Hypo Snow

It is all about Supers and crosses but these Hets sure are perty !

I have to agree with what both Fred and Shelley have already written so I want say too much more. I would like to add that with the line bred Snow’s the lesser grade ones or more yellow ones can produce all white Snow’s and the A Grade ones can produce yellow ones. I am including some pictures to show what I mean. I just took these so they are hot off the press. LOL

These guys had a pure white mother and father. The yellow one has the same genes as the white one and when she is old enough to breed will produce white and yellow babies. Of course you will have a much better chance starting out with a white one though, and the white ones look much better. LOL


These are of course the two forms of Mack Snow's.



Here is a picture of all four of them.

Hey Albey , Thanks for the pics . That "Co-Dom" is soooo white !That baby Super Snow is killing me to see LOL I coulda/woulda hatched my own by now .

This is great discussion and the snow is getting the attention it deserves. I am talking about both line breds and the co-dom Mack snows. I understand the difference. What I am getting at, is lets say giantism is co-dom. A clutch hatches, one is clearly a giant, the other isnt...can you then call the normal size one a giant? It carries the genes, but it is not a Giant. SO we then say it is het, or from Giant parents, or some other term letting potential breeders know that if bred to the right mate, you will get Giant offspring.
I see Kelli and Jeanne and Albey's pics...and to me...hey those are snows, some line bred, som ecarrying mack snow genes...I see Dan's and hey, those are yellow geckos carrying the Mack snow genes

As the co-doms get crossed with so many other morphs, do you all think then, that generations down through, those offspring should be called snows?
They may have the co-dom in their genetics, but if it is lets say a SHCT, why can't it be just that....a shct het (or what ever term shold be used) for mack snow....or would it be considered proper to call it a snow?

I think this Mack snow is the greatest thing to happen to Leos in awhile. I just think it opens the doors for anyone to label their Leo as snow, regardless of its outward appearance.
I still like Dan's term of snowdom...
Call that SHCT I cited as an example a word like that, hey I get it, it carries the mack gene...call it a snow and it confuses me.

What other morphs/traits are co-doms?
The new snake eyes, are those co-dominant?
If they are, then if a clutch hatches and one doesn't have the snake eyes but the parents and sibling does, would it be called snake eyes?

The example of people is a good one...like these new snows, there is every shade under the sun....but clear lines need to be drawn.Terms like white-ish, or yellowish to the third degree are absurd. But pastel, yellow, and white seem to be more appropriate. FOr line breds the a,b,c classifications is a great idea as there are shades of snow...(line bred)...

I guess bottom line is, I see someone posting a pic of a hypo snow and I get all excited to see a white or even whitish hypo...instead I see what looks to me like your everyday hypo....you say here is a mack hypo, or to borrow Dan's term, here is a snowdom hypo....it seems to fit better.

It just seems like when the first tangerines came out everyone rushed to be able to call their Leos tangerine....when it was not....so when you saw a tang advertised it was like, yeah, another yellow/normal Leo...

I am probably just sounding like a confused a$$ here but my interest lies only in trying to protect the snow term from being slung on anything that carries (but isnt showing) a certain gene.

I see Kelli and Jeanne and Albey's pics...and to me...hey those are snows, some line bred, som ecarrying mack snow genes...I see Dan's and hey, those are yellow geckos carrying the Mack snow genes

OK this is what i dont understand . Seems as if you are saying mine are different and not Mack ? (that i am the one rushing to label these Mack Snows ), perhaps im wrong so please dont take offense . We do have one of the first Adult Macks that was available ,purchased from Dan Lubinky. I do have his receipt . And both Shelly and Kelli have vouched for the fact there is much variation and some yellow in the "Sno-Doms" . While im like you i dont consider them "Snows" (by definition) being yellow, but i would consider the Super form a true Snow and have coined our Super Hypo Snow project "Hysno" (Hypo).

Actually to me Kelli`s Snows look just like mine with some yellow on the legs etc . there is a difference in the quality of the pic (thats for sure) and the use of a flash or very bright room lighting in some of those pics while mine were taken in dim lighting (the largest male was) . Also this is a pretty large male ,one of the first Hypo Macks hatched (3-17-05) ever and is quite a bit older than Kelli`s pics of here Hine Line crosses . She had just said that some of them are yellow ,vary greatly, and there is alot of yellow on a few she posted . They are still "Mack Snows" though and almost no two are alike from what im seeing here .

Oh, Giants are said to be Co-dom, Super Hypos& SHCT are said to be Co-dom or Dom , Patterns (Jungle Stripe Reverse Stripe) I hear talk of being Co-Dom .

Hard to say really

No, yours are Macks, not doubting that. Nice looking Leos too.And I know you are one of the first to have a male Mack that was purchased from Dan who purchased it from Alex...I remember that thread.

What you just said though is what I am getting at....
If Reverse stripe is co-dom.....
we have two RS parents, one clutch...one rs baby, one normal...
Do we call that normal looking baby a Reverse Stripe?
No
Do we call it a normal carrying co dom genes for RS....yes....
If you were to have said here is a pic of my Mack hypo....that makes sense to me....Leo carrying Mack co-dom genes which when bred to antoher Mack gives Snows , a true all white critter....but when you say here is my Hypo snow..........one would, or maybe it is just me, expect to see a white hypo....

