• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

100% Het??????

S

Santa

New member
I just saw an ad on Kingsnake.com which said a snake was 100% het for hypo. I am a little confused by this. Wouldn't that snake have to be a hypo?

My understanding is that if the snake got the same gene from both parents it would be homozygous and would therefore always demonstrate that gene. In addition if both parents were heterozygous for the hypo gene and the progeny was not hypo, then the progeny could be heterozygous (50%) or not carry the gene at all (0%). Therefore, 100% het is not possible.

Am I right or did I fall asleep in class one day?

Thanks,
:santa:
 
You fell asleep in class one day...LOL

A snake can be 100% het for something if one of it's parent's is homozygous for that trait.

i.e. - If a hypo and an amel are bred together, then the babies will be 100% het for hypo and amel.
 
You fell asleep! :)

Hypo x normal= Normals 100% het for hypo.

The normal throws only Normal, the hypo throws only the hypo gene.

Therefore you get a snake with one normal, and one hypo recessive---which is heterozygous for hypo but showing 'normal'
 
The problem is, some people mix a boa things with cornsnake things.
I saw this many times in connection with boids.

A snake itself is 0% het. XYZ that means it is not. Or 100% that means it is - there is nothing in between! So, saying 100% het. is like saying het. and 0% is like saying it is not or simply say nothing.

The percentage that you can give is a possibility for an animal to by het. or not. It is notated e.g. as "66% POSS. het. XYZ". The possibility would mean in your example: The animal is with a chance of 66% (100%) het. XYZ and with 33% it's not - but you can't see it!
It's like using a dice, you have a chance to dice a 6 (~16%) but once you dice it's clear what you got. Same with the snakes, mother nature already diced, but we can't see it. So we can say, that 2 out of 3 animals are 100% het. and one is 0% het.

I hope it's clear what I mean - saying 100% het. or 0 % het. is really useless - saying something is e.g. 66% POSS.het. is usefull.
 
Agreed, but it's easier for people to understand that something is 100% het, since many people will only say 66% het, and not possible het.
 
If you breed together 2 normals het amel you'd expect 1/4 of the clutch to be amel, 1/4 to be normal and ½ to be normal het amel. So when you remove the 1/4 that is expressing the amel trait you have 3/4 of a clutch left and 2 of those 3 will be het for amel (statisticly)

So 2/3 = 66% and that's why some ads say 66% het.
 
Joejr14 said:
Agreed, but it's easier for people to understand that something is 100% het, since many people will only say 66% het, and not possible het.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
It's like saying we should only drive 10mph because there are some people that don't look left and right when crossing the street.
I'm don't care if people use things wrong - right is saying het. and saying XY% poss.het.
How should people learn to do it right if we do wrong things to repair the wrong usage?

Easy, isn't it?
 
Menhir said:
I disagree.
It's like saying we should only drive 10mph because there are some people that don't look left and right when crossing the street.
I'm don't care if people use things wrong - right is saying het. and saying XY% poss.het.
How should people learn to do it right if we do wrong things to repair the wrong usage?

Easy, isn't it?
Click to expand...

There is nothing technically wrong with saying 100% het, you're simply doubly saying that's its het for something.

It may technically be overkill to say 100% het, but I dont see the problem.
 
It's like saying 'Amelanistic het for caramel and butter' -you see it all the time.


I had someone try to sell me a tripple het snake..I asked what it's hets were and they turned out to be amel,anery and ...you guessed it, SNOW!!!!
 
Uhh, you guys are arguing semantics here. As Joe said, 100% het is redundant but still accurate. The following all mean the same thing:

het

100% het

definite het

positive het

"like, totally for sure" het

:)

And if you want to consider something like a 1 in 50,000 chance of spontaneous reversion, you might want to be even more correct and say "99.998% possible het." :sidestep:
 
It may be just overkill, but leads to confusion and wrong usage. As I said, when we start saying it's 100% het. - it's just a small step to 66% het. what is definetly wrong. That 100% notation implies, that there is something like 66% or 50% het. - why else should I say 100%?
Ask a novice in genetic and I think he will ask you what else than 100% is available.
When I say, look at that dead corpse - you should ask whether there are alive corps also...
 
Menhir said:
right is saying het. and saying XY% poss.het.
Click to expand...
LOL but you forgot something... right is saying XY% possible heterozygous.
XY% poss het is an abbreviation of that.
And 66% het is an abbreviation of that. :grin01:

I think the point of it being misused is moot. If person A doesn't understand enough of the basics (how recessive traits are inherited) then person A will not understand what 66% het means. But Person A will not understand what "66% possible heterozygous" means, either. So it doesn't matter how it is phrased, they don't get any useful information out of it.

