Discussing "Co-Allelic" recessives in T.Radix

[Taso]

I've been trying to absorb the theories behind the recessive traits of T.Radix. Anerythristic and Axanthic seem to be well proven as far as sharing a similar recessive spot on the DNA's and such.
However, there does exist some confusion on the genetics behind them when Snows and Blizzards come into play. Maybe it's not so confusing? Maybe I'm completely wrong?
I want to put together some writing and perhaps some silly punnett squares that are up-to-date with what we understand currently.

I found an example on human eye color that might explain how "Axanthic" and "Anery" work together. OF COURSE they're not the same, but the concept may be similar.
"In genetics lingo, we say that brown is dominant over blue and green. And that green is recessive to brown but dominant over blue. Blue is recessive to both."
Understanding Genetics (http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask316)

But IDK, it seems this idea goes backwards when I think about Snow VS Blizzard.

The only other idea I have is to look at examples of how fur colors in Siamese cats vary. Like black/brown dilutes with blue, white, gray, tan, blah blah blah. Perhaps understanding something along those lines might include explanations for the Black & White Axanthics.

Everything in science is a theory until a better idea comes along.

[Albert Clark]

Thanks for the overview and your take on it. The link was very helpful in the explanation of how recessive genes work. Thanks again.

[BUSHSNAKE]

I heard people say anery has to present to make blizzard. that's just a theory and has never been proven fact. when people speculate it causes confusion. its important for people to put in the work and give facts. that's what breeding morphs is all about. I think the blizzard is nothing but a double recessive based on what I know about these morphs.

[Taso]

That was basically my original thought on Blizzard... Or maybe I misunderstood you.

Snow- phenotype Albino and Anery
Blizzard- phenotype Albino, Anery, and Axanthic. -OR- phenotype Albino and Axanthic.

Is that your understanding as well?

But I have also heard people say blizzard is het for both. Typically "het" is used to describe hidden recessive genes, Technically "het" means 2 different alleles on the same gene, so both statements are true, but can cause confusion.

If I base my theory of Axan and Anery on the structure of the human eye color genotypes, then it kind of makes sense.
And it kind of doesn't at the same time.

My plans for breeding coming up might shed some light. I have a normal female, het for albino and axanthic (proven this year) and a male blizzard. I'm excited to document the results to get a better understanding.

[BUSHSNAKE]

yeah my thoughts on the blizzard are that they are albino axanthics. and the blizzards that are around today are like you said het for anery cuz a snow was a parent and anery is recessive to axanthic not codom. hope I understood you correctly. im glad you want to get a better understanding. these morphs have been in captivity for over a decade and we and future generations should know exactly what we have. I know the guy who is the founder of both morphs and bred them and figured it out long time ago. the info he gave me is different from what I read on this forum. I don't understand how that information was never passed on. people need to know this stuff duh

[Taso]

I also have a gigantic WHAT IF...

What if the blue axanthic and anerythristic are actually hypoxanthic and axanthic? Or perhaps a morph with a "super" form?
Reason: We have seen red pigments appear in blue axanthics, so it wouldnt be anery. But, there's also a slight green hue to some blues. One of my males in particular has a very light, almost gold dorsal stripe. Another idea to explain the blue pigment could be a dark red/brown pigment covered by a thin layer of light yellow. Something like what we see in our own blood vessels appearing blue beneath the skin.

The "Black & White Axanthic" may be the true anerythristic. But I've never seen them in person.

These are just ideas, I have no data or facts to back them up.
blahblahblah. Hope my little blabberfest was entertaining.:D

[AntTheDestroyer]

In my opinion the black and white axanthic must be axanthic as all the wild radix I have seen have some form of yellow in them, whether it be true yellow, orange, green, or tan. It also seems to me that the animal is also anerytheristic as it is absent of any browns. An animal is either axanthic/anerytheristic or not. Just because a line produces an animal with red, by definition this animal is not anerytheristic, does not mean it is not an anerytheristic line as long as it produces some anery. You are confusing terms that are used describe a phenotype with the genes that cause it. There may be a number of allelic combinations that cause any morph.

