Genetic terminology - Proper use of the word "heterozygous"

[cassadaga]

But wouldn't co-dom to co-dom produce all supers of that form? If you then were to pair the co-dom to a normal, then the offspring would show degrees of similarity to both attributes.

Actually, this type of breeding will produce three looks. Normals, hets, and supers.

Enigma x Enigma= 100% Enigma: It's dominant, there is no "super" to differentiate, no het. enigma.

Most Enigmas are actually het for Enigma, so Enigma X Enigma only creates about 75% Enigmas, and then 25% normals. Unless one of the Enigmas is a homozygote, then obviously you will get 100% Enigmas.


Mod note - I split this off to continue the discussion without taking the Black Pearl thread off-topic.
-Tony

 

[Northstar Herp]

Thanks for the correction, Anthony. I'm still VERY new to the genetics game, and just starting to participate in these types of discussion, so your response really helps.

My main point was that if BP x BP produces all BP, then it doesn't mean it's not recessive, and it doesn't guarantee it to be a co-dom.

I understand what you're saying about the enigmas, and I mean that there is not het. like we normally think of say, het. tremper. Het/Homo doesn't look any different. You did correct me on the enigma x enigma pairing though.

But I have a question on the co-dom part, and I THINK I know where the difference is. A co-dom means that there are grades of the morph that the animal can show, like giant versus super giant. It's not het. but looks totally normal or homo and totally exhibits, there is something in between... the one copy animal looks kinda in between like the "giants". If you breed super giant to super giant, you get all Super Giant. If, when you say there can be co-dom hets you mean the in between animal, then I get it. Otherwise, I don't. I think the term het. can be misleading to us newbie types if you're talking about something other than recessive traits.

Back to the BP subject... I don't think this violates any site rules to say that I PM'd JMG and they said that the Black Pearls are recessive, definitely. The TUG site though, says that they are either recessive or co-dom, but that was put up a while ago, I guess.

 

[OhioGecko]

I think the term het. can be misleading to us newbie types if you're talking about something other than recessive traits.

I agree Kevin, the word het should not be used when talking about co-dominant traits.

 

[cassadaga]

I disagree, a heterozygous has a single copy of the allele, and a homozygous has two copies. Modes of inheritance such as recessive and dominant are based on what the het looks like. In recessive the het appears normal, in dominant the het looks like the homo, and in co dominant or incomplete dominant the het has it's own unique look.

 

[Tony C]

I disagree, a heterozygous has a single copy of the allele, and a homozygous has two copies. Modes of inheritance such as recessive and dominant are based on what the het looks like. In recessive the het appears normal, in dominant the het looks like the homo, and in co dominant or incomplete dominant the het has it's own unique look.

:main_thumbsup: It is only confusing because the word "heterozygous" or "het" is misused by the herp community as a synonym for the word "carrier", which is an animal heterozygous for a recessive trait. All carriers are heterozygotes, but not all heterozygotes are carriers.

 

[Northstar Herp]

The point of language is to convey meaning, and if"het" has talen on a different meaning than the original technical one, then why not use some other term to be understood? It's misleading to those who don't know as much as you looks like you care more about being right than understood.

 

[cassadaga]

The word has not taken on another meaning at all, there are just a lot of leopard gecko breeders who don't really understand genetics as well as they think. Whether or not you understand what a heterozygous or homozygous as a leopard gecko breeder isn't all that important at that this point because the genetics we care about (color and pattern) all work relatively simple. When discussing genetics outside of the small world of leopard geckos though, it is fairly important to understand what a heterozygote really is.

 

[OhioGecko]

:main_thumbsup: It is only confusing because the word "heterozygous" or "het" is misused by the herp community as a synonym for the word "carrier", which is an animal heterozygous for a recessive trait. All carriers are heterozygotes, but not all heterozygotes are carriers.

I disagree, a heterozygous has a single copy of the allele, and a homozygous has two copies. Modes of inheritance such as recessive and dominant are based on what the het looks like. In recessive the het appears normal, in dominant the het looks like the homo, and in co dominant or incomplete dominant the het has it's own unique look.

