(Super) Hypo Tangerine = co-dominant?

i think that salmon boas are most likely the result of crossing two sub species of red tail boa. its I.M.O. an incomplete dominant morph. its commonly labeled as being codominant but my understanding of what codominant is doesnt match what ive seen with salmon and super salmon boas.

If the Super Hypo gene is co-dominant all Babys from my Super Hypo x Normal wild caught pairing are Hypos. Even if they look like what we call Super Hypos

exactly.

Of course I have, Chad! Robin got LOTS of warning points has apologized, and from what I know of her was not necessarily the easiest thing for her to do, and was heartfelt. It's time to let it go.

is this the apology you were refering to?

<~~~ for saying the "d" word even (and not the bad "d" word at that) lmao oh well. sorry i hurt your feelings by using the "d" word... my humblest appologies

yeah. brought a tear to my eye. real emotional.

you admitted to having a brain fart. meaning you admitted being wrong. robin missed that part apparently and the both of you have been going on and on about how i dont know anything ever since. give it a rest.

Yes, I already said that I made a mistake. I am sorry about that. I said co dominant and meant to say dominant. I have not been going on about how you don't know anything. I disagreed with a few of the points you made regarding the super hypos. Since you don't seem to want to see them, I will point out to you again what statements you made as fact that my experience and knowledge working with the Hine line. BTW, I have hatched out at least 500 animals from the Ray Hine bloodline (probably alot more than that but I hate overestimating!), and I do think that makes me a little bit more experienced with the particular morph.

Here are some of the things you posted that were incorrect:

a hypo X hypo will produce normals as well.

super hypo X hypo 50% supers 50% hypos

super hypo X normal 100% hypos

a heterozygous variant with this trait present will typically have more pattern as they reach maturity when compared to a homozygous ray hines hypo.

what you said to rhac - "actually you are producing hypos. not super hypos. "

super hypo: homozygous for hypo.
X
normal: homozygous for normal. crossing these two will produce hypos (heterozygous for hypo). (WHAT?)

and here is the false statement you made that you got all ticked off at me for pointing out that you were wrong.

if you cross ANY super hypo baldy to a normal you will not produce any super hypo baldies. they will have head spots, and spots in the bands.

That above statement is wrong, and I pointed it out. Then I asked you how long you had been breeding the Hine line super hypos and how many offspring you had produced, and that really seemed to upset you (why, I still do not know!).

You got upset at me for pointing out some incorrect things you posted. You got upset when I asked how long you had worked with the HIne line.

NOW- to answer rhac's question to me:

Why do you think, the Super Hypo gene is not co-dominant?

Rhac, here are the experiences I have had when breeding these guys:

+Breed a Super Hypo to a wild type/non super hypo and you get about 1/2 super hypos

+Breed a Super Hypo to another Super Hypo and you get all Super Hypos

+Some of the Super Hypos I have produced appear to be the "super" form of the co-dom because when these animals are bred to a wild type/non super hypo, 100% of the babies are super hypos

+Apparantly you cannot tell by looking at the gecko if it is a "super" Super Hypo or not

They may very well be a co-dominant/incomplete dominant or perhaps a dominant morph. The thing is that it is impossible to know which animals are the "super" form, since they look like any other super hypo. You have to breed the animal to find out if it is a "super", just like you do with salmon boas and spider ball pythons.

SO I would say in conclusion that there is a strong possibility that it is, but I can't say that with 100% certainty.

Hey Chad. Here's an idea for you. Contact Ray Hine and ask him.

Originally Posted by goldengategeckos

Perhaps you should be talking directly to the folks that actually work with Leopard Geckos instead of your other resources? You might have a much better chance of finding the answers you are looking for if you actually spoke to Ray Hine, Kelli Hammack, Albey Scholl, Jon Ho, Charles Bona, and many others that have been working with these morphs for a number of years before you base your comments on the opinions of those that have not.

Originally Posted by KelliH

Here's an idea for you. Contact Ray Hine and ask him.

Sounds like a great idea! Gee, who said that?

Ok...thank you very much Kelli.

I wrote an email to Ray and gave him the link. I hope he will answer soon...

So the question is...how can we prove if it i co-dominant or dominant or whatever?
I took a picture today under natural sunlight...on the left is my Urban female and on the right the Ray Hine female.

