breeding morphs

[CamdeJong]

Albinism is recessive. There is no het gene, hetero- means different. The alleles are different, and in the case of albinism a het will show the normal phenotype, it must be homozygous albino to show the albino phenotype.

 

[jamesbecker]

back to school for you!

that was just quick stuff in my head, im not really into the genetics side of breeding snakes just yet so its probs all wrong lol .. and i still am at school

 

[Dannyboi]

The JAG gene is not dominant, it is incomplete dominant or co-dominant depending on who you ask. The homozygous form of the JAG gene is a leucistic.

From what I heard its just dead not Leucistic, well possibly dead leucistic

 

[waruikazi]

OMG it's like the blind leading an army of deaf people!

Everyone, shut up!

 

[killimike]

no, the albino gene is dominant (might be recessive dunno), that needs 2 of the same gene for it to be expressed.. if a snake is said to be a het, it means it carries one set of the genes

Why reply that it's one, then go and say you don't actually know which it is in the next breath? The word 'dominant' should give you a clue, if you need two copies of the gene then it ain't dominant

 

[waruikazi]

From what I heard its just dead not Leucistic, well possibly dead leucistic

A jag is a het for leucistic.

 

[killimike]

OMG it's like the blind leading an army of deaf people!

Everyone, shut up!

I need a cigarette... and I don't even smoke! This is first year high school punnet squares....

 

[snakebag]

wheres the mistake?
If an animal is reffered to as het it is a masked recessive gene
If it is visually het it is co-dominant
And if the homozygoous form is the same as the visual het it is regarded as dominant
Is this not correct?

 

[CamdeJong]

OMG it's like the blind leading an army of deaf people!

Everyone, shut up!

Agreed. Wow...

 

[waruikazi]

wheres the mistake?
If an animal is reffered to as het it is a masked recessive gene
If it is visually het it is co-dominant
And if the homozygoous form is the same as the visual het it is regarded as dominant
Is this not correct?

You are using your terms as interchangeable, they aren't. They describe different things. The mistake is in your head.

wheres the mistake?
If an animal is reffered to as het it is a masked recessive gene
If it is visually het it is co-dominant <LOGIC FAIL! You just proved yourself wrong! It doesn't matter how the gene is experessed. A het is a het!
And if the homozygoous form is the same as the visual het it is regarded as dominant
Is this not correct?

Jeeeezuz i feel atleast 30 IQ points dumber.

 

[Cold-B-Hearts]

ok that picture in the other thread helpped me out alot. would the also be the same for a say stripped spotted?

 

[snakebag]

Do you mean when i used visual het in reference to dominance?
And visual hets have a differnt looking homozygous form (super)

?
Sorry i want to know where im messing up lol
TEACH ME

 

[CamdeJong]

Oh dear. There should be some kind of mutual agreement between forum-goers. If you don't know, don't say anything, or say it and add (I'm not sure, research it). This kind of thing is the reason I rarely visit these sites, there's always so much to sift through to get to the stuff worth reading.

 

[waruikazi]

I'll pull up all the relevant quotes.

het means the snake has the genes but doesnt show it

As per the recent discussion, het does not actually mean that a snake has the genes but doesn't show it. See the explanation in the other thread you started.

Um yes it does.. If the animal carries the gene and shows it it is regarded as co-dominant or dominant

Here is you first post claiming that co-dominant animals are not het.

Any morph that has a visual het is reffered to as co-doiminant to my understanding correct me if im wrong but hetrozygous means the recesive gene is masked (not visual)?

Here is your second quote saying that het means the gene is recessive.

wheres the mistake?
If an animal is reffered to as het it is a masked recessive gene
If it is visually het it is co-dominant
And if the homozygoous form is the same as the visual het it is regarded as dominant
Is this not correct?

Wether the animal is a visual het or not, if it is a het it is a het.

Do you mean when i used visual het in reference to dominance?
And visual hets have a differnt looking homozygous form (super)

?
Sorry i want to know where im messing up lol
TEACH ME

I'VE BEEN TRYING!

 

[Cold-B-Hearts]

ok so a het is - co dominant
a "albino" is - dominant
and a normal is either
is that right?

 

[waruikazi]

 

[killimike]

I love you Waruikazi

 

[CamdeJong]

No. not on any of those lines. Sorry but do my threads only appear on my screen? Do I exist in internetic space? Haha. A het carries both a dominant and a recessive gene, showing the dominant one. Eg brown hair dominant red hair recessive. If you have one of each your phenotype (what you show in the end) is brown hair but you are heterozygous. You are a het for redhead. Albinism now appears to be a bad example lol. It is a recessive trait. I can't explain it again so please have another go at my thread on your other post. A "normal" is one which has NO albino gene, just two wild-type dominant genes. IE normal.

 

[Dannyboi]

LOL Thank God for the facepalm it is the only way to express yourself sometimes.

ok so a het is - co dominant
a "albino" is - dominant
and a normal is either
is that right?

Het means heterozygous the gene can be shown which is Co-dominance or it isn't shown Recessive.
Albino is recessive.
And normal is normal.

 

[snakebag]

Haha no worries mate got it.