Well, here you and I differ. As a geneticist I do think there is something damaging about using the wrong term to describe something when we are actually talking about genetics.
I feel that I am choosing my audience quite well. If the “old-guard” called it the wrong thing and now know that then it is up to them to properly educate the new people, not continue to peddle wrong information. Forums like these (and bp .net and the former BLBC) are often frequented by newer keepers as places to learn. That is why I have, and will continue, to bang this drum. Through the efforts of people like myself and Warren Booth and Nick Mutton people actually do learn and start using the correct terms
If I were designing the experiment I would probably pick up a dozen or so WC bush babies and use sequencing data from them to make a consensus genome.
The reason is because one very big name breeder started misusing the term and everyone just accepted it as fact because he was a big name breeder. And it is not just ball pythons that it is used for, it has permeated the hobby; hognose, retics, Burms, boa, corn snakes, carpets, leopard geckos, monitors… The only species where people do not use it are the ones where no one is breeding for morphs
I have not read Vin’s book but I am heartened to hear he is voicing the change. And, while I have never spoken directly to Vin, my guess is that his switching to the correct usage might trace back to myself and others working to effect the change
Do you see this being something that is ever going to be attempted?
And do you know of any such DNA testing on any animal on such a level, except humans?
This had led me to another couple of questions that I’m about to go and search up on but if you have any input I’m really happy to hear it.
Is genetic modification a possibility with them?
If so, to what extent?
Could we take it too far with morphs to the point it’s just no longer a royal python and needs its own species name? Where no matter what it is bred with, it will not produce a normal wild type looking royal python. Or will there always be that “I’m a python” genome being passed on?
Thank you for taking your time to answer my many many questions
I was raised to never say never, but pythons are not exactly an animal that garners a huge amount of scientific interest so it is not likely. Maybe in some not-to-distant future, when genomic sequencing and analysis becomes as cheap/easy/mundane as computers are now, hobbyists can take on the task.
The pedant in me would answer that the acts of selective breeding that we engage in would constitute as “genetic modification”. But I am guessing you are asking more along the lines of exogenous gene transfer and CRISPR and the like? I do not know that anyone has ever tried with snakes but there is no reason that the established methods of genetic engineering should not work, genetics is genetics is genetics. They have successfully used CRISPR to mutate anoles.
Over geologic time frames, sure we could drift them away from being canonical P. regius the same way we drifted dogs away from wolves. However, consider how long humans have been domesticating dogs and they (mostly) still easily back-breed to wolves. So, to all intents and purposes, they will always be P. regius no matter how morphed out we make them.
That is exactly what I meant, sorry I could have worded it better. Its actually a CRISPR video by Kurzgesagt that got me thinking this in the first place. I just wasn’t sure if there would be a difference in usage of it in reptiles, but your right… Genetics is genetics.
No need to apologize . I figured that was probably the case
Not familiar with the video but I would say the only fundamental difference is in methodology of execution due to the peculiarities of reptilian reproduction. Here is the anole CRISPR paper if you are interested:
It seems they are a lot further along that I would have believed and it seems that it may be a possibility in the distant future.
Massive thank you for sharing that with me, I’m surprised at how well I understood it.
I have a question on the banana/coral glow sex link information provided by eagle reptiles. Which by the way reply clears up a lot. My question is for the non-bananas in the clutch, are their sexes determined as well by the banana/cg carriers sex? Or would I get a natural male to female ratio from the non-banana/cg snakes. Thanks
If Male-Maker male; ~90% of male offspring will be Banana while ~90% of female offspring will be non-Banana
If Female-Maker male; ~90% of female offspring will be Banana while ~90% of male offspring will be non-Banana
If female Banana; 25% of female offspring will be Banana, 25% of male offspring will be Banana, 25% of female offspring will be non-Banana, 25% of male offspring will be non-Banana
(Disclaimer - these numbers are the statistical odds, real mileage may vary)
Perfect, Thank you wyman and everyone else for the info. This is what I was wanting to know before purchasing a Banana or Coral glow. So for the direction I’m looking to take I will want to stay clear of a Male or Female maker and find a straight female banana/cg
And it is called “het” because it is heterozygous for the superform, as are all single gene forms of inc-dom mutatoins (Butter, Fire, YB, OD, Enchi, Pastel, etc.)
People just are not used to thinking of hets as being anything other than recessive but the term “heterozygous” means that it has two different forms of the allele present. A het Albino is genetically Albino/WT and the same way HRA is genetically RA/WT
It’s a minor change in wording, but I think you meant to say, “If female Banana; 25% of offspring will be female Banana, 25% of offspring will be male Banana, 25% of offspring will be female non-Banana, 25% of offspring will be male non-Banana”
Or am I the one putting the words in the wrong order for what we are meaning to say?