Classification is compared to something else, it can be dominant compared to one thing, inc-dom to another, and recessive to another. From what I’ve seen we always just compare them to normal.
In your example, no pastel is not recessive. Recessive only show in the homozygous form. Pastel shows in the heterozygous form when paired with a normal at least.
No. A true dominate gene cannot be accurately distinguished between its het and homo forms…
For example, you can still have a super pinstripe, but it looks the same as a pinstripe.
Co-dominate genes are visual with one copy and have a super form, the super form can easily be distinguished from single copy visuals.
Recessive genes are recessive, and typically are always compatible with other recessive genes at the same genetic locations. when two different recessive allelic genes are combined we get an intermediate expression of both genes. Such as a Mochino Retic or Paradigm Boa.
Candino or crypton for the ball python people
Are you saying we should force the rest of the genetics world to play by the rules that ball python breeders/herpers come up with rather than telling the herpers to get their act together and start being aware of the actual scientific field that is well established and understood with defined rules and terminology?? That seems like a might-bit Kevin thing to do LOL
Sorry, I am pimping you pretty hard there and I think we know one another well enough for you to know I am doing it in a good-natured way. But… that is kind of what you are suggesting.
Recessive/dominance is considered against the WT allele of the given gene. Different genetic backgrounds are irrelevant as the relationship between these alleles remains the same.
.
.
And there is zero doubt that no combos show het Albino.
So why is it that two of the same things behave differently? Or is it really that the two things behave differently because they are different but we as a hobby are too stubborn accept that?
.
.
No.
Lesser is not recessive to Bamboo. Fire is not recessive to Lemonback. Lesser/Fire are less expressed or less impactful mutations, but they are not recessive.
.
.
I disagree slightly but fundamentally I would say you sum it up well.
Pied (and a few others) were labeled recessive because of the how they were “proven”. A homozygous visual was bred to a normal and none of the offspring were radically different from a normal so it was just taken on faith that the offspring were normals. Because the clutch was composed of entirely these low-expression visual hets with nothing to compare against, then the slight differences could not be noticed. I would challenge that if a visual SuperSpecter had come in first and it was bred to a normal then the same thing would have happened and we would all be arguing about whether or not Specter is recessive/inc-dom.
Instead, someone recognized that Specters were just a half a degree different from a normal and tracked that across a few generations before stumbling upon a superform. Kind of the same way JKR was able, after the fact, to recognize some het Pieds as being just a half a degree different from normals and so pick them out and then prove them.
A similar thing happened with RDR and the hetDaddy gene - the Lessers were so radically different from their hetDaddy siblings that mentally he defaulted them to being just normals. And he treated them like that for YEARS until the facts were finally figured out. After that, RDR was able to pick a hetDaddy out of import animals (and at least two others that I know of were also able to do that)
.
.
Small correction: The proper term is incomplete-dominant, not co-dominant.
Just to help add to this, as this is one of the things that make genetics a little bit tricky to follow in the hobby.
Incomplete Dominant - white snake + red snake = pink snake.
Codominant - white snake + red snake = white & red snake.
This is a good point, pretty much any new morph in its early stage that doesn’t have a dramatic difference from a WT is going to be seen as just a WT without anything else to compare it to.
From here, if proven, would we call it Piebald/ Super Piebald or keep it as it is and have a “het” piebald that isn’t technically a het, like HRA?
I believe technically they are het as het just refers to the term heterozygous not necessarily means recessives. I could easily be wrong but I believe that’s pretty much how it’s laid out?
There’s a great thread from the ball pythons.net forum where Chris Hardwick is telling people that blade is not a distinct morph but rather just how people describe super clean looking clowns…
I feel like a lot of the more subtle morphs can pass as WT if people aren’t looking for it specifically
We may both be incorrect here and someone could straighten our thoughts, but as far as I am aware, heterozygous means that a offspring has received 2 different copies of a certain gene at one location, one from each parent.
So say Piebalds gene location was named “P”.
The “normal”/WT mutation = p (lower case)
The Piebald mutation = P (upper case)
A normal would have p-p (normal looking)
A het would be P-p (normal looking)
A visual would be P-P (piebald)
For the mutation to take place, in a recessive, both need to be “P” rather than “p”.
