It’s not out of the realm of possibility that one of them may actually be a incomplete dominant gene. But not all of them my point here is if a gene is recessive there is zero visual indicator in the het form. That’s what makes them recessive lol
2 Likes
Whether or not visually identifiable characteristics are present in heterozygous form is what solely differentiates recessive from dominant mutations. It’s possible that certain visual characteristics could be extremely subtle and potentially even move from the realm of “identifiable” to “not-identifiable” from natural polygenic variation and other factors.
When you look at pieds in particular for example you’ll find numerous large scale breeders claiming they can pick them out with great consistency. This goes against the idea that some of these well established mutations are completely “figured out” and might even be improperly categorized.
The original poster saying he thinks his very nice pied may be influenced by being heterozygous clown isn’t so far fetched IMO.
2 Likes
The definition of a recessive trait is expressed only when the determining gene is in the homozygous condition. We can’t just change the definition of a word in order to match our personal opinions.
1 Like
I agree completely. After looking at pieds and het clown pieds on the marketplace there is a noticeable difference. @staff, I think this should be moved to another thread, this is getting off-topic from the original post.
Which is exactly why when there is a noticeable difference in the heterozygous form (pied & clown) it is actually inc-dom regardless of what is previously thought about the morph.
1 Like
Then it shouldn’t be called het influence that’s inaccurate. Right now the general consensus is the hobby is all these traits are recessive.
Het refers to one copy of a gene, recessive or dominant. Black pastel could be considered het influence since it is how the heterozygous form of black pastel changes the patterns and colors. The hobby might consider them recessive but that doesn’t mean that they actually are. Is the definition of recessive:
Only expressed in homozygous form
or
Only has an obvious expression in homozygous form
If it’s the first (which it is) then that would make pied & clown dominant since they have a visual effect (regardless of how small) in the heterozygous form. Compare these to yb. There isn’t a large difference in expression except in the homozygous form but there is a small effect in the heterozygous form. So why should pied and clown be considered recessive when yb is dominant.
2 Likes
I totally understand how it works. Recessive don’t show visual indicators. So far no one has proven clown or pied to be incomplete dominant. So to even use the term het indicator is wrong.True hets from true recessive traits have no visual indication. Yellowbelly is incomplete dominant not dominant it has a super form.
So if there was someone willing to analyze randomly picked pictures and correctly identify het vs no copy then would you consider them inc-dom? The same would be done with yb to have a comparable accuracy percentage.
1 Like
I totally understand your point. My point is we can’t change the definition of a word lol.
We’re not changing the definition, we’re changing what morphs fit that definition.
2 Likes
No your trying to say a morph that has been considered recessive for over ten years is actually incomplete dominant. Which it may be but I would like some actual evidence to support this theory before I start referring to them as incomplete dominant or using a incorrect term like het indicator.
Even looking at normal vs het clown on the marketplace you can see differences. Note the dorsal patterns and white outlines of the alien heads. And there are many experienced breeders that are able to differentiate normal vs het pied.
2 Likes
Well we are in disagreement then. I don’t believe clown is incomplete dominant. Pied I can see the logic in the points I’ve been presented in the past. But I’m going to refer to traits by what is accepted by the community. And right now the conscious is all the referenced genes is they are recessive.
Agree to disagree. Clown, I’d have to see more proof to totally verify it but until then I personally believe it is dominant. If someone were to pair a normal male to a normal, het clown, and clown I think the results would prove whether it’s recessive or dominant. Pied, I think the proof is there, it just isn’t enough to convince everyone.
2 Likes
omg so cute
Forgot about this!
Bioexotics hasn’t posted again since this. In fact Ernesto quit posting on social media entirely. We followed each other on Instagram after he saw my posts on this thread and haven’t heard from him since. Hope all is well and that exceptional Freeway Pied het clown is growing up great!
2 Likes
Ok so I was searching for a topic of this nature before posting a new thread and decided that resurrecting this post is the right way to go here…
I have a bongo het pied girl that looks pretty different than a regular bongo and wanted to share. Which other genes that are currently labeled as recessive make a big visual difference in morphs besides clown that has people wondering if it could possibly be inc dom? I am just asking for fun, I don’t want to start disagreements or anything 
Here’s my girl Kayla who is a bongo het pied - she has almost a bamboo-type coloring…this photo is exactly how she looks even though I used my phone to snap this pic indoors
1 Like
I’m one of the people who believe pied (and clown and some others) is inc dom. Bongo is one of those morphs that tend to show het pied fairly well. In your girls case, her alien heads are more stretched out/connected, especially near her tail end. A lot of those “recessives” will change the pattern, not just color.
Here’s a few threads where it was discussed whether some recessives are actually inc-doms:
5 Likes
Thank you for those reads, I had only ever read the bottom one you posted but those other two are very interesting! But my brain hurts lol. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the complexities of genes, specifically as they relate to ball pythons. It’s slow going, though extremely interesting.
2 Likes
It’s nice to know I’m not the only one who’s had this experience. 
I definitely understand more about genetics now than I did a year ago, but I’m also acutely aware of the fact that there’s still a lot I haven’t quite been able to wrap my head around. But I’ll keep chipping away at it!
2 Likes