Discussing "Co-Allelic" recessives in T.Radix

[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!

[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