The reason a “het” doesn’t show through is because the WT gene “p” is dominant, where as the mutation “P” is recessive.
Good layout.
That I understand as recessives need 2 copies of the gene to present it visually, as why they are classified as being a 2 gene snake or reptile, as compared to say a Butter which has one copy of the gene but still presents some visual effect.
Technically Butter is heterozygous too, we just don’t call it het. Butter
I was just saying Butter in its het form still shows visually, compared to a recessive which needs 2 copies of the het to show visually.
I think we should classify morphs like Butter or Black Pastel as Het Butter, Het Black Pastel since they are heterozygous.
That kind of seems like overkill since it’s easily inferred they’re in the heterozygous form given that there’s a “super”/homozygous form of each morph
That is Homozygous.
Heterozygous: 1 copy
Homozygous: 2 copies, one from each parent
No, we always have “two copies” of each gene because chromosomes come in pairs. Heterozygous is when the two copies are different, referred to as different alleles. Homozygous is when both copies are the same allele
By this I mean 1 WT copy and 1 Mutated copy of the gene at one location.
God do I hate that school genetics lesson…
Okay so, not that I want to get into full on lecture mode but phenotype has nothing to do with inc-dom versus co-dom. Inc-dom describes an expression pattern for a dominant allele whereas co-dom describes a relationship between two separate alleles
.
.
.
As MN notes, they are still hets regardless of recessive or dominant so you just stick with hetPied/Pied
HRAs are true hets because genetically they carry two different alleles (WT and RedAx) in the same way het Pied carry two different alleles (WT and Pied) in the same way het Albino carry two different alleles (WT and Albino) in the same way Lesser carry two different alleles (WT and Leucistic). All of them are het regardless of the visual expression of their het status or the names we give them
.
.
.
Chris is completely in error there. Blade is definitely a heritable trait in and of itself and has been separated from Clown. It is just a GRP gene and there have been quite a few of them identified over the years (kind of like all the different Granite genes)
.
.
.
That does not work because you would have to rename them as hetSuperBlk and hetBluEL (and so on and so on and so on) because we label all of our hets based on the homozygous visual - e.g., het Albino. HRA works because the homozygous visual is RedAxanthic
.
.
Just so 
Labeling dominant mutations with “heterozygous” would be redundant due to them being visually distinguishable. Since recessive mutations can’t be consistently distinguished visually from a normal the heterozygous label is necessary.
Regarding inc-dominant vs codominant, t_h_wyman is the go to genetics wizard around here but I have seen other qualified individuals with a different opinion, such at Paul Hollander at the ball python forums: https://ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?52847-A-Lesson-in-Basic-Genetics&p=2515394&viewfull=1#post2515394
I’m not sure it’s as cut and dry as it’s often made out to be but I’m not qualified to dispute any claims one way or the other.
Regarding whether Pied should be reclassified as a dominant mutation vs recessive. I feel like a certain accuracy rate of being able to visually distinguish hets would have to be a prerequisite to a reclassification.
Would 16 years of 100% accuracy across many different combos, and hundreds if not thousands of animals qualify?
And now I’m back at square one 
. I’m willing to take that lecture though if it’s on offer.
Would this be along the lines as Piebald and Spider creating a high white snake?
I have zero weight in this argument but I agree with you here. Blade is definitely it’s own thing.
This made me forget I was writing a reply and go down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, I’m still not sure I quite get this term.
I ask with real enthusiasm that you fill in some of the Glossary - Wiki (In Progress).
Oh we can have fun Travis and I can’t really take offence because this:
Is Exactly what I’m saying
Some will argue about the het albino, that’s why I brought it up. Personally I will throw hypo and clown into the mix with pied. I don’t think the stubbornness comes from denial, it’s how do you actually classify? Classification puts things in neat little boxes and we both know real life don’t work that way. Call it recessive and people wanna know why it’s painfully obvious in a champ cinny. On the other hand call it inc-dom and het pied to a normal leaves people guessing.
They aren’t expressed in the heterozygous form and only in the homozygous form. Isn’t that the definition of recessive besides bamboo/lemonback not being WT?