????sunsets????

Hypo to hypo = 25% super, 50 hypo, 25% normal. Hypo is het for super just like when you breed het for albinos.

het to het= 25% albino, 50 % het, and 25% Normal.

Maby you have a super??

Sorry, but I do not agree with that. Take a look at the genetics wizard, it will tell you that it's 100% hypo's with 50% being possible supers. Numerous other sites give you the same outcome. My own breedings give me that outcome. I have never bred a hypo to a hypo and produced a normal. Not once and my breeders are not supers.

Griz

Originally Posted by extreme_bci

Hypo to hypo = 25% super, 50 hypo, 25% normal. Hypo is het for super just like when you breed het for albinos.

het to het= 25% albino, 50 % het, and 25% Normal.

Maby you have a super??

What is a het to het when dealing with a hypo? There is no such thing as a het hypo when dealing with boa's. The hypo trait is a homogenous trait. Either it is a hypo or it is not. There is no het as in dealing with a recessive gene.

Griz

I was useing an example.

Hypos are het for super hypo. So they are a visual het. think of it just like a het albino.

Het albino to normal= about 50% het 50% normal.
You get about the same as any hypo or other co-dominant morphs.

Hypo (het for super) to normal you will get about a 50% hypo 50% normal just about the same as het albino to normal breeding.

if you look at a "co-dominant" boa as if it were a visible het, and the dominant (super) version as the actual morph.

I hope this helps.

Originally Posted by Griz

Sorry, but I do not agree with that. Take a look at the genetics wizard, it will tell you that it's 100% hypo's with 50% being possible supers. Numerous other sites give you the same outcome. My own breedings give me that outcome. I have never bred a hypo to a hypo and produced a normal. Not once and my breeders are not supers.

Griz

If your breeding trials have proven that no normals are produced when two hypos are bred together that would seem to disprove the concensus that has been put forth here. I think it would be highly unlikely that the percentages would actually skew 25% in any given litter as to not produce any normals and 25% more hypos if the hypo to hypo does in fact act like a recessive trait.

Is there anyone else out there that believes hypo to hypo yields all hypos?

Griz, have you ever bred those hypos to normals? If so, what was the outcome?

Originally Posted by extreme_bci

I was useing an example.

Hypos are het for super hypo. So they are a visual het. think of it just like a het albino.

Het albino to normal= about 50% het 50% normal.
You get about the same as any hypo or other co-dominant morphs.

Hypo (het for super) to normal you will get about a 50% hypo 50% normal just about the same as het albino to normal breeding.

if you look at a "co-dominant" boa as if it were a visible het, and the dominant (super) version as the actual morph.

I hope this helps.

Josh, where are you getting the het for super? I have never, in all my years, heard anyone refer to an animal as het for super.

Again, the original question I had was a hypo x hypo breeding. I have never seen a site show that you obtain normals as a result of this breeding. The fact is....that you don't. You will get 100% hypo's with 50% possible supers. The possible supers are not hypo het supers. There is no super form of the hypo gene that is distinguishable from a normal hypo (unlike a motley vs super motley). You have to breed the potential super in order to determine if it is the super form or not. The term Het is only used when dealing with a recessive gene, of which, Hypomelanism is not. It's a dominant gene therefore there is no het, whether dealing with a hypo or the super form thereof.

Please refer me to whatever pages you are reviewing that states to the contrary as your comments are completely outside of the norm. I truly do want to know. Thanks!

Griz

Originally Posted by Boa4u

If your breeding trials have proven that no normals are produced when two hypos are bred together that would seem to disprove the concensus that has been put forth here. I think it would be highly unlikely that the percentages would actually skew 25% in any given litter as to not produce any normals and 25% more hypos if the hypo to hypo does in fact act like a recessive trait.

Is there anyone else out there that believes hypo to hypo yields all hypos?

Griz, have you ever bred those hypos to normals? If so, what was the outcome?

Do this: do a google search on the following "hypo x hypo" and tell me what you get. You will find Clay English site that shows this morph combination. Run a genetic wizard query and it will again confirm my statement. Take a look at mgreptiles morph page and it will again confirm 100% hypo's. Every site I have ever seen confirms this. I would love to see a site that states to the contrary as I have never seen this before.

Griz

Here is just one of many sites that confirm this:

Originally Posted by Griz

What is a het to het when dealing with a hypo? There is no such thing as a het hypo when dealing with boa's. The hypo trait is a homogenous trait. Either it is a hypo or it is not. There is no het as in dealing with a recessive gene.

Griz

Did I say anything about haveing het for hypo? No, I said look at it as if the hypo is a visible het, and the dominant (super) version as the actual morph.

How my hypo breedings have you done?

Dose anybody else understand what I'm saying?

Josh, can you PLEASE show me one website that states a hypo x hypo breeding results in normals? Just one.

Griz