Questions on supers

So I got in a chat with a local herp guy about some supers he saw for sale and was going to buy. I didnt want to steer him to much as I myself have never dealt with supers but I did think that what he was buying might have been mis advertised.

Im going to put down some thought segments and would love to get someone to correct me where im wrong

* There is co-dominant and dominant. Both gene types will transfer ( statistically ) to half of the litter. Dominant is different from co-dominant in that a super dominant would look the same as a normal dominant. Hypo for example looks the same with one hypo gene or two hypo genes. Where as co-dominants take a different appearance when a super is created. Motleys for example, super motley being solid black and normal motley being patterned.

* With a Dominant gene type ( super hypos is what i was discussing with my friend ) like hypo, for it to be proven as a super it must be breed to something without a hypo gene and the litter must come out 100% hypo. Then and only then are you sure she is a super.

* The only other way to garuntee a virgin hypo to be a super would be if it came from a litter of 2 proven supers ( proved by the method mentioned above )

* a super hypo x a normal boa ( no hypo gene ) would produce 100% hypos ( one hypo gene ) and zero super hypos
* a super hypo x a hypo ( one hypo gene ) would produce 50% super hypos and 50% hypos. but all would be considered POSSIBLE super hypos because you cant 100% distinctly tell them apart you can only guess.

I only ask to help a friend not over pay for something.
not trying to accuse anyone of mis advertising supers.

Thanks for any knowledge.

Originally Posted by MurdocksReptiles

So I got in a chat with a local herp guy about some supers he saw for sale and was going to buy. I didnt want to steer him to much as I myself have never dealt with supers but I did think that what he was buying might have been mis advertised.

Im going to put down some thought segments and would love to get someone to correct me where im wrong

* There is co-dominant and dominant. Both gene types will transfer ( statistically ) to half of the litter. Dominant is different from co-dominant in that a super dominant would look the same as a normal dominant. Hypo for example looks the same with one hypo gene or two hypo genes. Where as co-dominants take a different appearance when a super is created. Motleys for example, super motley being solid black and normal motley being patterned.

* With a Dominant gene type ( super hypos is what i was discussing with my friend ) like hypo, for it to be proven as a super it must be breed to something without a hypo gene and the litter must come out 100% hypo. Then and only then are you sure she is a super.

Almost correct. When you deal with hypos enough, there are visual ways to tell if a super is a super. It's the non-super looking hypos that must be bred to prove if they are super or not.

Originally Posted by MurdocksReptiles

* The only other way to guarantee a virgin hypo to be a super would be if it came from a litter of 2 proven supers
( proved by the method mentioned above )

Other than visually knowing the difference, yes.

Originally Posted by MurdocksReptiles

* a super hypo x a normal boa ( no hypo gene ) would produce 100% hypos ( one hypo gene ) and zero super hypos.

Correct.

Originally Posted by MurdocksReptiles

* a super hypo x a hypo ( one hypo gene ) would produce 50% super hypos and 50% hypos. but all would be considered POSSIBLE super hypos because you cant 100% distinctly tell them apart you can only guess.

Correct, but you would be able to tell with some of them.

http://www.salmonboa.com/Salmongenetics.htm

Originally Posted by mxracer4life

Almost correct. When you deal with hypos enough, there are visual ways to tell if a super is a super. It's the non-super looking hypos that must be bred to prove if they are super or not.

Other than visually knowing the difference, yes.

What is the visual difference.
and seeing as hypo is defined as a dominant gene doesnt that go against definition? If I remember correctly the visual difference is the fact that supers look cleaner in there patterns, but ive also seen normals look very clean in there pattern?
I dont mean to argue just full understand.

Originally Posted by mxracer4life

Correct.

Not correct. A super hypo to hypo breeding would yield (roughly) 25% normals and 75% hypos, with 50% of the hypos being regular and 25% being supers. Then you would call ALL hypos possible or probable supers.

And again dont mean to argue but that makes no sense.

why would a super x a normal give 100% normal hypos
and then a super x a hypo only give 75% hypos with 25 % supers

Thank you for sharing your knowledge

Originally Posted by MurdocksReptiles

What is the visual difference.
and seeing as hypo is defined as a dominant gene doesnt that go against definition? If I remember correctly the visual difference is the fact that supers look cleaner in there patterns, but ive also seen normals look very clean in there pattern?
I dont mean to argue just full understand.




And again dont mean to argue but that makes no sense.

why would a super x a normal give 100% normal hypos
and then a super x a hypo only give 75% hypos with 25 % supers

Thank you for sharing your knowledge

Had a brain fart, wasn't looking at the question when I answered. I edited my answer, lol. Sorry.

Here is a picture I found here on fauna to show some differences. Look at the overall coloring of all, tails and speckling of others, reduced patterns etc.

Here is a non-super hypo and super hypo, both produced by me along with an adult hypo and a super hypo of mine.

Sorry for the quality of pictures, I can never get it right.

When learning to visually tell supers, it also depends on which line it comes from, Jeff Gees hypos have more panamanian blood, thus leading to "orange tail" hypos and Rich Ihle has the more salmon color in his line, which some EBV etc has been added in. Jeffs line can be easier to tell than Richs. Just my 2 cents. I love the G line supers, which is what my female is. My male super has more of the "salmon" influence.

Originally Posted by mxracer4life

Jeff Gees hypos have more panamanian blood, thus leading to "orange tail" hypos and Rich Ihle has the more salmon color in his line, which some EBV etc has been added in.

Rich Ihle's salmon boas are also panamania crosses (here's his write up on the history of the salmon: http://www.salmonboa.com/about.html) . EBV (east bay vivarium, which is a reptile store here in CA) are their selective bred salmons, not the other way around.

I'll try to remember to come back and add more later tonight when I have time.

Originally Posted by mxracer4life

When learning to visually tell supers, it also depends on which line it comes from, Jeff Gees hypos have more panamanian blood, thus leading to "orange tail" hypos and Rich Ihle has the more salmon color in his line, which some EBV etc has been added in. Jeffs line can be easier to tell than Richs. Just my 2 cents. I love the G line supers, which is what my female is. My male super has more of the "salmon" influence.

To clarify, the "G Line" hypos are more central american influenced which is why they stay smaller and have more of the Orange tail coloration. Rich's have more of a colombian mix in them, therefor different coloration and larger size. I have heard and read about the storied on both types, just have heard it put different ways too many times. April, I would love to hear more input on this too. I am sure everyone knows of my love of the hypo by now.