sunglow genetics question

[Casey Hulse]

In my own breeding, f1 hypo x f1 hypo did in fact produce approx. 25% nomal boas, this was a couple yrs. ago, and I was surprised at that time to produce any normals. I do believe that a % of the resulting f2's are super and I will find out next yr.(I hope)

 

[Biscuit71]

I always understood the Hypo/Salmon to be if you breed a hypo to a hypo, you would get 25% Normal 25% Supers, and 50% hypo... If I am correct, hypos have both a normal and a hypo / Salmon gene, so if bred together, they would still have a chance of offspring displaying that trait... normal.

 

[Biscuit71]

I believe a correct breakdown would be...

super x hypo - 50% super 50% hypo
super x normal - 100% hypo
hypo x hypo - 50% hypo 25% normal and 25% super
hypo x normal - 50% normal 50% hypo

Im not sure exactly, this is just how i understand it... can someone hopefully correct me? thanks..

 

[heathn]

So anyone here remember that I was right in the first place? Thanks for getting my back.

 

[Paul Kent]

Ok......

So after a bit of reading, I am wrong about the probabilities of what could be produced by hypo x hypo. But I'm not convinced about it not being a co-dom trait. Unless someone can explain to me what difference it makes whether or not you can physically see the difference between a co-dom (visual het) and a super.

Like I mentioned in another thread,

Hypo= H
Normal (WT)= N

If a hypo is HN and a HH is super hypo, it shouldnt matter whether its visible or not. The HH genes are there.

A super tiger retic has, lets call it, TT. Whether or not you can see it doesnt matter. The genes are still there. If you breed it to a normal and you'll get all tigers.

And the same applies to a "super" hypo.

And sorry for screwing up your thread Heath.

 

[ericfire]

Ok......



If a hypo is HN and a HH is super hypo, it shouldnt matter whether its visible or not. The HH genes are there.

And the same applies to a "super" hypo.

And sorry for screwing up your thread Heath.

thats what i used to think to ,but i just had to take more eperienced opinions as my own due to the lack of my own
thanks for maning up to the mistake though

takes guts paul
Eric

 

[Paul Kent]

Well the way it was just explained to me was that the hypo gene by DEFINITION is actually a DOMINANT gene that also has a "super" form. Still doesnt make much sense, but like you just said, Ill have to take the opinion of people with more experience than me (Randall in this case). Problem is that I was doing that with our little argument as well (MG Reptiles). So who to believe? I say we should do the same as every other subject in the world just read and talk to as much people as possible and form our own conclusions.

Thanks for the PAUL.....

 

[heathn]

I try to look at the hypo gene like this. Lets say that a blue eyed person would be the same as a hypo, HN. Then a person with the genes HH would have really blue eyes, the kind that leap out at you.
Not really a good analogy, but it works for me.

Paul you didn't screw up anything, discussion is what it's all about. Take care.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

And by the way Rich, you had it right.

Nope, actually I did not. LOL I was wrong. You will most definately get normals from a hypo x hypo breeding. And until you can pick a Homozygous salmon from a litter that contains heterozygous salmons, with 100% accuracy, I will stick to Dominant mutation. Eric gave a nicely put explanation.

And not to dis the link you posted to matt's site, but here's a better one for learning genetics. And if I remember right, he literally wrote a book on the subject. LOL Mr. Pritzel knows his stuff.

SerpWidgets

Another for Boa Constrictor morphs specifically,

Boa Genetics.com


My 2 cents
Rick

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

So anyone here remember that I was right in the first place? Thanks for getting my back.

I admitted it earlier. But if you need more pats on the back..... You were right Heath. HA HA HA

 

[Paul Kent]

I'm still having trouble with the definition stating that the homozygous for any co-dom trait has to be visible to qualify for co-dom staus. Everything else fits the bill besides the visible aspect. Ill leave it alone from here on out, but thats gonna bug me...

Thanks for the corrective info guys..

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Codominant will always yield 3 distinct phenotypes. The Motley is the best example. It's codominant, because it's a mutual expression of WT and motley genes in heterozygous form. But the super form being homozygous, is nothing like WT, or Motley, as this is the full expression of the motley mutation.

The Key is the 3 phenotypes, which you do not see with Salmon.

Check out them links, SerpWidgets is geared towards corns, but the info is the same. I rather enjoyed looking over that site.

BTW, discussion is how we learn, feel free to speak up.

Rick

 

[Paul Kent]

So its about expression MORE than genetics. Because in a super hypo, the genes are there but the expression is not....right?

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

So its about expression MORE than genetics. Because in a super hypo, the genes are there but the expression is not....right?

Exactly. Except the expression is part of the genetics. LOL It's how they tell them apart.

 

[heathn]

LOL, this is getting crazy.
A good tool I like to use is www.geneticswizard.com
It took a few minutes to get the hang of it but it works real well for me.