Genetic Markers

Several morphs have genetic markers and some don't. There is a ton of breeding experience out there and if you are aware of genetic markers go ahead and post them.

hypomelanism in boa constrictors. This is a co-dom gene. When two hypos are bred together some of the resulting young may be supers (generally referred to as super salmons, a dominant gene). The only way to tell if a boa is a super is to prove it out. All of the resulting young will be hypos. Some markers of super salmons are generally an absence of black at the end of the tail and a reduced mustache.

Any others?

I have 100% het albino boas, what seems to be a genetic marker for them is the large amount of orange in their body coloration.

Pastel boas-recessive? Or Polygenetic? Pastel can be bred out by using normal boas that have clean markings. Selective breeding is the best way to do this which can produce beautiful pink/orange/silver/grey/tan clean and speckle free boas.

Albino genetic markers

I have often heard people referring to genetic markers for albinism in boas, but I have not heard the orange theory. I have a pair of het albino boas that proved out this past year and there is no hint of orange anywhere on either animal.

Overall I'm highly skeptical of the majority of the "genetic marker" theories. That's what they are when all the hype is removed, theories.
Many are the result of coincidence, and many are simply wishful thinking. My main problem with genetic markers is there's no consistency. Let's take pied balls as a prime example. There is only one known pied gene. It's oft repeated about the belly striping as being a pied marker. The problem lies in the fact that there are untold numbers of 100% het pieds that do not have striped bellies, and likewise there are many many individuals with the stripes that do not carry the pied gene. This causes me to relegate the portion of hets which do display the stripes as being coincidental.
If there was a consistent marker gene that all hets for a given trait displayed, then to me that would cause the gene to no longer be considered simple recessive. It would be a form of codom with the visual expression of the gene to be the "super" form.

Genetic marker theories have caused quite a stir in recent years, but I'm afraid some people put too much faith in the idea.
As for the reduced pigment mentioned in the super salmons, I don't exactly put that in the same catagory as the other genetic markers. It's likely a direct result of the homozygous form of the gene. I can see how it would be a genuine method of distinguishing super salmons.

I don't keep up with the boa morph area very closely. Am I correct in assuming the salmon trait is the equivalent of the spider gene in ball pythons? Meaning it's a dominant gene and the homozygous form is visually no different than the heterozygous form, the only difference being the inability of the homozygous form to produce normal offspring.

I don't keep up with the boa morph area very closely. Am I correct in assuming the salmon trait is the equivalent of the spider gene in ball pythons? Meaning it's a dominant gene and the homozygous form is visually no different than the heterozygous form, the only difference being the inability of the homozygous form to produce normal offspring.

The problem here is that I am unfamiliar with the ball python spider gene. The hypo gene in the boa constrictor is a co-dom gene, roughly half the offspring are hypo. The appearance of a super, which is dominant, is more intense, much like the tiger gene in retics. Hope this helps.

With the tiger gene in retics, it's a pattern mutation. The "super" form is immediately distinguishable from the tiger visually. It's what is commonly referred to as a co-dom gene. A tiger is merely a heterozygous super tiger. The het form is visually different from the wild type.
Spider is a dominant gene. The herterozygous form is visually no different than the homozygous form. The spider gene is dominant over the wild type gene. Whenever it is present, even in the herterozygous state, it is expressed.
A spider ball with only one spider gene will produce both spiders and normal appearing offspring depending on whether the spider gene was passed on or not.
In the homozygous or "super" state, the snake is visually no different, btu since it has two spider genes, it cannot produce normals.

From what I have gathered, it is not overtly obvious when a salmon is homozygous, a super salmon. You said:

The only way to tell if a boa is a super is to prove it out. All of the resulting young will be hypos.

With a tiger retic, you just look at it to determine if it's a super. They look completely different from a tiger. A spider ball though is as you described the salmon. The only way to tell if it is a super (meaning homozygous) is to prove it out and it will produce nothing but spiders.

With a tiger retic, you just look at it to determine if it's a super. They look completely different from a tiger. A spider ball though is as you described the salmon. The only way to tell if it is a super (meaning homozygous) is to prove it out and it will produce nothing but spiders.

You are absolutely right Clay. Yes, it does seem that the spider gene, in balls, is the same as the hypo gene in boas.