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.
I understand how things work but your telling Me there is a super form of calico and ringer gene which is not true. Where are you getting your definition of complete dominant from?
There is not a visually distinctive super/homozygous form, but it exists, and it will produce all calico/ringer offspring. Incomplete dominant is a dominant trait that has a visually distinctive super form (like mojave or pastel). A dominant trait does not have a visually distinctive super form (like pinstripe or calico).
But not one person has ever claimed to have a super calico seems a bit odd so where exactly does it exist?
My thought is that it exists, but it’s not known. Unless somebody has bred a calico to a calico and bred all of the calicos to a non-calico animal and checked the phenotypes of all the offspring, then nobody would know. In pinstripe, super pinstripes are known and it is known that they produce all pinstripe offspring. There are at least 3 of these that I know of.
And where exactly are you getting your information on the definition of a complete dominant trait?
11 posts were merged into an existing topic: Culling Snakes
That’s just from what I’ve read on genetics that I’ve picked up, I honestly have no idea where I first read it.
But, this website has a brief paragraph on types of dominance. I’m sure there are more, but this was the first one I found. Just the diagrams under the complete and incomplete dominance shows the general idea.
I agree that this is much more concerning. I went back to the post above and this is where it was mentioned. I must have missed that the first time I read through it.
I’m hoping that it was just misuse of the word cull and they were sold or at least used as food, but culling an animal just because you don’t have a use for it and you don’t want to pay to house/feed is extremely unethical.
Sorry @saleengrinch … Erie is right here. You know I love you though
100% there is a homo Calico, Ringer, Pinstripe Acid, Leopard… You name a Dom trait, it has a homo version.
A dominant trait is one that expresses the same phenotype in both het (1 copy) and homo (2 copies) forms but genetically is still a “Super”…
Basically the only thing seperating a dominant trait from a Incomplete dominant one is that we can not ID it vs the het. They work in the exact same manner.
A homo calico will produce the same calculation chances as a homo Enchi… Is Super Calico viable…? That’s another question, but there is definitely a homo of every trait.
|dom||visual 1||visual 1 (genetically a “super”)|
|incdom||visual 1||visual 2|
|rec||non visual||visual 1|
Yes, I completely agree. When I first read in the original post I assumed I read it wrong, but I would really like clarification. If healthy animals were culled for no reason other than to prevent keeping and/or selling them, that’s hugely concerning to me.
Thank you for explaining this better than I could! Yes, in the hobby we use “super” to refer to a homozygous form, and that isn’t what most of the genetics community uses because every gene has a homozygous version whether it is a visual “super” or not. Likely, we just don’t hear about “supers” of dominant genes precisely because they don’t look any different, so there’s significantly less incentive to produce them. But every since incomplete dominant, dominant, and recessive gene has a homozygous form. This one may not have a visual super, but there is absolutely a homozygous form.
The conversation has been spilt from this trait request.
Please see: The Ethics of Culling Snakes
Corey has been in the business for a long time and has long been considered as one of the good guys and best breeders in the game. I’m assuming here and could be wrong but i would bet the farm on me being correct… anyway when he said cull, i think he probably just meant sold it or didn’t hang onto it for his holdback collection.
The only problem with this theory is that he said nobody else had the gene. So how would combos not being used be culled, without anybody else having access to the gene? I would like for there to be a likely theory that didn’t involve the unused snakes being killed, but without confirmation from Corey, we don’t know.
But if what you are saying is correct, than a super IMG boa (which would just be considered an IMG as it is a dominant trait) would produce 100% IMG offspring?
Indeed it should, however Im not aware if a viable IMG super has been proven yet.
@mattcookreptiles or @westridge may be able to correct me on that.
Out of curiosity, is IMG fatal when homozygous? If not, then a IMG to IMG pairing would create 1/4 kf the clutch being “super IMG” but being dominant, you wouldnt know the difference until they were bred due to the het and homo form being identical.
I haven’t seen anything that suggests that super IMG is fatal besides that a known one hasn’t been produced. I personally plan to try IMG x IMG when I have my own animals to work with. Also I plan to holdback all of the IMGs and work with them. I really want to figure this out lol.