Yes, I'm going there: any updates on the scaleless gene yet?

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Thanks for the tip, April. I just checked out his page. He only has an image of a scaleless het (aka scaleless head) that is also 100% het for pied breeding a pied, so it's not a homozygous scaleless animal. Or is there another photo you saw? I admit I didn't go digging too far back in the posts.

yes that's the photo. I didn't know 'scaleless' was a het? silly BP names, why not call it a het scaleless? It's listed as scaleless het pied so I thought it was one. oh well, sorry

Originally Posted by AbsoluteApril

silly BP names, why not call it a het scaleless?

Yup. Just like "hidden gene woma" and "het red axanthic" and a number of others. There should be a committee that goes through and changes the names of morphs to sensible ones.

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

There should be a committee that goes through and changes the names of morphs to sensible ones.

I'm down lol

I wanted to update this thread with the information I received last night and today.

I talked to Steve about the scaleless snake dying and decided to look into it myself. Supposedly it was sold at the Daytona show by BHB to Daniel Allison. I hadn't heard anything about it being sold so I found this interesting.

What's especially interesting is that Daniel currently has the WHS line of Scaleless Heads, so why would he buy the BHB line visual male? The people I talked to said they haven't heard anything about this at all, and they are people who are very involved in the project. Also, I'm pretty certain that if he bought Mr. Smooth he would have posted it on his facebook page (considering he was excited enough about his scaleless heads to post those), but he didn't do anything of the sort.

As far as any facts that I have are concerned, BHB still has Mr. Smooth and people should be hatching out more scaleless this year. Until they hatch out, everything is just going to be speculation or rumors to lower the price. If they end up not being healthy or have issues, I will be the first to come back here and openly state it.

Thanks, Nick. I appreciate the civil discussion we've all had here. I'm still hoping everything is alright, but I am nervous. I wish other breeders working with the gene would chime in their experiences, good and bad. I feel honesty is extremely important.

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

It works the same way no matter how you define it. Technically since the scaleless heads are visual you could call them codom, but they're basically just het. scaleless that you can see.

It's no different than het. red axanthic or het. russo, they're technically "recessives" for red axanthic and russo but since you can visually see them they're considered codoms. Genetically it doesn't matter how you describe it, it doesn't change how it passes.

You can look at it either way; the super scaleless head is a scaleless ball python, or the scales missing on the head is a visual marker on a het. scaleless.

That is not what recessive means, Nick.

Heterozygosity can occur in any mode of inheritance with the potential for differing allelic copies at a given locus, but you should not be calling a single-copy co-dominant animal / single-copy incomplete dominant animal recessive at all. They are "technically" not and they are technically not. Saying the single copy is het for the super form (when there is a super form) should be fine, though, since it is exactly that (het).

I understand and agree (of course) that the probability calculation is the same, but applying an inappropriate genetic term (that has a definition; not yours and not mine to rewrite) for labeling or description for which it is not a fit is really bad territory for a breeder to step into. It can come back in a bad way. On stats and hets, we agree, but tread carefully on calling something recessive when it is not. I know what you mean to say and you know what you mean to say and we therefore understand each other, but it is still incorrect when said that way.

As for the rest of the conversation, I find it stimulating and it should be interesting to see what happens here.

You're right Nickolas, the main point I was arguing was that the mode of inheritance is identical. I think for a period people were referring to it as a het. scaleless, which I agree is a misnomer (which is why I drew the comparison to het. red axanthic and het. russo).

I shouldn't have stated that it was recessive because the scaleless head is clearly visually different than the wild-type, I simply meant that because it takes two copies of the gene to produce a visual scaleless that it's similar to waiting for visual recessives to hatch out. It absolutely would be considered a codom, thank you for clarifying.

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

You're right Nickolas, the main point I was arguing was that the mode of inheritance is identical. I think for a period people were referring to it as a het. scaleless, which I agree is a misnomer (which is why I drew the comparison to het. red axanthic and het. russo).

I shouldn't have stated that it was recessive because the scaleless head is clearly visually different than the wild-type, I simply meant that because it takes two copies of the gene to produce a visual scaleless that it's similar to waiting for visual recessives to hatch out. It absolutely would be considered a codom, thank you for clarifying.

No. The mode of inheritance is not identical. That is my very point.

The probability of heterozygosity and homozygosity is statistically calculated the same way, though, and that -as far as I can see- is what you were intending to express. This latter piece is where we surely agree.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

No. The mode of inheritance is not identical. That is my very point.

I think the main issue is that I don't have the genetic vocabulary to explain what I mean lol. But you're right, I'm referring to the statistical aspect of inheritance, the odds of passing on a recessive trait are exactly the same as passing on a co-dom or incomplete dom trait. In that sense I consider them equivalent, without going into it any further than that.

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

I think the main issue is that I don't have the genetic vocabulary to explain what I mean lol. But you're right, I'm referring to the statistical aspect of inheritance, the odds of passing on a recessive trait are exactly the same as passing on a co-dom or incomplete dom trait. In that sense I consider them equivalent, without going into it any further than that.

As the negotiation phrase goes, we have come to terms.