Bloodred Cornsnakes variable co-domiant?

[Clayton]

In the Cornsnake Morph Guide it list the Bloodred/Diffused as variable co-domiant and I have seen some breedings that prove this. I was having a discussion about this with a Cornsnake breeder this weekend and he said that was not true it's a recessive trait only. Anyone have any thoughts on the Bloodred trait? :twoguns:

 

[Mrs InsaneOne]

The effects of blood in the het form can sometimes lead people to say that it acts as if it is a co-dom trait. We have several het bloods in our collection and some of them show signs of the het while others do not. The same can be applied to het Caramels in some cases.

Here are some pictures of our hets and a couple of our bloods. Can you pick out the hets from the bloods without looking them up on our site?

No two pics are of the same animal.

 

[Emanon]

Hi Clayton... that was me!!!

 

[Clayton]

Hi Clayton... that was me!!!

Hey how's it going? I couldn't remember the name of the Cornsnake book so I didn't bring it up. But ya I knew I read it somewhere. Are you fimilar with that guide?

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

I understand the use of the term variable co-dominant...But an argument could be made that people have enough problems understanding what co-dominant is let alone adding "variable" into the mix. I would think that if Diffused was being called variable co-dominant then so should Caramel and Sunkissed since that two mutations too can be expressed in het form.

 

[Emanon]

Yes I am familiar, but I do not really feel that they are. In my breedings and those I have seen the hatchlings from breeding a blood x non blood brings about normals het for blood. They show some influence but are not bloods. I would agree with the carmel influence comparison. Not a co dom, just shows that it is in there...

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Yes I am familiar, but I do not really feel that they are. In my breedings and those I have seen the hatchlings from breeding a blood x non blood brings about normals het for blood. They show some influence but are not bloods. I would agree with the carmel influence comparison. Not a co dom, just shows that it is in there...

Do you understand what variable co-dominant means? It's not the same as co-dominant (do you understand what co-dominant means? by saying "They show some influence but are not bloods" makes me think you don't).

 

[tyflier]

I'm no wiz when it comes to genetics, but I have a basic understanding...

In order for something to be co-dominant, variable or not, wouldn't there need to be a consistancy to the occurences?

What I mean is...people that have hatched a lot of bloods and het bloods all seem to say the same thing...some hets show the gene's influence, and some don't. If it was co-dominant, wouldn't they all, without fail, have to show the influence, at least to a certain extent?

 

[Kokopelli]

Not if they claim it's variable. For all we know it may be co-dominant but sometimes the signs are so minor that you can't pick up on them.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

In order for something to be co-dominant, variable or not, wouldn't there need to be a consistancy to the occurences? If it was co-dominant, wouldn't they all, without fail, have to show the influence, at least to a certain extent?

See, that's what I mean by some people don't get co-dominant and throwing "variable" in is just going to make it worse.

var·i·a·ble [vair-ee-uh-buhl]
–adjective
1. apt or liable to vary or change; changeable: variable weather; variable moods.
2. capable of being varied or changed; alterable: a variable time limit for completion of a book.
3. inconstant; fickle: a variable lover.
4. having much variation or diversity.
5. Biology. deviating from the usual type, as a species or a specific character.

 

[Drewby07]

I think tyflier got it...maybe the semantics were a little off.

Codominant refers to a trait where the het form looks different from both the normal and homozygous genotype.

This really helped crystallize it in my mind:
"Codominant - 1. Relating to two alleles of a gene pair in a heterozygote that are both fully expressed. When alleles for both white and red are present in a carnation, for example, the result is a pink carnation since both alleles are codominant."

the "het for red" carnation in the example above is neither normal, which would be white, or red, like the homozygous form of the mutation. Instead it's pink....a blending of the two....not unlike bloodred/diffused hets we see that blend both normal and bloodred/diffused traits.

Ok now I'm getting confused...lol :sidestep:

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Codominant refers to a trait where the het form looks different from both the normal and homozygous genotype.

Yes, this is a very basic definition of Co-Dominant...But throw "variable" in and it changes things. Variable means, well, varied...That it can show or it can't show...Without consistency. This is why if they are calling Diffused "Variable Co-Dominant", I think they should use it in reference to Caramel and Sunkissed as well because they can act just like Diffused.

I'm not for or against using the term and I do see both sides of the argument. :cheers:

 

[Drewby07]

Yeah I see your point....if it's variable, why call it co-dom at all? Just call them all "variable bloodreds"

 

[wade]

Glad we have TME here to define all the big words and explain to each what they are trying to say.
Drew’s definition of codominant with the carnations is excellent. Very easy to understand.

Actually what Chuck Pritzel said is, “Diffusion is a Mendelian pattern trait, but its expression can vary between individuals. It tends to act mostly like a recessive gene, but some hets may show hints or significant amounts of the diffused pattern.”

I can’t find anywhere in the Cornsnake Morph Guide where it says that diffusion is codom. He does say that diffused traits can be seen in het animals to varying degrees, more with males than females. That doesn’t fit the definition of recessive completely. (Does it TME?)

I feel pretty comfortable saying that this is one of the traits that we don’t completely understand yet.

 

[Drewby07]

FYI that wasn't my definition....I found it on the net. Don't wanna take credit for someone else's work!

I'd say it's definitely something we don't fully understand....but I sure do love me some bloodreds!

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Actually what Chuck Pritzel said is, “Diffusion is a Mendelian pattern trait, but its expression can vary between individuals. It tends to act mostly like a recessive gene, but some hets may show hints or significant amounts of the diffused pattern.”

I can’t find anywhere in the Cornsnake Morph Guide where it says that diffusion is codom. He does say that diffused traits can be seen in het animals to varying degrees, more with males than females. That doesn’t fit the definition of recessive completely.

I don't have the most recent version of the CMG, but I have heard discussion on using "variable co-dominant" to describe them elsewhere. Note that we're talking about variable co-dominant, not just flat co-dominant. It wasn't me that said the CMG uses the term "variable co-dominant" just that I've heard it suggested elsewhere. I made no comment either way on what i think should be used (outside I am of the opinion that if they use it for Diffused, they should use it for Caramel & Sunkissed as well since it can act the same), because it doesn't bother me one way or another what they decide...Both arguments have merit, at least I think so.

 

[Emanon]

in the discussion at Anaheim it was said to be hybrid something (I forgot what) x blood and because blood is co dom they are bloods.


That did not work for me at all.

No big deal, just interesting discussion.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

in the discussion at Anaheim it was said to be hybrid something (I forgot what) x blood and because blood is co dom they are bloods.

Ooooooo! Well, that certainly adds a twist to the original inquiry!
They wouldn't be bloods any-who if they were in fact hybrids...

 

[wade]

??? OK ??? :sidestep:

 

[Emanon]

yeah it was a blood x some sort of king i believe... I may be totally wrong on the other snake. I did say though that blood was not a co dom... the hullaballoo about variable is not really in the orig. discussion but does bring up interesting things. I do not really feel though that blood x any other type of snake will not be a co dom issue at all... not to say that hibyrds are bad... just the same rules do not really apply... imo...