Super pastel genetic debate

My question is: Should a super pastel be considered a double gene mutation animal or single gene super form mutation animal i ask this because I recently spotted an add titled 2 and 3 gene females and there was what I considered only double gene animals including a super pastel butter female. 3...2...1... GO!!

and please elaborate as to why you think it should be or should not be considered a 2 gene mutation

While I don't consider it a 2 gene mutation, I understand the rationale (explaining it might be another story, lol).
- With many codom traits, the homozygous form is not named simply as a super _______; and the homozygous form is less like the heterozygous form. Think BEL.
- Using BEL again; with a mojave x mojave you would be in the same quandry. Say you decide NOT to consider it a 2 gene morph...what happens with a lesser x mojave? Still a BEL, but wouldn''t that be considered a double?

Basically, what it boils down to is that to get a super, each parent has to give the gene, and those genes combine to create a visibly different look. 2 of the same, or 2 different, they're still considered 2 gene combinations.

very nice and yes what i was trying to figure out is if an animal with 2 copies of the same gene (lesser x lesser or mojo x mojo or even pastel x pastel) should be considered a double mutation

I would count it as 2 and 3 genes, because it requires 2 MORPH genes to make a super pastel, as opposed to 1 MORPH and 1 NORMAL gene. So however many single genes it took to make that particular snake.

So a Super Pastel Mojave has to have "PASTEL PASTEL MOJAVE" to be what it is. If it was a Pastel Mojave, it would be "PASTEL MOJAVE". So there's a definite amount of special genes that have to be in that particular snake, even if a couple of the genes are copies of the same one.

I can understand the implication that a "3 gene" animal would carry 3 DIFFERENT genes. But then, no one buys an animal on the description "3 gene BP". We find out which 3 genes the snake has. So I don't think that a snake could be sold in a deceptive manner by saying "3 gene" vs "2 gene".

I guess it COULD... but it'd be a strange deal if someone bought a snake without knowing which genes it actually had because they were told it carried "3 genes".

Anyway... now my brain hurts and I'm gonna go watch tv instead.

Originally Posted by Darkaxe420

very nice and yes what i was trying to figure out is if an animal with 2 copies of the same gene (lesser x lesser or mojo x mojo or even pastel x pastel) should be considered a double mutation

An albino is no different than a super pastel genetically both are homozygous animals.
We don't call albino's or clowns or axanthics double mutations, why would a super form(homozygous) be any different

Originally Posted by Wolfy-hound

Anyway... now my brain hurts and I'm gonna go watch tv instead.

now you see my dilemma I'm not trying to flame the seller in this case just figure out others opinion

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

An albino is no different than a super pastel genetically both are homozygous animals.
We don't call albino's or clowns or axanthics double mutations, why would a super form(homozygous) be any different

and that is what im trying to get at you just put it in much better words then i could think of right now lol

But this particular seller the OP is pointing at isn't calling it a double mutation. He's calling it two genes, which technically it is. I'd call a super pastel butter three genes in the title of an ad, too.

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

An albino is no different than a super pastel genetically both are homozygous animals.
We don't call albino's or clowns or axanthics double mutations, why would a super form(homozygous) be any different

No they are not the same. Albino is a recessive and a Super Pastel is co-dom. They are both homozygous but they are not the same genetically. The heterozygous form of an Albino is a normal that carries a gene. The heterozygous form for of a super pastel is a pastel a mutation in it self. Incomplete but it is a mutation.

We don't call albino's or clowns or axanthics double mutations, why would a super form(homozygous) be any different

Because het albinos (or het clowns, axanthics, etc) are not "visible morphs". Pastels, mojaves, and other codom traits are. I personally wouldn't have a problem with the idea of changing super pastel to pastel, and (the current) pastel to het pastel....but it would put so many people into a twist the Earth would probably be deflected out of orbit.