one recessive gene for Amel. The corn looks normal. A Salmon Boa has one dominant gene for Salmon and one normal gene which is recessive to the Salmon gene and the boa looks like a Salmon. When it is bred to a normal, which when compared it to dominant Salmon gene it has two recessive normal genes. The Salmon can pass on either gene into its offspring. If the dominant Salmon gene is passed on the Boa is a Salmon and carries the same genes as the parent. If the normal gene is passed on it matches up with a normal gene from the other parent and the offspring are normal and do not carry the Salmon gene at all.
A Super Salmon does not really look any different than a Salmon it just carries two dominant Salmon genes and can only pass a dominant Salmon gene onto it offspring. No matter what boas a Super is bred to all offspring will be Salmons.
The semi or co-dominant Salmon boa gene is called that rather than a dominant Salmon Boa gene, because it can produce a Salmon which is dominant or a normal which does not carry the gene at all. The same is true with the basic Paint horse gene and Spotted Donkey Gene.
I have more work to do tonight, but perhaps I can explain it better tomorrow or refer you to a site that speeks your language.
Hi Connie,
I will try to explain the Salmon Gene, but my genetics vocabulary is very basic. A Salmon is very similar to a Normal Corn het for Amel. except things are reversed. A Nomal Corn het for amel carries one dominant gene for normal and one recessive gene for Amel. The corn looks normal. A Salmon Boa has one dominant gene for Salmon and one normal gene which is recessive to the Salmon gene and the boa looks like a Salmon. When it is bred to a normal, which when compared it to dominant Salmon gene it has two recessive normal genes. The Salmon can pass on either gene into its offspring. If the dominant Salmon gene is passed on the Boa is a Salmon and carries the same genes as the parent. If the normal gene is passed on it matches up with a normal gene from the other parent and the offspring are normal and do not carry the Salmon gene at all.
A Super Salmon does not really look any different than a Salmon it just carries two dominant Salmon genes and can only pass a dominant Salmon gene onto it offspring. No matter what boas a Super is bred to all offspring will be Salmons.
The semi or co-dominant Salmon boa gene is called that rather than a dominant Salmon Boa gene, because it can produce a Salmon which is dominant or a normal which does not carry the gene at all. The same is true with the basic Paint horse gene and Spotted Donkey Gene.
I have more work to do tonight, but perhaps I can explain it better tomorrow or refer you to a site that speeks your language.
gardenmum
Hopelessly Addicted
WELL
I found this thread late in the game and I must say it has taken a lot of time to read it all.
First I have to say....RICH....those are gorgeous specimens. I really love that difused, faded anemic hypo. Thanks for sharing those.
And Joe, I am not a big boa fan but I love the colors on that one of yours. It is a real nice looker!
Now, about the name bloodred. I agree that the term 'bloodred' would bring up a picture of redness in ones mind and is not the best discription for aneries, butters and others that carry this gene but I have to say that to me, when I hear 'anery blood' I picture the pattern and associated look that this gene brings with it and not the color red. That's just me though.
I do agree, however, that a better name may not be a bad idea. I certainly hope though, that once the anery bloods, butter bloods and others become more produced that they will get there own name like Pewter for charcoal blood.
I will say the the name 'Diffused' though, does not do anything for me. It makes me think of an impending explosion. I agree with a couple here that the 'Greek' word seems good as it is like amelenistic and others in that it describe the pattern and can also be shortened like amel.
But this is all JMHO. Hope you all can get this figured out.
And Rich, anytime you want to share more pictures like those, I am sure no one would object.:cheers:
I found this thread late in the game and I must say it has taken a lot of time to read it all.
First I have to say....RICH....those are gorgeous specimens. I really love that difused, faded anemic hypo.
Thanks for sharing those.And Joe, I am not a big boa fan but I love the colors on that one of yours. It is a real nice looker!
Now, about the name bloodred. I agree that the term 'bloodred' would bring up a picture of redness in ones mind and is not the best discription for aneries, butters and others that carry this gene but I have to say that to me, when I hear 'anery blood' I picture the pattern and associated look that this gene brings with it and not the color red. That's just me though.
I do agree, however, that a better name may not be a bad idea. I certainly hope though, that once the anery bloods, butter bloods and others become more produced that they will get there own name like Pewter for charcoal blood.
I will say the the name 'Diffused' though, does not do anything for me. It makes me think of an impending explosion. I agree with a couple here that the 'Greek' word seems good as it is like amelenistic and others in that it describe the pattern and can also be shortened like amel.
But this is all JMHO. Hope you all can get this figured out.
And Rich, anytime you want to share more pictures like those, I am sure no one would object.:cheers:
yaeh..
long, longer, longest but not straight ahead, more like a circle this discussion.
i´d call them in their morph and add only blood
butterblood, lavenderblood and so on .....
so you´ll have the existing morphs and the connection to the bloodred gen. easy for both, buyer and seller. "always keep it short and simple"
pewter e.g. can further exist, its a trademark now. don´t care.
rgds
camus
long, longer, longest but not straight ahead, more like a circle this discussion.
i´d call them in their morph and add only blood
butterblood, lavenderblood and so on .....
so you´ll have the existing morphs and the connection to the bloodred gen. easy for both, buyer and seller. "always keep it short and simple"
pewter e.g. can further exist, its a trademark now. don´t care.
rgds
camus
Marcel Poots
Young, handsom member
Hurley said:
Hhmm, I disagree a bit on this. I had a Super Tiger retic which is codominant. Super Tiger X Normal = Normals and Tigers. And Tiger X Tiger = Super Tiger. Now with Bloodred that is different. Normal X Bloodred is not throwing 'some' Bloodreds. Outcoss a bit of the Bloodred trait is different from the Tiger gene. Tiger (the hetero of Super Tiger) is simple recessive. Outcross is not simple recessive.