[Taso]

You are confusing terms that are used describe a phenotype with the genes that cause it. There may be a number of allelic combinations that cause any morph.

This is true.

I need to get my hands on a DNA reader, amazon.com might have one.
Until then, all we have to judge is phenotypes and breeding results attempting to explain genotypes. That's the fun part though!

[AntTheDestroyer]

This is true.

I need to get my hands on a DNA reader, amazon.com might have one.
Until then, all we have to judge is phenotypes and breeding results attempting to explain genotypes. That's the fun part though!

You are right and this is how the industry functions. The use of axanthic and anertheristic just seems more specific in the garter snake community, when in actuality if a snake is missing yellow where there should be yellow it is axanthic and the same for red and anerytherism. Attaching a phenotypic description to a genetic mutation is confusing because they may not be the same in two snakes lacking that pigment. I know BUSHSNAKE would disagree but I think there should be more specific names put on some of these lines to highlight their differences. I don't know that we need to dwell on the complex genetics of the whole things as that would be time consuming and expensive, but I just think there needs to be more clarity to what these terms actually mean.

[Taso]

I did some squares. I would like some feedback!
There are abbreviations for Axanthic: Ax, and Anerythristic: An.
This is only based on the black/blue morphs, no idea for the black/white yet. And I'm sure it doesn't include everything we know so far, but hopefully it makes sense.
Soon I'll add albino to the mix.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGYNHqY9Og0aR5376WHsv7TFXl4BeCtqShFBGAn59Do/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true

I don't claim to know everything. So, opinions are always welcome.

[Jeff B]

I will probably regret even getting involved in this but your initial nomenclature on your spreadsheet isn't correctly set up regardless of what theories you have of how the genes work, because if Normal is AA, then what is Aa? You say Normal het Aa....het for what? You would have to have an "aa" that is homozygous for the recessive trait that you are denoting with the "a".If you intended for this to be het axanthic then the homozygous axanthic would be "aa" not BB. Also capital letters typically describe the dominant trait and lowercase describe a recessive trait? Your "Axanthic BB" denotes the phenotype axanthic as a homozygous dominant genotype? Your punnet square skills need some work grasshopper.



















Normal AA
Norm Het Aa
Axanthic BB
Ax Het An Bb
Anery bb

[Jeff B]

That was basically my original thought on Blizzard... Or maybe I misunderstood you.

Snow- phenotype Albino and Anery
Blizzard- phenotype Albino, Anery, and Axanthic. -OR- phenotype Albino and Axanthic.

Is that your understanding as well?

But I have also heard people say blizzard is het for both. Typically "het" is used to describe hidden recessive genes, Technically "het" means 2 different alleles on the same gene, so both statements are true, but can cause confusion.

If I base my theory of Axan and Anery on the structure of the human eye color genotypes, then it kind of makes sense.
And it kind of doesn't at the same time.

My plans for breeding coming up might shed some light. I have a normal female, het for albino and axanthic (proven this year) and a male blizzard. I'm excited to document the results to get a better understanding.

The problem is you won't really be documenting anything because you don't really know the genotypes and lineage history of the snakes you are breeding, so you don't know what genes they might be carrying. Nobody does anymore due to the fact that the original persons that bred axanthic did not breed to wild type first and CLEARLY determine how the genetics behave with wild type for a couple generations before combining with another morph like "anery". What you really should do is breed both of your snakes to two different wild caught wild type snakes and see what you get for a couple generations worth of snakes if you want to document something.

[Jeff B]

I should say that I am not trying to be discouraging or negatively critical, but rather trying to be helpful and get you on the right track.

