Hypomelanistic- Codominant or not?

Josiah Rossic

Well-Known Member
Hey guys,
I can't seem to find out wether or not the hypomelanistic gene is codominant. I know it has a super form, could that mean that it is codominant? Or is it something else?
Any help on this question would be much appreciated :D

Josiah
 

Ajar5

Not so new Member
This was discussed here last year.
HI,
So I'm wondering if there is any differences between a normal hypo and a super hypo?
Is it just the double allele or is there a phenological difference aswell?

Thank you
Seems there's more than 1 type of hypo trait. I've only worked with the coastal type and can say it's co-dom. A bit off topic but thought I'd add There's also the caramel trait/gene. There's been a lot of discussion about the difference between caramel and hypo or whether they're the same. I believe they're different and hypo is more appealing in appearance, especially when used to make morph combos like ghosts.
 

Josiah Rossic

Well-Known Member
This was discussed here last year.

Seems there's more than 1 type of hypo trait. I've only worked with the coastal type and can say it's co-dom. A bit off topic but thought I'd add There's also the caramel trait/gene. There's been a lot of discussion about the difference between caramel and hypo or whether they're the same. I believe they're different and hypo is more appealing in appearance, especially when used to make morph combos like ghosts.
Hypo and caramel are definitely not the same gene. The thing with co-doms is that there's always a super form. Take zebra's for example; there's normal zebras and super zebras, same with caramels and hypo's. That's why there are normal hypo's and super hypo's, which is why I'm led to believe that the hypo gene is co-dom. However it's confusing when there's multiple hypo traits
 
Last edited:

Herptology

Well-Known Member
Trusted Seller
Hypo and caramel are definitely not the same gene. The thing with co-doms is that there's always a super form. Take zebra's for example; there's normal zebras and super zebras, same with caramels and hypo's. That's why there are normal hypo's and super hypo's, which is why I'm led to believe that the hypo gene is co-dom. However it's confusing when there's multiple hypo traits

As stated there’s different lines/kinds of hypo and caramel

Take rob mcleods coastal hypo line for example, arguably the best hypo line on the planet!

If you pair 2 of them, you don’t get supers, same with bredli, you pair 2 hypos, you won’t get a “super” hypo, you just get offspring that carry the parents traits, hypo + a stripe for example or increased hypo(which still wouldn’t be considered super) because pairing 2 exceptional hypos will produce a few babies with visible black

Where as 2 proven SUPER caramels paired together will produced 100% super caramels

06BFED20-E23D-401E-8FCF-7E4390891F45.jpeg

5B5A2D80-B111-496A-ACE4-7D62FB95E31F.jpeg
 

Josiah Rossic

Well-Known Member
As stated there’s different lines/kinds of hypo and caramel

Take rob mcleods coastal hypo line for example, arguably the best hypo line on the planet!

If you pair 2 of them, you don’t get supers, same with bredli, you pair 2 hypos, you won’t get a “super” hypo, you just get offspring that carry the parents traits, hypo + a stripe for example or increased hypo(which still wouldn’t be considered super) because pairing 2 exceptional hypos will produce a few babies with visible black

Where as 2 proven SUPER caramels paired together will produced 100% super caramels

View attachment 329887

View attachment 329888
Does that mean that the caramel gene isn't always a co-dominant trait?
 

Southernserpent

Active Member
Hypo and caramel are definitely not the same gene. The thing with co-doms is that there's always a super form. Take zebra's for example; there's normal zebras and super zebras, same with caramels and hypo's. That's why there are normal hypo's and super hypo's, which is why I'm led to believe that the hypo gene is co-dom. However it's confusing when there's multiple hypo traits
What makes you say they are not the same gene?
 

Ajar5

Not so new Member
My opinion is caramel is a lighter colour trait and not necessarily reduced black aka hypo. Although there's obviously some animals which display/carry both hypo and caramel. I say this as I've seen so many caramel specimens which don't have reduced black. The U.S breeders have discussed and described this well as they compare to what they call red hypos. We obviously have the same colours/traits here but don't seem to differentiate like they do. I personally prefer the red type hypos as they're more eye catching especially when used to make sunglows there's more contrast and colour. I'd personally class McLeod's as red type.
My explanation to why 2 super hypos don't produce a whole clutch of zero black supers is natural variation/polygenic influence.
 

Southernserpent

Active Member
Their is a lot of grey area in hypomelenistic traits due to the polygenic variency of carpet pythons. I don't know if anyone has actually proven that the incomplete dominent mutations of "caramel" and "hypo" are two seperate genes for hypomelenism.
 

Josiah Rossic

Well-Known Member
Their is a lot of grey area in hypomelenistic traits due to the polygenic variency of carpet pythons. I don't know if anyone has actually proven that the incomplete dominent mutations of "caramel" and "hypo" are two seperate genes for hypomelenism.
It is confusing, because they both reduce the amount of melanin. Only hypo's reduce melanin more then caramels don't they?
 
Top