Sorry I don`t have any fire in my collection. There is no super form. I have done multiple Eramosa x Eramosa breedings. I have also taken the offspring from those breedings and determined, from breeding, that there are no Eramosa offspring that produce all Eramosas. So, there is definately no super.
This seems very interesting. I like the look of the gene.
How many offspring have you tried this with? Because with any genetic mutation, there is always a heterozygous and homozygous form. Even if the super looks the same as the het, the super would have to exist and produce all heterozygous offspring. For example, pinstripe is dominant, but a super pinstripe exists, even though it looks the same as a normal pinstripe.
There is no super form.
There might not be a visually distinguishable super form but it would have to exist (under normal circumstances, for example when it’s not lethal like spider). A super eramosa will look the same as an eramosa, but it would produce all eramosa offspring. How many eramosas have you bred to non-eramosas to test this? If it’s a small sample size, probability might have just prevented one of them proving out as supers.
There is no Super.
d also like to mention there is no Super Pinstripe. I have done so many pinstripe x pinstripe breedings and Ive held back a bunch of the Pinstripe babies and I`ve never once had a Pinstripe produce all Pinstripes.
So, anyone saying that Pinstripe has a super doesn
t know what they are talking about. No one is using first hand knowledge. It is all hearsay and never from first hand accounts. Cousins, boyfriends, sisters, work friends, brothers, uncles, boses friend doesnt count. As far as I`m away there is no first hand accounts of super pinstripes.
t know exact numbers. Ive probably done 50 Eramosa x Eramosa clutches. I
ve also done probably the same in Pinstripe. Ive never produced supers of either Eramosa or Pinstripe with those numbers.
There actually is a post on here somewhere about someone who has a supposed super pinstripe female that has consistantly produced 100% pinstripe offspring over multiple years of breeding. I’ll see if I can find it.
Edit: I think it was @jasonbailey
After looking through the profile you mentioned here is the post where it is first mentioned. It is elaborated on a few posts after this one.
Just based on how genetics work a homozygous form is always possible (excluding unusual cases like a lethal super) and it will always pass on one copy of a gene. Debating if supers are possible in simple dominant traits isn’t the purpose of this thread so I’m not going to elaborate further. But, if you want to discuss this further feel free to create a new topic about it.
Call it super or not. But my pinstripe girl has had 37 eggs in the last 3 years and all have been pinstripe. She has never had a baby that is anything else.
Both bhb and Evan stahl have first hand accounts of super pin males, Jason has a first hand account of super pin female. Doing 50 pin x pin pairings isn’t what proves anything. It’s the breeding records of the offspring of those pairings. Each offspring is a 33% possible super pin.
Wow what a awesome morph! I can see a little bit why @mcpythons was asking about the fire complex, the regular eramosa on eggs looks a little like a disco yellow belly with the crazy side pattern and the 2nd og head does almost look so erased like a vanilla, but of course the body is completely off for that! You have done so many breedings and proved this new eramosa gene out better then anyone I know that has brought or tried to prove new morphs out. No doubt everything you stated is true for it. I noticed like you stated it really does change up the body pattern, but man it throws crazy head patterns as well especially with those het red and pastel red ax! All of them really! Just crazy looking! 2 questions: Does the belly just look super bright and clear or is there any difference/markers with them? Are you making some available this season? Congratulations on this crazy nice proven out morph!!
Very pretty, I’m interested to see it with other things like Enchi and OD or some recessives. Congratz! Another gene to add to the list lol
Theres a super pinstripe trick produced by rehker reptiles on here…
Thank you EagleReptiles!
I’m not the first person to say this and I’m not the last, but the gene has to have a homozygous form. Unless you’ve bred every single offspring from an eramosa x eramosa pairing and produced multiple clutches from every single one of them (I’m talking at minimum 2-3 clutches with at least 5-6 hatched eggs for every single animal) then there haven’t been enough breeding trials to determine for certain that there is no super. Not to mention, that just goes against how genetics work - an incomplete dominant/dominant gene always has a homozygous form unless, like erie mentioned, it’s lethal and the eggs simply go bad. If this gene still down the line another 20-30 clutches still has no homozygous animals, we’ll have to do some interesting genetic testing because there would be something very abnormal happening there.
That said - i’s a gorgeous gene, and I like it a lot. Excited to see more.
Also, am I reading your original post correctly that you culled any eramosa combo animal that wasn’t use for breeding…?
That’s incorrect there are plenty of dominant genes that have no super.by definition no dominant gene has a “super”. That’s like the main difference between incomplete dominant and dominant.
They both have a super (homozygous form), but the difference is that with a dominant gene, the super looks exactly the same as the het. For example, super pinstripe looks the same as pinstripe except it will produce all pinstripe offspring.
Then they would both be incomplete dominant. I don’t know why this hobby thinks they can change the definitions of terms. Scientist know more about genetics than the average snake breeder. Calico is a dominant gene with no super so is ringer gene there is a lot of them. If the only person to produce the gene is saying it’s dominant and no super why are we going to argue with them we haven’t produced any. And if incomplete dominant and dominant genes are the same why do they have separate names?
I am considering super the exact same as homozygous form. Every gene has a heterozygous and homozygous form (excluding lethals). Recessives, dominants, and incomplete dominants all have homozygous forms. Pinstripe has a homozygous form (which will produce all pinstripes), calico has a homozygous form (which will produce all calicos), everything has a homozygous form that will always pass on one copy of a gene. This gene at least has the potential of having a homozygous form, even if it hasn’t been produced yet.
If you breed an eramosa to an eramosa, then 33% of the eramosa-looking animals are homozygous and 66% are heterozygous. They are the exact same results as a het to het of a recessive pairing. If you take all of the eramosa animals and breed them to a normal, 33% of the animals will have a clutch that is 100% eramosa (the het form). Again, the exact same as pairing a visual recessive to a normal.
The only difference between incomplete dominant and dominant are the visual looks of the homozygous form. In an incomplete dominant trait, the homozygous form is obviously different from the heterozygous form. In a dominant trait, they homozygous form looks exactly the same as the heterozygous form.