[Taso]

I will probably regret even getting involved in this but ...
Lol, please don't regret it. I'm trying to grasp things, and all help is appreciated.


if Normal is AA, then what is Aa? You say Normal het Aa....het for what?
That is what I chose to describe a het for axanthic or anerythristic. Normal "AA" meaning NOT carying genes for the morphs. Normal het "Aa" meaning the precursor for the morphs is there. "A" is dominant over "B", "B" is dominant over "b", "b" is recessive to both. Also "aa" clears the way for "B" and "b" to be expressed.
I legitimately dont know how to express them, so I simply went in alphabetical order. I based the structure on what I saw from the link I posted earlier explaining human eye color.
I'm not contradicting anything you said, just trying to answer the question.

I hope that clears up what I had in mind.


Your punnet square skills need some work grasshopper.
Yes, of course, Master B! :D

[Taso]

Nobody does anymore due to the fact that the original persons that bred axanthic did not breed to wild type first and CLEARLY determine how the genetics behave with wild type for a couple generations before combining with another morph like "anery".

That is a very good point, and it could change everything I originally thought.


What you really should do is breed both of your snakes to two different wild caught wild type snakes and see what you get for a couple generations worth of snakes if you want to document something.

Yes, I would love to do that!

Wanted Ad: Nice pretty wild type Radix's. Females prefered, males OK too!

[Jeff B]

I found an example on human eye color that might explain how "Axanthic" and "Anery" work together. OF COURSE they're not the same, but the concept may be similar.
"In genetics lingo, we say that brown is dominant over blue and green. And that green is recessive to brown but dominant over blue. Blue is recessive to both."

That is a very simplified example of how human eye color phenotype is determined. It actually involves many loci and genes, and people don't just simply have either blue or brown eyes either, rather there is all kinds of variation. This would actually be a closer example to how erythristic works. Also some people are born with blue eyes and turn brown. I have seen a lot of variation in erythristic and to where and what color red or orange is displayed and patterned and it can change as they develop.
One thing that I have observed as has Scott is that there are sometimes two forms of axanthics in a litter. Most produced are the greener ones with the lime dorsal that you referred to. Fewer are produced that are the more blue and black type.

[Taso]

So, if the two morphs are not co-allelic, they could just be completely separate and coincidentally show up in litters together. That could be the result of the original breeder crossing them in the first generation instead of outcrossing to wild types. And if that's the case, all of my punnet squares are incorrect...

Right? lol

[BUSHSNAKE]

So, if the two morphs are not co-allelic, they could just be completely separate and coincidentally show up in litters together. That could be the result of the original breeder crossing them in the first generation instead of outcrossing to wild types. And if that's the case, all of my punnet squares are incorrect...

Right? lol
this is what ive been told by Doug Wenzell(the guy who found them)...out of the wild he bred axanthic to normal and got hets. he bred axanthic to anery and got all axanthics...he bred the axanthics back to each other and then got both axanthics and aneries cuz the axanthics were het anery...those are the animals that scott felzer got and I believe scott kept breeding those back to each other and didn't realize they were hets and mistakingly thought the axanthic was codom so the axanthic was thought to be codom. and like jeff said without some outcrossing it may be hard to figure out what genes are being carried.
the anery is dominated with black pigment and I feel it should be called melanistic
the axanthic is dominated with a "blue wash" so I think its just a blue morph, I do not think its blue because its a mutation that's missing yellow. the black and white is what a true axanthic would look like.

[BUSHSNAKE]

You are right and this is how the industry functions. The use of axanthic and anertheristic just seems more specific in the garter snake community, when in actuality if a snake is missing yellow where there should be yellow it is axanthic and the same for red and anerytherism. Attaching a phenotypic description to a genetic mutation is confusing because they may not be the same in two snakes lacking that pigment. I know BUSHSNAKE would disagree but I think there should be more specific names put on some of these lines to highlight their differences. I don't know that we need to dwell on the complex genetics of the whole things as that would be time consuming and expensive, but I just think there needs to be more clarity to what these terms actually mean.

