Genetics questions you were afraid to ask...

[repkid]

Will a macksnow x macksnow create 100% super snow or 50% super and 50% mack?

And will a Super snow x macksnow create 100% supers?

[Ssthisto]

Nope on both counts.

Mack snow is het for the mack snow gene (a super snow is homozygous).

Therefore, a pair of hets will produce some normals (25% chance per egg), some Mack Snows (50% chance per egg) and some super snows (25% chance per egg).

Now, a super snow will ALWAYS pass on Mack Snow; crossed to Mack you have a 50% chance per egg of Macks and 50% chance per egg of Supers.

The only way you can guarantee 100% supers is to breed a Super to a Super.

[funky1]

What an exhausting but interesting thread you`ve started! Repkid, you have more questions then Magnus Magnussun - you must be a sponge!
Ssthisto - you have the patience and knowledge of a saint!

[TCReptile]

Ok i have a headache now but think I might be there...

If for example I have X which is het for x and I breed him with X which is also het for x I would get;
XX, xx, Xx and xX but at what %?
Also would this change for dominent genes? ie if the x was dominant would the % increase and if X was dominent would i get no xx?

Sorry to be pain!

C

[Ssthisto]

Ok, if you have an X het for x that's expressed as Xx. Breed that to another one and you have the following chances:

25% chance of X from dad and X from mum = XX
25% chance of X from dad and x from mum = Xx
25% chance of x from dad and X from mum = Xx
25% chance of x from dad and x from mum = xx

Because we've expressed it that way, we KNOW that X is dominant or codominant (that's what a capital letter means in genetic notation) and that x is recessive.
XX is "homozygous dominant X"
Xx is "heterozygous dominant X, heterozygous recessive x" - AKA "het x".
xx is "homozygous recessive x" - AKA "Visual x"

Dominant doesn't mean you won't see morphs coming from it - it just means it HIDES a recessive if they're carried.

If you wanted to express codominants, you would probably need superscript notation (which this forum won't do) or to use two-letter genetic combinations.

Say X is wild type and Xa is codominant to wildtype (note the capital letter - it's still a flavour of X), while x is recessive to both.

An XX will be wildtype. So will an Xx - because X is dominant to x.
An xx will be a visual x - it will have a different look to the XX or Xx animals.
An X/Xa will show a different visual appearance to either of the above, though - it would have aspects of 'wildtype X' look and aspects of 'Xa' appearance.
An Xa/Xa will have yet another visual appearance (if it's codominant - this would be called a "Super Xa")
And an Xa/x would look like a "Super Xa" too

[TCReptile]

Thanks Ssthisto i think i'm getting there...
C

[repkid]

Originally Posted by funky1

What an exhausting but interesting thread you`ve started! Repkid, you have more questions then Magnus Magnussun - you must be a sponge!
Ssthisto - you have the patience and knowledge of a saint!

I would deffo agree!

And another question . By the time I learn these leo genetics I probably wont need to know them because I will know every possible outcome from everything after all these questions.


Super snow x SHTCTB?

Thanks Sshisto

[Ssthisto]

Yellow-stained hypo Mack snows :P

[TCReptile]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Nope on both counts.

Mack snow is het for the mack snow gene (a super snow is homozygous).

Therefore, a pair of hets will produce some normals (25% chance per egg), some Mack Snows (50% chance per egg) and some super snows (25% chance per egg).

Now, a super snow will ALWAYS pass on Mack Snow; crossed to Mack you have a 50% chance per egg of Macks and 50% chance per egg of Supers.

The only way you can guarantee 100% supers is to breed a Super to a Super.

Ok silly question but why don't they just call the Super Mack snows, Mack snows and the Mack Snows het fors as isn't that what they are? Or am I being dumb?

[Ssthisto]

Originally Posted by TCReptile

Ok silly question but why don't they just call the Super Mack snows, Mack snows and the Mack Snows het fors as isn't that what they are? Or am I being dumb?

Because herpers use the word "het" incorrectly 9 times out of 10 to mean "invisibly carrying a recessive trait". You tell someone that you have a het Mack Snow and they tell you you can't have one because it's a codominant trait (and then get upset when you tell them your het mack snow will produce some normals when bred to another het mack snow... because they think that if it's visually not normal, it MUST be homozygous for the trait it carries!)

Also, "Super whatever" is the shorthand for "homozygous codominant".

In addition, most of these codominant morphs are named for what people see first - the heterozygous form. Then the homozygous, when it finally appears, winds up being "super het".

Would be confusing too (at least with royal pythons, who have one gene locus that appears to have six different gene flavours) if the flavours were all called "het leucistic" instead of given their individual flavour names (Mojave, Phantom, Lesser, Russo Lemon Line, Butter, Mystery Dilute) ...