Not necessarily
Thanks Don for the info.
That being said...doesn't that throw a wrench in the simple recessive gene theory? Walter bred pied X pied but did not get all pieds.
White-sided snake mutants are
all or nothing - an ON/OFF gene. Either you get the white-sided look or you do not; none of the variability we see in the p/s bloods. This year should be the year we put a period on the end of the p/s "genotype". Me, I believe it is so variable, it's possible to have p/s bloods that genetically
forget to display the white. Call them
cryptic carriers. Like an all white pinto horse that genetically
forgot to have black on it. Naturally, they don’t
forget, but it comically appears that way; when they are actually so variable, the degree of white is from zero to 100, regarding volume of expression.
Hence, it is my belief (at this time) that the p/s effect is one of such extreme variability that you can have examples from 0% white to ones with 40% white on the sides. As I said, this year, Rob and I should both have evidence pointing to the mode of inheritance. OR should I say, "
the manifestation of the genotype? I'll be quoted for this, but what the heck. My theory today is that it may be possible that the white is an extreme variation of the patternless sides. Perhaps the gene is really about relocating or removing melanophores (melanin pigment cells) from the lateral pattern zone, conjunct with the ventor. Maybe one aspect of that also relocates or removes xanthophores (red/yellow pigment cells). I've said before about the McDonald anery bloods with white on the sides, that perhaps they are the extreme versions of the anery bloods. Yes, we see random and variable lateral white zones (almost always conjunct with the ventor--like my line of p/s bloods), but why? Physically, because of the lack of color cells. SO, why then do we see none of those white patches when we breed one of his p/s aneries to one of my p/s bloods? Recessive mutation, dominant-type mutation, polygenetics??? I personally do not know, and in the lack of Mendelian and/or other empirical evidence, we're forced to just love these gems. If we waited to invest in them after all their mysteries were unlocked, we'd be depriving ourselves of the pleasure of staring at them. I tell folks not to worry so much about their mode of inheritance, as their beauty (and consequent popularity in the hobby). As long as they're reproducible, who cares if they're polygenic products of artificial selection, or Mendelian-type mutations?
BTW, not semantically spanking, but in light of the quasi-controversial nature of this morph, I really like to avoid calling them pied or piebald or white-sided. This is only to protect those respective future mutations that may inherit clouded preconceptions over current p/s bloodred mysteries. Jeff, you KNOW I’m not picking on you, but since I rarely frequent forums, when I do, I like to get in some pearls of wisdom, and/or friendly semantic advertising. Lol. I know you don’t think this is a pied mutation, but for instance, if someone reading this thread thought the morph was “pied”, they’d wonder why we’re questioning the mode of inheritance, since everyone knows pie-bald mutantions in serpents are recessive, in heritable function. If the p/s bloods exhibited varying degrees of white from neck to tail, I’d do breeding trials to prove they’re actually white-sided mutants, but I avoided using any of the known mutant names when I picked one for this morph. We’ve all seen the catastrophes over misnaming morphs in corns. Let’s not
go there again. lol.
