Are there really any CoDomiant Morphs in Leopard Geckos?

Originally Posted by 1Bob

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?

I believe the Siblings are the "same" as the non Albinos from the Het Albino Crossings.
aa would be Albino
Aa would be het Albino
AA would be Normal

Just like the Mack example.

LMK if it isn't to clear

Co-Dominant has three phenotypes:

MM (Homozygous aka "Super")
Mm (Heterozygous aka "Mack Snow")
mm (Normal)

So I wasn't off base. Is a normal that results from a pairing that also produces mack snows or super snows always called a mack snow sibling? If yes, than snow sibling can definately be called homozygous ressesive for mack snow. This is because the mack snow is a dominant trait (well co-dom or incomplete-dom). The term homozygous just states that both alleles are the same and should always be followed with dominant or ressesive. Heterozygous is one of each so it doesn't matter. It seems that in practice, many just use the term homozygous if it is the state that expresses a phenotype other than normal.
Example Bell Albino: If the phenotype is a Bell albino the alleles are bb which is the homozygous ressesive genotype. Bell Albino is a ressesive trait so many may just say that it is homozygous. Though homozygous ressesive is more accurate. A normal phenotype is either heterozygous for bell and is Bb or homozygous dominant for bell BB.

The term Mack Snow Sibling is just a term to sell more hatchlings. As of right now, there is no evidence of them being nothing aside from Normals.

For example:
When breeding Het Albino x Het Albino, you get non het non Albinos aka Normals. A Mack Snow Sibling would be the same.

Originally Posted by 1Bob

So I wasn't off base. Is a normal that results from a pairing that also produces mack snows or super snows always called a mack snow sibling? If yes, than snow sibling can definately be called homozygous ressesive for mack snow. This is because the mack snow is a dominant trait (well co-dom or incomplete-dom). The term homozygous just states that both alleles are the same and should always be followed with dominant or ressesive. Heterozygous is one of each so it doesn't matter. It seems that in practice, many just use the term homozygous if it is the state that expresses a phenotype other than normal.
Example Bell Albino: If the phenotype is a Bell albino the alleles are bb which is the homozygous ressesive genotype. Bell Albino is a ressesive trait so many may just say that it is homozygous. Though homozygous ressesive is more accurate. A normal phenotype is either heterozygous for bell and is Bb or homozygous dominant for bell BB.

Originally Posted by 1Bob

So I wasn't off base. Is a normal that results from a pairing that also produces mack snows or super snows always called a mack snow sibling? If yes, than snow sibling can definately be called homozygous ressesive for mack snow. This is because the mack snow is a dominant trait (well co-dom or incomplete-dom). The term homozygous just states that both alleles are the same and should always be followed with dominant or ressesive. Heterozygous is one of each so it doesn't matter. It seems that in practice, many just use the term homozygous if it is the state that expresses a phenotype other than normal.

A Mack Snow sibling is a normal. Nothing special about it. You can't have homozygous for Normal nor is Normal recessive, Normal is Wild-Type, nothing more.

Super Mack snow, Mack snow, and normal are the three phenotypes that can result if you pair up two Mack snows. The corresponding genotypes with respect to the Mack snow gene are homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and homozygous recessive respectively. The genotype describes the pair of alleles that are responsible for a particular trait. If the trait is dominant, then a normal phenotype has the genotype homozygous recessive for that particular trait. If a trait is recessive, then a normal phenotype can have a genotype of heterozygous or homozygous dominant. Note: I am not trying to describe what is most commonly done in the industry; rather, I am describing what is commonly used by the scientific community. This was the underlining idea throughout the thread, industry jargon Vs. Scientific jargon.

Originally Posted by 1Bob

Note: I am not trying to describe what is most commonly done in the industry; rather, I am describing what is commonly used by the scientific community. This was the underlining idea throughout the thread, industry jargon Vs. Scientific jargon.

The thought of the thread was make the point that Mack Snows are not Co-Dominate, but are Incomplete-Dominate. Mack Siblings are not labeled as recessive to reduce the confusion. There is nothing special genetically about them, they are the same as all of the normals produced from other breeding.

Cool thanks.
I understand why it would reduce confusion for some. But I think that it's also that most people don't want to bother describing both the phenotype and the genotype and prefer to use just one descriptor. And why the hell not, most of the time the single descriptor very clearly describes the animal. The only time the genotype really matters is when an animal is het for a recessive trait or for an incomplete dominant trait where you get the super/regular forms.

Interresting thread, thanks for the input. Now since I understand what Incomplete Dominance is, I definitely do agree that Macks are In-Dom

Anybody got their August copy of Reptiles Magazine yet (I know it is a little early)? There is an article on basic gentics, with a section on incomplete and co-dominance. I actually thought about writing an article myself, but I am glad somebody did.