• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Super pastel genetic debate

Darkaxe420

Darkaxe420

Pythons with Paint jobs
INVALID email address
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
138
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Kansas City, KS, US
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.
 
Darkaxe420 said:
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
Click to expand...
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 :shrug01:
 
snakesRkewl said:
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 :shrug01:
Click to expand...

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. :shrug01:
 
snakesRkewl said:
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 :shrug01:
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shadera said:
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. :shrug01:
Click to expand...
Then I'd have to ask you would you call a pastel albino a 3 gene snake?
There is no difference genetically.
 
snakesRkewl said:
Then I'd have to ask you would you call a pastel albino a 3 gene snake?
There is no difference genetically.
Click to expand...

Albino needs two copies of the gene to produce the visual "one" gene. Recessives are more like 1/2 gene plus 1/2 gene. Pastel requires one copy of its gene to be visual. And two copies to be a double visual.

I'd call a pastel albino two genes, and a super pastel albino three genes.
 
My bad, I'm not trying to be scientific here, just trying to explain my POV in the most basic terms I can come up with.

One copy of a pastel gene is a morph. One copy of an albino gene isn't.
 
It's no wonder so many people can't grasp the whole het thing, visual hets are no different than recessive hets gentically except they express themselves, which is why we call them visual.

rjarosek said:
No they are not the same. Albino is a recessive and a Super Pastel is co-dom.
Click to expand...
No, albino is a homozygous and so is a super pastel, co-dominate traits are heterozygous, not homozygous.

They are both homozygous but they are not the same genetically.
Click to expand...
They are both homozygous traits which means they are the same genetically :shrug01:

A homozygous trait is two heterozygous traits joining together, visual het or recessive het it matters not.
There technically is no such thing as a super, a nice made up word that means homozygous :)
 
snakesRkewl said:
A homozygous trait is two heterozygous traits joining together, visual het or recessive het it matters not.
There technically is no such thing as a super, a nice made up word that means homozygous :)
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that point you are right :) but the difference with codom and recessive really can't be ignored when describing the mutations. That was my point. Recessive and codom are not the same thing.

What about a spider in the mix that is a dominant but there is no super or recessive form it gets a plus 1 and a double codom gets a plus 2 in my book. If they line up and create a "super" or not (ie mojo and pastel) still plus 2. My only point is recessive , dominant and codom is not the same thing. That is why there is added confusion.
 
I just lost a huge post because I was stupid and hit the back button, but here's a synopsis.

You're all getting genes mixed up with alleles. You can have multiple alleles affecting one gene (aka two alleles are present for each gene, one on each chromosome). So, many of the "single gene" animals you're talking about are actually "single allelic" animals. Let's keep it simple and talk about one codominant trait and one recessive trait.

Recessive traits by nature are double allelic, because they need two identical alleles for a gene to be expressed (ie. clown, pied). Codominant traits are, by nature, single allelic, because you only need one morph allele present to actually generate a morph.

Let's take pied and yellowbelly, for example.

Single allelic (aka 1/2 gene):
yellowbelly
het for pied

Double allelic (aka 1 gene):
blue-eyed leucistic
pied

Triple allelic (aka 1.5 genes):
yellow-bellied pied

Quad allelic (aka 2 genes):
leucistic pied

Hope this clarifies some things. Sometimes the terminology is what screws people up more than anything. A lot of people mistakenly refer to alleles as genes. One allele is only half of a gene.
 
While not technically correct, some use the term "gene" to keep explanations understandable to a greater number of readers.
 
Back
Top