morph names and my opinions.

[Gregg M]

the problem with what you are saying is that the leopard geckos are T+ albinos. they exist in most animals. the diff is the amel AFTS have normal looking eyes, where as the T+ albino leopard geckos do not have normal eyes

So Nev, whats to say that Tyrosinase + animals can not show normal type eyes???

 

[crotaphytidae]

I completely agree that it is an anerytheristic/ Axanthic animal, and from what I understand they are one in the same being that the animal cannot produce pigment from the xanthophores, although I have heard that erythrophores are different from xanthophores and that they are the same. I will have to research that one on google scholar.

Is there any difference between "incomplete dominance" and "visible het"?

Yes, the heterozygous form of the blizzards are potentially visible hets being that they are very high in speckling or as I like to call them peppered. But by definition they don't qualify as incomplete dominant because they are not intermediate between normal and blizzard, but then again I can't think of how the animal would look if it was intermediate between the two.:main_huh:

 

[nevinm]

So Nev, whats to say that Tyrosinase + animals can not show normal type eyes???

thats not what i am saying gregg, but i dont know why you are going to argue this with me, i know you feel the same way about the AFTs being called an albino instead of amel. if you have a better argument then please share

 

[Gregg M]

Nev, it is true, I do feel the same as you about the AFT amels... Not arguing at all with your reasoning... Just raising a question... Nev, you should know by now, if I was arguing, I would have come at you with more than just a single question... LOL

 

[OhioGecko]

Is it possible for a het x normal to produce the het morph?

MS X Nr = 50% MS, 50% Nr
HA X Nr = all possible het, 50% HA, 50% Nr.


Doesn't that prove it is not recessive?

The following link explains the different genetics. By the reading the Mack Snows should be an incomplete dominate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_allele .

 

[Halley]

that would not make it co dom. because the mack snow wouldnt be anything more than a het. because mack snow is not dom to begin with. ill say what i said above, you need 2 dom traits, we only have one the enigma. there are no other dom traits. co means working together. dom means dominaint trait. so you would need to dom traits working together. that is the oposite of what i am saying aobut the mack snow being a visable het.

All I’m saying Nev is that it’s obviously not recessive…

 

[Paco]

I will have agree that Snow's follow the Incomplete Dom. rules. I don't work with them so I would like to know if Super Snow x Normal=100% Snows all the time?

For a trait to be recessive I thought that there has to be no visual difference between the Het offspring and Non het? Otherwise if there was a visual difference it would not be recessive. Not to say that there are not some genetic markers out there for recessive traits.

As for what color morph Snows are. Could be any number of things just depending on how you want to look at it.

As for a True Snow. Don't you need a T- Albino x Axanthic/anery to get a true Snow?

What is a T+Albino x Axanthic/Anery? Caramel Snow???

I think the major problem is the improper way Co-dom has been used to describe many morphs in the trade for years. Traits that act as Incomplete Dom traits are called Co-dom , so I can see why there would be a lot of confusion. trust me I still have it all the time.

 

[OhioGecko]

I will have agree that Snow's follow the Incomplete Dom. rules. I don't work with them so I would like to know if Super Snow x Normal=100% Snows all the time?

Yes, Super Snow x Normals = 100% Snows

 

[Lordoftheswarms]

I do believe the Mack is actually a recessive, Anerythristic.....
Mack snow as a visible het to the recessive super snow
What I will give a good explanation to is why I have a theory the super snow is recessive. I’ll use the albino as a comparison.

I am a genetics major at the University of Alberta.
Heterozygous recessives do not have a visible phenotype of the recessive trait. Co-dominant traits have visible phenotypes when heterozygous. There is no debate on this. Albinism is a recessive trait that does not have a visible heterozygous phenotype. You are making a false analogy.

SS X SS = 100% SS
AB(albino) X AB = 100% AB

SS X MS = 50% SS, 50% MC
AB X HA (het albino) = 50% AB, 50% HA

MS X MS = 25% SS, 50% MS, 25% Nr (normal)
HA X HA = 25% AB, and the rest would only be possible het, and in theory would break down to the same percentage as the MS X MS. 50% HA, and 25% Normal

MS X Nr = 50% MS, 50% Nr
HA X Nr = all possible het, 50% HA, 50% Nr.

In theory this gives a perfect explanation.

No it doesn't. You only regurgitated Mendel's law of independent assortment of Mendelian inheritance of genes. This does not prove that they are the same type of mutation, only that they have the same inheritance patterns (like all eukaryotic autosomal genes).

If we had another dom trait to mix with the enigma (Enigma X xtrait) we would get our co-dom leopard.

You do not know the definition of co-dominance.

definitions pulled from the Funk & Wagner’s Encyclopedia.

Funk and Wagner's Encyclopedia probably does not have a thorough understanding of Mendelian genetics if you have pulled what you have presented from there.

Go get some books on Mendelian genetics.

 

[Boopster]

I also have to poke my stick into this antsnest.

I think we have to remember that the names we have for the different morphs of leopard geckos are not really "official". Usually the breeder that is first with a morph comes up with a cool name and thats that. No board of experts evaluates if it is the right name or not.

This statement shows this quite well.

nevinm writes:
"Ill start with the one I think is the most wrong. The blizzard. I DO believe the blizzards are leucistic."

