Only has orange aroud the ringer like you mention on that one, but has the same 3 white patches again…
Top one is a ringer bottom one I personally wouldn’t call that paradoxing
3 Likes
Yeah granted but it’s still unusual & alot of his babies have those odd bits dotted about…
Paradoxing is something that shouldn’t be there speckling is quite common in a lot of morphs.
1 Like
I need more babies to study 
Yeah totally but not in lesser
It shows up in lesser
My opinion is your male throws ringers at a high rate. But I’m not seeing any paradoxing personally in any of them.
2 Likes
Pretty cool. I love stuff like that.
But yeah he’s definitely unique this boy and produces some really awesome babies.
I’ve also got the few dinkers I’m going to work with
It’s awesome for sure I love snakes with ringers.
1 Like
Yeah, but 3 in the same place? From different clutches. Seems like a pattern to me. But I need more babies to study now
Those are 
ringers I’m sure of that.
1 Like
This is another case of hobby definition vs text book definition. The hobby tends to classify off single genes. I’ll refer to an older forum post where i had the same thought process. Could Piebald be inc-dom rather than recessive? - #70 by t_h_wyman
So with the hobby generally misclassifying thing, we have het influence now. Just some examples i can take pics of on the fly. Sorry went heavy on the enchis lol.
Enchi, enchi het hypo pos het clown, enchi DH hypo/albino
enchi lesser pastel DH hypo/albino, Enchi lesser pastel het hypo
Enchi pastel het hypo, enchi pastel DH hypo/albino
Sure you can say all morphs vary, but you start to see trends.
3 Likes
Yeah it’s just been my experience that the trend is het hypo doesn’t show. Now I haven’t hatched no where as much as some people. But I’ve done quite a bit of certain combos with and without hypo and het. I’m just not seeing it personally. I feel like I’ve produced enough of them to draw my own conclusions I’m not changing my mind on this one lol
You can see it above in the enchi vs enchi het hypo, they just tend to be a little lighter. Nothing drastic which is why it’s understandable people to miss it or dismiss it as variation. It’s not every animal either, but enough animals to take note.
1 Like
How can it not be in every animal? That doesn’t work either it’s there or not if you can’t always see it then it is a variance 100 het percent would always show it if it’s a genetic influence.
1 Like
Low expression Yellow belly and others in the complex come to mind right away in saying that’s not always the case.
Honestly I’m just observing trends and reporting them. I don’t have an explanation for phenotype expression vs genetic expression besides not everything fits neatly into the text book definitions.
1 Like
Totally respect that. Like I said I could be wrong but on hypo I’m sticking with my opinion that it is recessive by the text book definition. But I also believe we shouldn’t be changing definitions of genetic terms or making up our own.
I’ll use me and my mrs of a fun example of why I believe you can get genetic markers for recessive genes and some will show and others won’t.
Our son has red hair. In order to have this both of us had to be carrier of this recessive gene.
My Mrs has dark hair and olive skin and showed no signs whatsoever of carrying this gene.
Me on the other hand, I also have dark brown hair but I also have some red hairs in my beard. I think that’s me carrying a recessive gene and also showing like a het marker would if you like and that’s how I look at all genetics. I look for patterns and markers & consistency between both.
In this case i think it’s where to you draw the line between recessive and inc-dom. Most definitions read in absolutes, as recessive never shows heterozygous and inc-dom always shows heterozygous. In real life there’s a blurry line between the two.
1 Like