I have a pretty good grasp on what im talking about and im sharing that with others. that's what we are here for

[BUSHSNAKE]

You are right and this is how the industry functions. The use of axanthic and anertheristic just seems more specific in the garter snake community, when in actuality if a snake is missing yellow where there should be yellow it is axanthic and the same for red and anerytherism. Attaching a phenotypic description to a genetic mutation is confusing because they may not be the same in two snakes lacking that pigment. I know BUSHSNAKE would disagree but I think there should be more specific names put on some of these lines to highlight their differences. I don't know that we need to dwell on the complex genetics of the whole things as that would be time consuming and expensive, but I just think there needs to be more clarity to what these terms actually mean.
you seem to think my passion is ignorance...ITS NOT

[Jeff B]

this is what ive been told by Doug Wenzell(the guy who found them)...out of the wild he bred axanthic to normal and got hets. he bred axanthic to anery and got all axanthics...he bred the axanthics back to each other and then got both axanthics and aneries cuz the axanthics were het anery.

These breeding results are classic co-allelic pattern of two recessive alleles of the same gene. Axanthic (blue green -lets say we denote as "aa") and Anery (black and silver-lets denote "nn") are co-allelic, the same way that Candy and Albino are in ball pythons. A snake with two copies of the axanthic gene "aa" is blue green with lime dorsal phenotype, a snake with one copy axanthic and one copy anery "an" is blue and black phenotype, and a snake with two copies anery "nn" is the black and silver phenotype. I have been saying this for years. I think you realize this too, but the misnomer is just in how you say it as axanthic het anery. I think we are one the same page, we just don't speak the same language, but we both mean "an"
I agree with you that Scott was breeding visual axanthics to normal looking snakes that were either het for axanthic or het for anery, either way the resulting offspring from that breeding would result in 50% axanthics and the other 50% that were phenotypically normal and he was mistakenly assuming that was a co-dom result. When in fact what he was doing is just like if someone was breeding a candy ball python to a het albino- half the babies would come out looking like the candy parent and half would be normal, so one might think gee this must be a co-dom, when in fact it is just two recessive genes that are co-allelic.
I think the other thing that has muddied the water was the lack of recognition in the difference between the lighters blue green axanthics and the darker blue ones, which I believe are "aa" and "an" respectively.

[AntTheDestroyer]

I have a pretty good grasp on what im talking about and im sharing that with others. that's what we are here for


you seem to think my passion is ignorance...ITS NOT
I didn't mean to imply any such thing. Based on conversations we've had previously I thought you wouldn't agree with me about naming the lines.

[BUSHSNAKE]

These breeding results are classic co-allelic pattern of two recessive alleles of the same gene. Axanthic (blue green -lets say we denote as "aa") and Anery (black and silver-lets denote "nn") are co-allelic, the same way that Candy and Albino are in ball pythons. A snake with two copies of the axanthic gene "aa" is blue green with lime dorsal phenotype, a snake with one copy axanthic and one copy anery "an" is blue and black phenotype, and a snake with two copies anery "nn" is the black and silver phenotype. I have been saying this for years. I think you realize this too, but the misnomer is just in how you say it as axanthic het anery. I think we are one the same page, we just don't speak the same language, but we both mean "an"
I agree with you that Scott was breeding visual axanthics to normal looking snakes that were either het for axanthic or het for anery, either way the resulting offspring from that breeding would result in 50% axanthics and the other 50% that were phenotypically normal and he was mistakenly assuming that was a co-dom result. When in fact what he was doing is just like if someone was breeding a candy ball python to a het albino- half the babies would come out looking like the candy parent and half would be normal, so one might think gee this must be a co-dom, when in fact it is just two recessive genes that are co-allelic.
I think the other thing that has muddied the water was the lack of recognition in the difference between the lighters blue green axanthics and the darker blue ones, which I believe are "aa" and "an" respectively.
we are on the same page, we do speak the same language, I just keep it simple.
I think the lighter and darker axanthics are just natural variations (im not attacking you, im just giving you my thoughts and its ok if you disagree, its nothing personal)I just think that the dominate black pigment of the anery would dominate over the blue pigment so an appearance of "an" genotype would just be black. Good conversation tho!!