Yes.
If we only had normal leopard geckos and the blizzard popped up we would most likely call it a leucistic leopard gecko. The reason it is called the blizzard is because at the time the first blizzard was found what most people now call Murphy patternless was called leucist.
The "discoverer" of the blizzard morph had to come up with another name.

As for the Mack snow I would say it is incompletely dominant. If you dont want to buy books on genetics, wikipedia actually has got it kind of right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

Go Lordoftheswarms! :main_thumbsup:

Peace

Axel

 

[nevinm]

lord, the mack snow to albino was only a comparison. i only wanted to get people to start thinking on that situation. what i did say, is that i believe EAITHER the SS is recessive or imcompleat dom. i do lean more twards the incompleat dom, i should not have said that, again only an idea to make people think, but i do believe full heartedly that is anery.

as for not knowing what co-dom is, yes i do. if i dont then please by all means explain. it is when 2 dom traits are presented in the same animal to make another mutaion.

 

[OhioGecko]

I found a great test to help us all with our genetics. Only takes 15 minutes

Genetics Test

Nevin, great thread!

 

[Ian S.]

Anerythrism and xanthicism (aka black albino) are strictly recessive traits extremely similar to albino in that they defect or affect certain colors expressed in xanthophores.

Here's a link for an excellent description of codominance & how the gene combines.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/mendel/mendel2.htm

 

[Lordoftheswarms]

as for not knowing what co-dom is, yes i do. if i dont then please by all means explain. it is when 2 dom traits are presented in the same animal to make another mutaion.

This was taken from my animal science 400 class on genetic improvement.

As for your visible heterozygous concept, both Blizzards and Mack Snows have visible heterozygosity.
My female het blizzard has a lot more purple in her tail and as background to her black bands than other normals have that are not heterozygous for blizzard.

 

[herpencounter]

Lordoftheswarms and Nevin I would have to say you are both wrong (no offence).

Codominance is when two alleles of a gene which result in distinctly different phenotypes, but when they are both inherited together in an individual (one from the mother and one from the father - called heterozygosity), the individual has both of the phenotypes.

For example: if one allele is for red skin and the other allele is for blue skin, then the individual will have patches of blue skin and patches of red skin. (This is in contrast to incomplete dominance, where the individual would inherit a blend of the two alleles and have purple skin).

That said I would say Snows are incomplete dominant (blending of normal and snow).

Here is an example of a codom flower.

Thanks,
J!

 

[nevinm]

perfict example j. i couldnt agree more, and that is what i have been trying to say, i just wasnt sure how to.

 

[OhioGecko]

Lordoftheswarms and Nevin I would have to say you are both wrong (no offence).

Codominance is when two alleles of a gene which result in distinctly different phenotypes, but when they are both inherited together in an individual (one from the mother and one from the father - called heterozygosity), the individual has both of the phenotypes.

For example: if one allele is for red skin and the other allele is for blue skin, then the individual will have patches of blue skin and patches of red skin. (This is in contrast to incomplete dominance, where the individual would inherit a blend of the two alleles and have purple skin).

That said I would say Snows are incomplete dominant (blending of normal and snow).

Here is an example of a codom flower.

Thanks,
J!

Great example. This is my understanding also.

No Dominance is incomplete dominance.

 

[Lordoftheswarms]

Lordoftheswarms and Nevin I would have to say you are both wrong (no offence).

Codominance is when two alleles of a gene which result in distinctly different phenotypes, but when they are both inherited together in an individual (one from the mother and one from the father - called heterozygosity), the individual has both of the phenotypes.

I was not wrong about this. This is what I said Co-dominance was.
I was right about this, Nevin was wrong. I suppose my only error was that co-dominance expresses both, where as incomplete is a blend of the alleles, which is pretty insignificant difference compared to: "co-dominance is two dominant traits cooperating".

For example: if one allele is for red skin and the other allele is for blue skin, then the individual will have patches of blue skin and patches of red skin. (This is in contrast to incomplete dominance, where the individual would inherit a blend of the two alleles and have purple skin).

I mentioned partial dominance (incomplete dominance) which is the other option. I just took the stance that it was co-dominant because that is the view held by the majority of breeders. I did not really consider the option of incomplete dominance.

 

[herpencounter]

I said you where wrong because you where insisting codominance was incomplete dominance.
I think you of all people would know the difference between codominant and incomplete dominance.

How do you like studying genetics? Something I am very interested in getting into.

 

[GroovyGeckos.com]

It has been known for quite some time that Mack Snows are incompletely dominant, not cooperatively dominant. The term "co-dom" was used improperly, and still is in some cases reguarding the breeding of snake morphs.:main_lipsrsealed: It caught on, and has been passed along more or less that Macks are "codoms", but I would say the majority of breeders, now know that is incorrect.

Super Snows may be anery, and Blizzards may be a true leucistic, I`ll agree.

Blizzards are known to be recessive though, and not all of the hets will show the "genetic marker" of being speckled. That would not fit into the description of being co-dom or incomplete dom, because the two different phenotypes(normal AND Blizzard) are not displayed, on the hets. It would make for a really cool looking het, if that were that case, but I do not think it is.