As you see, my Ray Hine female, who seems to be the "super" Super Hypo form, because I produce 100% Super Hypo offspring, has got less spots than the Babys I produce.
So maybe there is a chance to differentiate the "super" Super Hypo and the Super Hypo form.
But I cannot tell now...I have just two Super Hypo Tangerine females from Ray Hine. The one I already breed to the wild caught male (bought in '01) and another one I bought this year wh I introduced a few weeks ago to a High Yellow male. She has nearly no spotting on the head as well:

so maybe she is the "super" Super Hypo form as well....but I cannot tell before I bred her.

But if I breed the Super Hypo offspring from my "super"Super Hypo to wild caught pairing together....and produce Super Hypos with less spots on head...maybe this offspring is the "super" form...so I have to take the offspring again and pair it to a wild caught male...if I produce 100% Super Hypo offspring, I can be shure that the Super Hypos with less spotting on head are the "super" Super Hypos?

There is one problem...as I told you...I'm 16 years old...and I do not produce up to 10.000 Leopardgeckos in a season so I could assure my results.

So anyone of the big breeders has to do this job as well...so it can be proven, that the gene is co-dominant and that the "super" Super Hypo form has less spotting then the Super Hypos...

I think another thing which makes it hard for me to say one way or the other is this:
I have held back my best offspring over the years, and it may very well be that ALL of my Hine line animals are in fact the "super" form. It makes it hard for me to do any sort of real test breeding on this matter.

Sounds like a great idea! Gee, who said that?

A very smart lady, that's who! And looks like a very smart young man took the advice, good for you Rhac I hope Ray replies to the thread. Hey Marcia, Ray would be a fantastic guest chatter! *hint hint

+Breed a Super Hypo to a wild type/non super hypo and you get about 1/2 super hypos

+Breed a Super Hypo to another Super Hypo and you get all Super Hypos

+Some of the Super Hypos I have produced appear to be the "super" form of the co-dom because when these animals are bred to a wild type/non super hypo, 100% of the babies are super hypos

+Apparantly you cannot tell by looking at the gecko if it is a "super" Super Hypo or not

They may very well be a co-dominant/incomplete dominant or perhaps a dominant morph. The thing is that it is impossible to know which animals are the "super" form, since they look like any other super hypo. You have to breed the animal to find out if it is a "super", just like you do with salmon boas and spider ball pythons.

SO I would say in conclusion that there is a strong possibility that it is, but I can't say that with 100% certainty.

the funny thing is, i concur. and have throughout the entire thread. the only point where i was even remotely wrong was...

if you cross ANY super hypo baldy to a normal you will not produce any super hypo baldies. they will have head spots, and spots in the bands

and i believe the animals your talking about probably have linebred hypo blood as well which give them the appearance of being super hypo while they are not homozygous ray hines hypo animals.

a hypo X hypo will produce normals as well.

super hypo X hypo 50% supers 50% hypos

super hypo X normal 100% hypos

a heterozygous variant with this trait present will typically have more pattern as they reach maturity when compared to a homozygous ray hines hypo.

what you said to rhac - "actually you are producing hypos. not super hypos. "

super hypo: homozygous for hypo.
X
normal: homozygous for normal. crossing these two will produce hypos (heterozygous for hypo).

where is anything in there wrong? is it the specifically the statement where i said: super hypo (homozygous hypo) crossed to a normal (homozygous WT) will give you 100% hypos (herozygous for hypo)? cause that is a fact. even if the trait is simply dominant. however there would not be seperate phenotypes in heterozygous VS. the homozygous animals that carried the trait if it were simply a dominant trait. but in codominant and incomplete dominance there are 2 phenotypes for carriers of the trait. a homozygous phenotype and a heterozygous phenotype.

one of the variants, codominance, is better described as a "paint by numbers" type of dominance where there are only two colors (each color representing either the dominant WT allelle or the codominant allelle). sections are divied up based on which gene is more dominant and stable. if the colors on this were red for the WT allelle and white for the mutated codominat allelle than a heterozygote would be red and white and a homozygote would be white.

the other, incomplete dominance, is more like mixing paint. if the normal dominant allelle is red and the mutated incomplete dominant allelle is white than the resulting phenotype would be pink. the homozygote of the mutated trait would be white as well.

people find it easier to just say codominant. i do it to. salmon boas, mack snows, and maybe even ray hines hypo leopard geckos are in fact incomplete dominant in my opinion. but codominant has a better ring i guess and people tend to understand what it means for the most part.