Menhir
Charmelippe
Marcel Poots said:
Could you please explain this???
I always thought that "Super" stands for being homo für the trait in cases where the morph is codominant or dominant (cause you can't distingush homo and het. animals by their look... don't knwo if this is the case with all codominant morphs (I don't think so) but at least with dominant).
So,(a) SuperTiger should be tt - Tiger Tt and Normal TT - am I right?
Or is it the other way round - that (b) Super Tiger is tT and Tiger is tt...
No matter what of the possibilities is the right one - it doesn't make sense with what you wrote.
Super Tiger x Normal:
(a) tt x TT => tT (Tiger)
(b) tT x TT => TT (Normal) + tT (SuperTiger)
Tiger x Tiger:
(a) tT x tT => 25% Normal + 75% Tiger (66% poss. SuperTiger)
(b) tt x tt => tt (Tiger)
Perhaps I'm terribly wrong but non of the 2 versions fits your description - so please explain what is the thing with Super Tiger and Tiger genetically - Thanx.
Serpwidgets
New member
Heh, hopefully I can clear this up:Marcel Poots said:
- Tiger is not recessive.
Super Tiger is not codominant.
Super Tiger is not recessive.
Super Tiger is not dominant.
Why? Because there is no "Super Tiger" gene. A phenotype is not dominant, recessive, or codominant... Super Tiger is a phenotype, NOT a gene. At least that is what I've gathered.
Tiger is a gene, Super Tiger is not. (Did I confuse everyone to death yet? hehe)
Tiger is Codominant. (Isn't it? Can you visually separate Tigers from Super Tigers?
If yes, it is codominant, and the below applies.
If no, then it is not comparable to the "bloodred" pattern trait.)
-----
With any two alleles (genes residing at the same location on the chromosome) there are only two relationships possible between them.
The first is Dominant/Recessive. In this relationship, only one gene, the dominant, is expressed. The recessive gene is not expressed.
The second is Codominant. In this relationship, both genes express themselves. This can be a 50%-50% relationship, or it can be a 99%-1% relationship, or anywhere between. In many existing, well-documented examples of codominant traits, this relationship is varying. That is, the same gene pair can in one individual be 50-50, in another 75-25, and in another 25-75, etc.
-----
A Codominant Tiger gene works like this:
There are two alleles: Normal and Tiger. (N and T)
When it is NN, there is no Tiger gene present to exert itself, so obviously there is a normal pattern.
When it is NT (or TN) there is one Tiger gene paired with one Normal gene. Both genes exert their influence and affect the phenotype.
When it is TT, there is no Normal gene present to exert itself. Since its "N" counterpart is not present to partially "normalize" the pattern, the Tiger gene is able to alter the pattern even more than it does in the "TN" snakes. This is what people call a "Super Tiger" but in fact it is simply homozygous for a codominant gene.
-----
If you now understand codominant traits, you should see why these results happen:
When you breed NN to NT, you get:
NN = Normal
NT = Tiger
NT X NT produces:
1/4 NN = Normal
1/2 NT = Tiger
1/4 TT = Super Tiger
TT X NN produces all NT. (Tigers)
TT X NT produces
NT = Tiger
TT = Super Tiger
TT X TT produces all TT. (Super Tigers)
-----
Or...
Imagine a flower with a Yellow-making pigment, and a Blue-making pigment, and they are alleles like striped and motley. These are represented as Y and B. What do the following flowers look like?
YY
YB
BB
In theory, you would have Yellow flowers, Green flowers, and Blue flowers. In reality, the YB could be many different shades of green, some of them being almost yellow, some being almost blue, some might look like they are regular Blues or regular Yellows.
Now, if someone who discovered this didn't really understand the genetics, they would call them something like "Yellow" and "Green." And instead of "Blue," they'd decide to call the BB specimens "Super Green" which really makes no sense because there's no "green" pigment in any of these flowers.
That's what I think is happening with "Super Tiger." People seem to completely misunderstand it, and I think it's because they don't get what "codominant" really means, or how it works.
Or maybe I should be sleeping right now instead of rambling about codominants, hehe.
Serpwidgets
New member
(cause you can't distingush homo and het. animals by their look... don't knwo if this is the case with all codominant morphs (I don't think so) but at least with dominant).Menhir said:So - long story short - was I right @Serp???
That part is not true. A codominant is where there are three phenotypes... the hets look different than either of the two homo types.
Menhir
Charmelippe
As I said, I don't think so... But are you shure - that you can distingush a 10%morph-90%normal codominant animal from a normal animal??? I think in the theorie yes - but as we often noticed - it's sometimes even hard to tell the difference between Hypo and not... So, I think 50-50 is clearly distingushable - but cause we don't know this for every co-dominant gen, we can practically deal with not distingushable and say that it's the worst case... don't we?
Amanda E
Snake Addict!
Let me just say that so far I think the best name is Episkiastic/"Epi"
And it also seems to me that some people aren't understanding the co-dominant stuff. I won't try to explain it, as it's already been done a couple times, and I have nothing to add. But I will say that I do believe that bloodred seems to look like it is a co-dominant, rather than a simple recessive trait.
And, I have to add this (Thanks Don):
And it also seems to me that some people aren't understanding the co-dominant stuff. I won't try to explain it, as it's already been done a couple times, and I have nothing to add. But I will say that I do believe that bloodred seems to look like it is a co-dominant, rather than a simple recessive trait.
And, I have to add this
(Thanks Don):