[Tommytradix]

blue sirtalis

[Taso]

I present to you, with a GIANT SHRUG of uncertainty, an updated spreadsheet.
The link address should not have changed, but here it is anyway:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGYNHqY9Og0aR5376WHsv7TFXl4BeCtqShFBGAn59Do/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true

It includes a cleaned up version of what I had before, with the addition of examples based on what Jeff B. was talking about.

Hope I got something right.

If not, help me make it better!

[Taso]

Also, to add:
I'm aware that all of that could be completely incorrect. More actual breeding trials are needed to help determine anything here.
I just wanted to do a thing. I'm innocent.

[paulh]

>Is there a way to represent a Normal phenotype, that is het for both Axanthic and Anerythristic? Would it be a realistic scenario?

Short answer is no. A gene pair containing an a mutant gene and an n mutant gene would be an and would be blue axanthic, according to the chart. The only way to have such a normal looking snake would be to have two heterozygous gene pairs -- W/n and W/a.

By the way, may I suggest using the + character for the wildtype (normal) allele? That is the internationally recognized symbol used by the pro geneticists. And a / character can separate the two alleles in a gene pair. It took me a while to realize that an was two alleles rather than one.

And if a/n, n/n and a/a snakes can be distinguished, then a and n are recessive to the wild type allele and codominant to each other. Assuming that a and n are alleles.

[Taso]

>By the way, may I suggest using the + character for the wildtype (normal) allele? That is the internationally recognized symbol used by the pro geneticists. And a / character can separate the two alleles in a gene pair. It took me a while to realize that an was two alleles rather than one.

And if a/n, n/n and a/a snakes can be distinguished, then a and n are recessive to the wild type allele and codominant to each other. Assuming that a and n are alleles.

I added in the + characters to replace the W for wild types. I'm going to leave it alone for the second set because "normal" in that section refers to non-blue, instead of wild type.

But I'm not sure what you mean by the / characters. Could you explain in more detail?

[paulh]

Thanks for using the + character for wild type. It was unexpected but much appreciated.

Using a / character is for better readability, particularly with multiple gene pairs with more than one letter in a gene's symbol. Example genotype: +ivpipiTa+. It takes a bit of studying to figure out how many gene pairs are in that genotype and the genes in each pair. The genotype is more readable if the gene pairs are separated by spaces and the two alleles in a gene pair are separated by a / character -- +/iv pi/pi Ta/+. Using a / character is often not necessary with only one gene pair, but it's a helpful habit to develop.

Here is a suggestion that may save time when making future Punnett squares. In the blue (a/n) x silver (n/n) mating, the silver has two copies of the n allele. Which means that all of its sperm or eggs are the same; all have an n allele. And the second row in the 2x2 Punnett square is a copy of the first row. Using just one row for the n allele produces a 1x2 Punnett rectangle. The rectangle produces the same result as the 2x2 square but does not require adding like genotypes together.

I've been looking at the Punnett square spreadsheet. It looks to me that if axanthic and anerythristic follow the eye color model in an early reference, then the genotypes/phenotypes would be as follows:
AA BB produces normal phenotype
AA Bb produces normal phenotype
AA bb produces normal phenotype
Aa BB produces normal phenotype
Aa Bb produces normal phenotype
Aa bb produces normal phenotype
aa BB produces axanthic phenotype
aa Bb produces axanthic phenotype
aa bb produces anerythristic phenotype

On the other hand, if aa BB produces axanthic and AA bb produces anerythristic, then the genotypes and phenotypes would be as follows:
AA BB produces normal phenotype
AA Bb produces normal phenotype
AA bb produces anerythristic phenotype
Aa BB produces normal phenotype
Aa Bb produces normal phenotype
Aa bb produces anerythristic phenotype
aa BB produces axanthic phenotype
aa Bb produces axanthic phenotype
aa bb produces anerythristic phenotype (effect of bb masks effect of aa)

We need more breeding data.