Anyone who understands the basics knows that it is not possible for anything to be 66% het for anything, and they will also know that when you cross two hets for the same mutant you get a clutch consisting of mutants and 66% possible hets.

If someone has the intellect to connect "het" as an abbreviation to "heterozygous" then they are also smart enough to know exactly what is meant by "66% het."

There is no miscommunication either way. The usage and meaning are 100% clear. ;)
 
Santa said:
I just saw an ad on Kingsnake.com which said a snake was 100% het for hypo. I am a little confused by this. Wouldn't that snake have to be a hypo?




Thanks,
:santa:
Click to expand...

I brought a snake from that guy. I also have a normal het hypo. If you want some background and you are interested pm me.
 
Serpwidgets said:
I think the point of it being misused is moot. If person A doesn't understand enough of the basics (how recessive traits are inherited) then person A will not understand what 66% het means. But Person A will not understand what "66% possible heterozygous" means, either. So it doesn't matter how it is phrased, they don't get any useful information out of it.
Click to expand...

I agree.
But when person A knows little about genetics and that a snake can be "normal", het oder homo - 66% het. will make confusion. I think 66%poss.het. - that means having a possibility to be het or not is a lot easier.
I don't know how other people than the german ones see this, but thats excactly the question that comes at least every 2 weeks in german novice forums.

If someone has the intellect to connect "het" as an abbreviation to "heterozygous" then they are also smart enough to know exactly what is meant by "66% het."
Click to expand...

I can't agree to that, thats not the situation I notice in novice boards. Another thing is "definetly het." but 100% het. seems to confuse people a lot.

There is no miscommunication either way. The usage and meaning are 100% clear. ;)
Click to expand...

Another disagree, that may be true for you, but as you see also in some questions here, it is not. And I think that one correct usage would be less confusing.
I ask you another question - what is the advantage of erasing poss. and using 100%? I only see disadvatages and don't say, that it's faster not to type poss.
 
Again, there is nothing wrong with using 100% het.

It's not wrong because you dont like it or because it confuses some people.

It is simply a redundant usage of saying snake A is het for hypo. Saying it is 100% het for hypo doesn't change the fact that it is still het for hypo.

Does 66% possible het confuse people? Damn right it does---I'd say it confuses more people than saying something is 100% het.

I've only been here since October and I have learned A LOT since then, and in those few shorts months I have seen countless people asking about 66% or 50% het.

It has been explained over and over and over.

The percentages are simply statistical possibilties on whether or not a given snake is het for some trait---you know that. If the person doesn't understand that, they're not going to understand the genetics behind the snakes anyway.
 
Joejr14 said:
Again, there is nothing wrong with using 100% het.

It's not wrong because you dont like it or because it confuses some people.
Click to expand...

Please quote where I wrote that it is wrong.
I said, it is useless and that I think it's a wrong usage. Perhaps we have a different opinion what wrong usage means in english - for me "a dead corps" is a wrong usage. And so is 100%het. a wrong usage but not a wrong statement.

Does 66% possible het confuse people? Damn right it does---I'd say it confuses more people than saying something is 100% het.
Click to expand...

That is a different thing - it's hard to understand how it comes to the fact. But why should we make the fact harder through erasing the poss. and go into a wrong meaning.
Perhaps that's all clear and true for the people you know - I can speak for or against that, I simply don't know. But it seems my expercience with the people I speak to and I write with can't beat your experience you got here since october.
 
Might I say that the European cornsnake world is a bit behind us over here on the other side of the pond?

I never said what I've seen trumps anything---I'm just making an observation.

Het for XYZ or 100% het for XYZ---makes no difference.
 
Joejr14 said:
Might I say that the European cornsnake world is a bit behind us over here on the other side of the pond?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we are a bit behind you - perhaps. But seems that us people like european genetic calculators :crazy02:
 
I have to say that the confusion is caused by misunderstanding the meaning of heterozygous. Understanding that requires knowing that at a given locus one gene comes from the mother and the other comes from the father, and that the pair can be "same" or "different." Homozygous means same, Heterozygous means different.

The problems do not come in where percentages are used, but long before that, where people are taught psuedogenetics because it's "easier" to learn/teach. They are told that "het for ____" means there's a "____" gene there, or that "it has a parent who is ____" (which is where het for okeetee comes from) instead of explaining the actual meaning of the word het: the gene pair at that locus is made of two different alleles.

People rarely teach each other locus/allele because psuedogenetics has such a strong foothold on our hobby. But I think an effort to teach it the right way is beginning to work in the corn community because I see it more and more often (and usually correctly) in people's answers to genetics questions. :)
 
Menhir said:
Perhaps we are a bit behind you - perhaps. But seems that us people like european genetic calculators :crazy02:
Click to expand...

Well said!! You put those self riteous yankies back in their place :flames:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top