Here’s a copy of the message I just sent in to WOBP… “It’s time to re-label Paint as recessive. It was my original belief that others would catch on (like they did with YBs).However once they began breeding them to a larger gene pool than my own,it became obvious that not all of the hets are as visual as what I saw originally. So it’s more a case of some or most having markers.Yet it’s not 100%.”
Basically,(early on) I just wanted everyone to have the same knowledge of the markers,and now it seems like a case of “damned if I do and damned if I dont.” lol
It’s somewhat similar to the heterozygous Piebald marker situation…As in,not all het pieds have them,and not all wild caughts with said markings will produce pieds.
Wow! So, do you have visual examples of a ‘het paint’ versus a visual ‘paint’ for comparison? I considered breeding my male Pastel Paint to other females who don’t carry the paint gene (since my female Lesser Paint isn’t of breeding size yet), and while it sounds like I can definitely still do that, the offspring would then be 100% carriers of the Paint Gene? And thus, I’m assuming that this gene functions like other recessive genes, like Pied, Desert Ghost and Gstripe? If that is in fact correct, that is a TRULY EXCITING prospect!
Using the new recessive terminology,the offspring from that Pastel het Paint male would be considered 50% het for Paint,and while a lot of them will have obvious het Paint markings some of the het Paints will not have the markings,and will appear normal. (It has also been reported to me that not all het Paints have the markings,even when from homozygous parentage.)
No,It was originally labeled as Pastel Paint (Not Super Paint),and now with the new recessive classification it is a Pastel het Paint. (Which technically is the heterozygous version of the gene either way.)
This was the terminology that was in use that the time.Simple as that…It was a Pastel Paint,and now it’s a Pastel het Paint.Same genetic power…So no,the offspring will not be 100% het Paint.
Paint is now reclassified as a recessive gene! I am emailing all of those breeders so they can make adjustments if needed (esp the 4 who had a “super” classification).
Can you please also do the same for the Sentinel gene? Paint and Sentinel are essentially the same gene (founded by two different breeders) just like banana and coral glow. If you can reclassify Sentinel as well, that would be very helpful.
WOBP still hasn’t updated the morph… Have they replied to you @charles_glaspie ?
I submitted a new base morph a couple weeks ago and was hoping they’d have at least responded by now.
I have two Het Sentinel females that are soooo incredibly close to being normal that sometimes I question their so called markers myself. I also have a visual Sentinel male from the same clutch. I do feel that Sentinel should also be reclassified as, again, the markers are not consistent enough to always be able to pick out the single gene or het form. Until proven with a visual Sentinel offspring both of my girls are simply pos Hets with a dream to be 100% Hets. Will they prove? I hope so, but again, there is zero guarantee. The pairing that produced these animals was a het x het pairing. A visual was achieved so these two het females would be 66% Het Sentinel until proven otherwise and I am willing to update anyone who is interested in results as the project moves forward for Heathen Herps. Thank you for your consideration and please correct the Sentinel classification to recessive.
Sentinel is listed as recessive on world of ball pythons and been listed that way for several years after Ben Siegel had it changed to be listed as recessive once he figured out it was not in complete dom.
