Codom Hypo? Then explain this....

[BChambers]

Ever since I picked up my female "Codom Hypo" marcianus at the 2008 Daytona Expo, I've been scratching my head over my breeding results. the first spring, I mated her to a wild-caught local male, and got two small litters of 6 and 5-all entirely normal. Of course from a codom morph, I'd have expected at least some of those to be Hypos. Oh well, I chalked it up to bad luck (of which I've had plenty over the years)....

Anyway, I held back one of the nicer-looking normal males that season and the next spring mated him back to his mother. As a result, she dropped two litters, each of which included several hypos, in approximately the expected ratio to normals. In a way, this made me feel better. But I got to thinking: If the hypo were in fact a "simple recessive " morph (rather than codom), I'd have about the same breeding results from breeding Hypo to het as if I'd bred Codom hypo to normal (i.e. 50% Hypo).

So I decided on a test. I held back two normal-appearing females from those litters and this season bred them to the normal male holdback from the previous litters. Below are pics of the 1.2 "normal" breeders and the resulting offspring:





The results for both litters were 6 Hypos and 14 normals. All from three marcianus of entirely normal appearance. I can naught but conclude that the "Codom Hypo" gene is in fact simple recessive.

Thoughts?

[ConcinusMan]

Yeah, here's a thought. Send those hypos to me. OMG! Those are gorgeous!

As for the genetic questions, I think Jeff could give some insight on that. He's the genetics guy around here.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

It can't be just simple recessive though... I bred a wild caught female to a male hypo/pastel/whatever and I got a bunch of lime pastels right off the bat! I call them pastels by the way in case you haven't noticed. I bred the same male to an unrelated albino female that was clearly not a pastel and I got the same results. This keeps on getting weirder... Interesting! I just picked up another adult male pastel from ben Siegel. He did not know it was a Pastel either. They are always Popping up in everyones clutches, I have ID'ed them in a few peoples this year... And the people that did have them pop up, it was noticed that one of the parents actually ended up being a hypo/pastel, disguised as a normal since a lot of them darken considerably. I think they have been around for years and nobody noticed them until recently. I've been doing a lot of work with IDing pastels, because some of them come out looking very close to normals! They are my favorite project in all of my collection! I think that if it was only recessive it would be one heck of a coincidence that the snakes mated to the pastels in all the breedings I have seen being hets? Especially a WC female! I hAve also noticed that baby pastels from one clutch to the next vary even though sired by the same male... It seems the other parent influences their brightness.

[ConcinusMan]

Don't you think these might actually be something different from what we have Shannon? I mean, they are similar in some ways but wow. These are much prettier IMO. I don't really see that crazy head pattern or any abnormalities in her dorsal pattern.(the female you sent to me). Also, she has darkened up and looks pretty much like a normal green checkered now.

Sure would like to get my hands on a pair of these pictured above. One of them has a bulls eye painted on his head. LoL.

[BChambers]

First off, I'm in TOTAL agreement that Hypo is a bad term for them, and Pastel is indeed more descriptive. So yes, let's just agree that's the term

As for the rest-I dunno, all I can report is my own results-I don't see any of the above adults as "dark" pastels-if so I don't know how you'd tell a normal apart! And assuming that they are indeed "normals", then this particular gene can't be a codom.

Perhaps we are really looking at two different Pastel genes here? I guess the next test is to cross the two-anyone up for a trade?

[ConcinusMan]

Sure, I'll give you a great big "thanks" for two of your pastels.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Don't you think these might actually be something different from what we have Shannon? I mean, they are similar in some ways but wow. These are much prettier IMO. I don't really see that crazy head pattern or any abnormalities in her dorsal pattern.(the female you sent to me). Also, she has darkened up and looks pretty much like a normal green checkered now.

Sure would like to get my hands on a pair of these pictured above. One of them has a bulls eye painted on his head. LoL.

No, they are the same... My original male is from this exact bloodline... The original one when these were first made available. It's merely an -extremely- variable trait... It ranges from just a tad brighter than normal... To cracked out crazy like these babies here.

[ConcinusMan]

Interesting. Well then if they are the same, then there is bound be an explanation to the different breeding results. You said something about there not being a "super" form. Maybe the crazy ones are supers? Oh Jeff? what's going on here? LoL.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

First off, I'm in TOTAL agreement that Hypo is a bad term for them, and Pastel is indeed more descriptive. So yes, let's just agree that's the term

As for the rest-I dunno, all I can report is my own results-I don't see any of the above adults as "dark" pastels-if so I don't know how you'd tell a normal apart! And assuming that they are indeed "normals", then this particular gene can't be a codom.

Perhaps we are really looking at two different Pastel genes here? I guess the next test is to cross the two-anyone up for a trade?

We could be, or we could be dealing with a really weird gene that doesn't fit neatly into one category... The male I have done most of my work with is from that original line of pastel, the same as the snakes in your pictures! The snakes in your photos don't look like pastels to me but they do have a glow about them. I don't ever see normals that bright!

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Interesting. Well then if they are the same, then there is bound be an explanation to the different breeding results. You said something about there not being a "super" form. Maybe the crazy ones are supers? Oh Jeff? what's going on here? LoL.

Lol, there is more than one of us on this forum that understand mutation genetics in depth! Myself included! They can't be supers because the parents don't appear to be pastels! It's all a big mystery at this point I suppose! I have a firm understanding of genetics and how they work (I taught my peers the course on triple recessive crossings, incomplete dominance, codominance and all that real easy stuff using snakes as examples because my teacher did not understand it) and this puzzle simply can not be solved yet.... I think the reason these have flew under the radar so long is because even the neon babies wil darken up some, and I bet the majority will darken enough to pass as normals to the inexperienced.