how do you know ig your ball python has the het gene

Originally Posted by hhmoore

With specific reference to the "pied marker", it was my understanding that it wasn't intended to be applied to a random grouping of animals (regardless of how the masses chose to utilize it)...it was said that within a group of possible hets (as in, from a het to het breeding), those with the "marker" supposedly have a greater likelihood of proving out. Trying to look at an available group of subadult, or better yet, CH animals, and looking for pieds in that manner is more or less the same as a Quick Pick lottery ticket...though I am not sure which has the greater chance of paying off

Even with applying the marker theory to a group of possible hets, the idea is still flawed. It's oft repeated, and has become heavily ingrained in the common thinking in regards to this morph, but I have never seen it presented as anything more than conjecture. It has become a habit with people but no actual supporting data has been presented that I have seen.
The problem with it is not all het pieds have those stripes, and many completely normal CH balls do have them. Why then would the gene cause stripes in only some of the offspring, the same stripes occasionally seen in specimens that are known not to have the gene.
Without consistency, it's still just a feel good measure for someone picking from a group of pos hets.

I would need to see some data regarding it before I could put and real faith in it. The biggest question that would need to be answered would be has there been any possible het pieds with the marker that didn't prove out.
If there are, then considering the striping is not something confined to just het pieds and not all of them have it anyway, I'd be inclined to chalk it up more to coincidence than anything to rely on.

Hey - people have to have SOMETHING to help them decide what possible hets to keep, lol. I wasn't defending the "marker", just pointing out that it was not initially meant to be conclusive evidence of carrying the trait...and that it was something to be looked for in a group of known possible hets. Other than that, Iam in agreement that if it only works some of the time, then it really can't be considered a "genetic" marker.

Clay, are you familiar with the het for granite Burmese pythons that show the puzzle pattern and the het for green that show the cinnamon pattern? These are both supposed to be recessive mutations but for some reason act co-dominant some of the time with visible hets and the rest of the time with normal looking hets. I don't know how that happens but there is a precedence for the line between recessive and co-dominant not to be text book neat and clean.

With ball pythons the existence of non het pieds with similar belly markings makes it even messier than just sporadic co-dominant tendencies.

But lets take a hypothetical here. I don't have the numbers to back it up but what if 70% of the het pieds showed the three scale wide white belly in the last third with wide solid dark borders and only 10% of the non het pieds showed similar markings. While not a sure thing, could this information be useful when picking female possible het pieds to hold back for breeding?

I'm not saying your odds would be great with random imports with the marker but if you are breeding a het pied male to normals and can't keep all the daughters it might be useful. However, it raises major ethical issues on marketing the others. At this point possible het pied females without the marker aren't worth much so probably best just to sell them as normals and steer free of the issue.

This was an interesting year for breeding results from marker bellied animals not from known pied lines. I heard of one that didn't prove and one that did. Not much of a sample size but I'd be more interested in hearing results of marker bellied known possible het pieds anyway. At one point someone posted that Peter Kahl kept back a bunch of possible het pied females with the indicator and none of them proved. I find that report very suspicious as it would mean that the indicators are not only not helpful or even random but that they are strongly correlated with not being het pied (i.e. being het pied would actually prevent the indicator marks reported by others to be present in 60 – 80% of het pieds). I believe it was an example of misinformation but put it out there for your consideration and an example of why getting to the truth of het pied indicators is not an easy task.

Actually I am not familiar with those examples in the Burmese python. The only question I would ask is have there been any Burmese pythons with the puzzle pattern that did not prove to be het granite? The same for the green gene.
If there haven't been any that did not prove out then I would have no problem calling that a genetic marker, despite the fact it doesn't always show up that way.
In the case of pied balls though, there have been individuals that have had the "markers" that were not hets. I have no idea of the percentages either, but the fact is does happen that way makes me take issue with calling it a genetic marker. Consistency is the key.
I have no problem with the idea of genetic markers for what is considered simple recessive traits, but it's the grasping for oddities that bothers me. Looking for some odd characteristic to assure oneself that their snake simply must be a het.

I try to remember not to use the word "marker" since it was explained to me that marker means a 2nd visible gene closely linked to the non visible gene you are interested in. I try to use "indicator" instead because I believe it's the single copy of the piebald gene it's self that is showing through but really don't know what to call it.

I'm not familiar enough with the Burmese to know for sure but I got the idea that those appearances where unique to the sporadic visible hets. I'll see if I can find someone who knows.

But regardless of what you call it, IF the ball python situation is that a much larger percentage of het pieds show an appearance and a much small percentage of non het pieds also do to me that is useful information. Confusing, and not perfect, but useful. I do agree that because of the lack of consistency it can't be used as an assurance but I don't believe those are reasons the discussion should be tabled.

I'm actually worried that with the now cheap proven morphs people will stop grasping at oddities and we'll miss out on some cool new co-dominant mutations. You might have a subtle male ch het for a new co-dominant but hard to justify dedicating a female to him when you could buy another pastel male for $200 and know you have a shot at producing something.

The case I mentioned where a possibly new line of piebald was produced this year from breeding an indicator belly female back to one of her indicator belly offspring probably would not have happened with a ch male het pied. Not that missing out on a new line of piebald would have been that much of a loss but it could have been something new. Would the Lori or Spot nose be bred if they first showed up in ch males today?