Are there really any CoDomiant Morphs in Leopard Geckos?

Well Kyle, with simple Dominance, the animal will look the same whether it has one copy of the gene, or two. With Incomplete Dominance, and Co-Dominance, the Hets (one copy) will looks different than the homozygotes (two copy).

Since I did mostly outbreeding with my snows, before I started to understand them, I have lots of one copy snows (visible hets). I produced several last year that I suspect are homozygous (two copy), but the only way to prove for sure that they are two copy, is to breed them to a non snow, and then if they procuce all snows, they have two copies of the gene.

Since there is some variability on the amount of yellow that creeps in, even in my one copy snows, I would have to say they are probably Incomplete Dominant. I probably won't try to prove it this breeding season, but I hope to do so next year. But I can say for certain that mine are not Co-Dominant, so they would have to be either Incomplete Dominant, or Dominant like you mentioned. I know that is a rambling explanation, but hope it helps. If you need help with getting your genetics page together, feel free to borrow anything you think you can use from my genetics page.

Jim

Originally Posted by ReptilianGems

Well Kyle, with simple Dominance, the animal will look the same whether it has one copy of the gene, or two. With Incomplete Dominance, and Co-Dominance, the Hets (one copy) will looks different than the homozygotes (two copy).

Since I did mostly outbreeding with my snows, before I started to understand them, I have lots of one copy snows (visible hets). I produced several last year that I suspect are homozygous (two copy), but the only way to prove for sure that they are two copy, is to breed them to a non snow, and then if they procuce all snows, they have two copies of the gene.

Since there is some variability on the amount of yellow that creeps in, even in my one copy snows, I would have to say they are probably Incomplete Dominant. I probably won't try to prove it this breeding season, but I hope to do so next year. But I can say for certain that mine are not Co-Dominant, so they would have to be either Incomplete Dominant, or Dominant like you mentioned. I know that is a rambling explanation, but hope it helps. If you need help with getting your genetics page together, feel free to borrow anything you think you can use from my genetics page.

Jim

Thanks for the input Jim. I think I might have to pick a Female Gem Snow from you to match up with my Tremper Hybino I'll let you know when I have the space and money.

I love the thread an appreciate the work you've put into it. Keep up the good work!

Very fascinating thread. I have spoken with another breeder about this a couple weeks ago (my belief that Mack Snows are not Co-Dom).

You are 100% correct that a lot of reptile hobbiests do not use genetics terms properly.

Originally Posted by TripleMoonsExotic

Very fascinating thread. I have spoken with another breeder about this a couple weeks ago (my belief that Mack Snows are not Co-Dom).

You are 100% correct that a lot of reptile hobbiests do not use genetics terms properly.

I just wish more people would talk about it. It seem like the consensus is that we have been wrong for so long, we might as well stay wrong. Really it would take only a few of the big name breeders to get it fixed, but most of them have been using the wrong terminology themselves, and seem to hate to change. Thanks for expressing your opinion.

I know where you're coming from, Jim. Most just do not like change. It's also a shame that some will follow people like Tremper whom blatantly use terminology wrong and don't care.

I did not talk about the Mack issue publicly because when I had questioned Tremper's description of the RAPTOR (mainly the "het" part) here on Fauna, I got ripped a new one. What amusing is that what I said back then, they're saying now...

Stephanie,

I think for the most part, the people that think there are Co-Dominant Snows, are probably thinking that if they just ignore this thread, it will go away, and we can just go about doing things they way we have. And I would have to say they are probably right.

The bad thing is that for those that really don't understand the difference, this thread might have confused them more than enlightened them. I hope that it might have helped a few people though. That was my intention anyway.

Jim

www.ReptilianGems.com

I agree. To put it bluntly, they will be the ones whom look silly in the end.

Charles Pritzel (Author of the Cornsnake Morph Guide) just released "Genetics for Herpers" a guide that teaches how to apply genetics terms correctly. I believe the book would greatly benefit the Leopard Gecko Community.

http://cornguide.com/genetics.php

I'm fairly new to Leos but I have had a fairly rigorous science education and was totally thrown for a loop with the miss used terms. The term Mack "Co-Doms" really was confusing, I guess In-Dom is more propper. I always just preferred describing the Genotype as homo dom, hetero, or homo recessive. And describe the phenotype. Ex Mack snow: the "super snow" genotype: homozygous dominant and phenotype: no yellow present, regular mack snows genotype: heterozygous and phenotype: faded yellow present, mack siblings genotype: homozygous recessive and phenotype: normal yellow coloring

Mack Snow siblings are not recessive for Mack Snow if that is what you are implying.

Are you sure?
If "M" represents the mack snow gene, upper case since Mack snow is a dominant trait. Then "m" would be the resessive gene representing not a Mack snow.
Then If a Mack snow is bread the result could be
MM is a Mack super snow,
Mm Regular Mack Snow, and
mm normal type (Mack snow sibling)
There is a very good chance I have this wrong, this is the way I thought it would work if the Mack snow where the result of a single gene. Which I thought it was. Is the Mack snow trait polygenetic?