Same with Giants....two babies born, one a mutant huge critter, one normal....mutant gets called the Giant as it is displaying the genes...the other gets labelled normal but one tells others it is carrying the co-dom gene of a Giant....

Now if John Mack's name( I hope I have his first name right) was actually Mack Snow....then it makes sense to call them "Mack Snow", but he uses the word "snow"to describe the gene they are carrying, the coloration.....the gene to make a true snow...maybe I should go argue with him....yeah right


As Shelly has said ( I cant ever use the quote feature here so stick with me)
there is much variation in co-doms and SOME yellow....but some of these co-doms that are being posted look like any other non Mack genetic carrying Leo...because they have been outcrossed to some other morph. When the Mack genes get thin (future generations of outcrossing) when will we stop refering to the offspring as Mack Snows and call them by what they appear to be...a SHCT, a Blizzard, a Hypo? If 5 generations from now we have in front of us a tangerine SHCT but it has in its breeding some Mack Snow co-dom genes, is it right then, to call is a Snow?

I am sure it is the quality of the lighting/camera you and Kelli have used that is leading me to see yours as yellow and hers as white. My camera doesnt always do justice either!

A clutch hatches, one is clearly a giant, the other isnt...can you then call the normal size one a giant? It carries the genes, but it is not a Giant.

This is incorrect. Giant is co-dom and a NON giant born from a giant parent does not carry the genes for giant. I won't go into what co-dom is, but this isn't how it works.

As the co-doms get crossed with so many other morphs, do you all think then, that generations down through, those offspring should be called snows?

Why shouldn't they be called snows? If you can breed the animals together and produce snows why shouldn't they be called what genetically they are carrying. Just because they are bred for a few generation doesn't make them any less snow?

They may have the co-dom in their genetics, but if it is lets say a SHCT, why can't it be just that....a shct het (or what ever term shold be used) for mack snow....or would it be considered proper to call it a snow?

Sounds to me like your stuck and can't get over the fact a snow cross should have any color in it. Again, you have to look at the genetics of the animal not just how it looks. Might seem trivial but to me this is by far and away the more important of the two factors. A spider cinnamon doesn't look like a spider but it is still a spider and no matter what name you attach to it or how long you breed it. The looks may change but the genetics stay the same. Forget the phenotype, that isn't seeing the whole picture it's just looking at half of it.

I think this Mack snow is the greatest thing to happen to Leos in awhile. I just think it opens the doors for anyone to label their Leo as snow, regardless of its outward appearance.

People will always try to rip other people off and there is nothing stopping people from doing this right now with hets? People could do this right now with bell hets or aptor hets etc etc etc.....

I still like Dan's term of snowdom...

If only Dan would have originated the morph Then half the people out there could have complained with that name.

The new snake eyes, are those co-dominant?

Who knows lol.

If they are, then if a clutch hatches and one doesn't have the snake eyes but the parents and sibling does, would it be called snake eyes?

No, I think you might be confused as to what co-dom means and how a co-dom trait works.

I guess bottom line is, I see someone posting a pic of a hypo snow and I get all excited to see a white or even whitish hypo...instead I see what looks to me like your everyday hypo....you say here is a mack hypo, or to borrow Dan's term, here is a snowdom hypo....it seems to fit better.

A better fit says who, seriously?? I think the name is fine as is. snowdom what exactly is that a snow co-dom snow incomplete dominant or dominant?? Makes very little sense to me. A mack-codom snow hypo yeah that is the ticket. Or if you will a Het mack super snow hypo.

It just seems like when the first tangerines came out everyone rushed to be able to call their Leos tangerine....when it was not....so when you saw a tang advertised it was like, yeah, another yellow/normal Leo...

I think if you are serious about investing in a snow of any kind you should do a little duediligence on the seller. People who ran out to buy a yellow tang should have maybe ask some questions about the animal before dishing out the cash.

I am probably just sounding like a confused a$$ here but my interest lies only in trying to protect the snow term from being slung on anything that carries (but isnt showing) a certain gene.

Confused a bit on the genetics yes an a$$ NO way. I think everyone here understands what you are talking about and I am sure that people will try to get away with passing off bogus animals as snows, but changing the name in no way helps. So the name might change to whatever but they can just as easily turn around a pretend to be selling them. The biggest part again is the genetics. If you over look the genetics you are really missing the most important part in all of this.

And again, I am not bashing anyone, or anyones' Leos....
I dont want to upset anyone. The Leos shown here, Dan's Chris's, ALbey's, Kelli's, Jeanne's and anyone else's I missed....are great examples of Macks and line bred " snows" I am jealous as I do not have one....I don't think I do at least...low grade line bred....if I squint and wish really hard yeah


If he would have just left the snow part off.... and called them "Macks gonna produce stunning white baby Leos but may not be white themselves"....

Sorry I started this mess.

Mack co-dom Snow hypo is a morph name that makes me happy...
hypo refering to the coloration/morph showing...and Mack co-dom Snow refering to its amazing potential....
That sums up my stubborn under educated about genetics arguement Fred!