I agree with both of you here, my stance is I would never market a Mack Snow as a het Super Snow. 100% of the time het is being used by itself in describing a genetic trait it means "simple recessive". If someone was talking about the hetrozygous form of a co-dominant trait they would say "hetrozygous form of a co-dominant trait".

In this thread we are talking about two different genetics, Co-dominant and Simple Recessive. I think we all understood "het" to be short for simple recessive, wether that is right or wrong and not co-dominant.

This is actually a great topic but I don't want to get this thread too far of track and we don't want to confuse anyone who is reading about the BP. We can start a new thread on the genetics and the correct meaning of hetrozygous if needed.

 

[yellermelon]

There's alot of bad genetic info in the last few pages. Please be sure you know genetics before trying to teach them.

 

[Tony C]

The point of language is to convey meaning, and if"het" has talen on a different meaning than the original technical one, then why not use some other term to be understood? It's misleading to those who don't know as much as you looks like you care more about being right than understood.

Proper use of existing words is the best way to be understood, making up new ones and misusing old words just adds to the confusion.

 

[Tony C]

There's alot of bad genetic info in the last few pages. Please be sure you know genetics before trying to teach them.

Care to point out the bad info?

 

[OhioGecko]

I can see both sides to this discussion, but would anyone market the super form of a co-dominant reptile as "het Super XXXXX"

You have to look at the content the word het is being used. If you are discerning the difference between "simple recessive" and "co-dominance" you would not use the word "het" by itself to describe to co-dominant reptile, but you could use the word "het" to describe the simple recessive. Hey, I could be way off base here so let me know.

 

[yellermelon]

I'm on my phone..makes things difficult. If you know genetics you see them...
Co Dom x co Dom does not give u normals it gives you co Dom and super
I haven't done enough with enigmas to know there genetics except enigma x normal gives you enigma.
In no way can you have a het for co Dom... It's either normal, codom, or super.

if 100% black pearls are produced from balck pearl x black pearl then they are a co dominant morph and the black pearl is the super form, the co dom form may not look much different to a normal, if they were recessive then you would get 75% black pearl (25% 2 copy 50% 1 copy)and 25% normals,

This is wrong as well.Close enough I understand what was meant but wrong enough to steer a person wanting to learn genetics the wrong way.

 

[Taquiq]

I agree with cassadaga and Tony. In a co dom like Mack Snow, normal has 0 copies, Mack Snow has 1 copy so it is the heterozygous form of Super Snow, and Super Snow is the homozygous form of the morph. Even though it's a bit confusing breeders should understand that heterozygous means carrying 1 copy of the gene.

 

[yellermelon]

You can't have a het that's co Dom... It's co Dom that tells you it's got a super form. You can have a co dom het recessive though like Mack het tremper.

 

[Tony C]

You can't have a het that's co Dom... It's co Dom that tells you it's got a super form. You can have a co dom het recessive though like Mack het tremper.

Codominance describes the mode of inheritance, not how many copies of a particular gene an organism has. A Mack snow is heterozygous for the Mack Snow trait, a Mack Super Snow is homozygous for the Mack Snow trait.

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

What Tony and Anthony have been saying is completely correct. You have to be able to look past what has been understood as a community to realize the true meaning of these terms we use. Het Super Snow sounds dumb, I agree, but genetically thats how it pans out.

 

[yellermelon]

Lol ok whatever.

 

[OhioGecko]

What Tony and Anthony have been saying is completely correct. You have to be able to look past what has been understood as a community to realize the true meaning of these terms we use. Het Super Snow sounds dumb, I agree, but genetically thats how it pans out.

I agree it is correct, but......... nobody would ever market one as that. It would be like saying het simple recessive Tremper, and nobody does that either.

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

I agree nor do I think they should be market like that. It will only complicate things and further confuse people/breeders and the genetics they are working with. I am perfectly fine selling it as a mack snow or a super snow...doesnt bother me one bit.