View Full Version : ? about ghost boas
varanus69
12-01-04, 05:39 PM
i am thinking of getting a ghost boa in the spring and have a few questions. I have seen ads for co-dom/dom ghosts and het for ghost. What is the difference, is there 2 types? From my limited understanding of genetics if a morph is a co-dom that there would be no hets. I will be planning to breed one into the albino gene and wasalso wondering what this would give me if its been done yet? Also i've seen one guy selling sunset boas and was wondering what combo makes these i was thinking they were hypoXanery's any ideas here is a link to his site with the pics of his sunsets.http://www.imageevent.com/SelectReps
reptiguy420
12-01-04, 05:44 PM
Did any one else get a chill after going to that site?Very nice.
Ghosts can be codom or dominant due to the fact they are salmons without the red due to the anery gene being expressed as well. Just like you can have salmons or super salmons you can have codom or dominant super ghosts.
With salmons you only need one salmon gene in order to express the trait therefore we call it codom. This can actually be termed the het condition for this particular trait.
A codom ghost is a ghost which has only one salmon/hypo gene, when bred to lets say an anery you would have 50% ghosts and 50% anerys.
This is the same if you bred a salmon to a normal colored boa.
A dominant ghost is a ghost that carries 2 salmon/hypo genes. If you bred it to and anery you would get all codom ghosts.
Think of it as breeding a super salmon to a normal you get all salmons.
If you bred a codom ghost to an albino you would produce 50%salmons triple het for snow (triple hets they express the salmon gene and carry the albino and anery genes) and 50% normal colored Double hets for snow. Yes it has been done before.
Sunset boas are line bred salmon/hypos X hog island crosses. They crossed a salmon/hypo with a hogg and then line bred the animals to get the super reduced markings and orange coloration.
Hope this helps
Dan
varanus69
12-01-04, 08:42 PM
Well i guess i will cross those off my list. Not what i thought they were and a little miss leading for my understanding of genetics.....If ghost were truely co-dom than you should have 50% ghosts in the first year not 50% hypo het for anery and 50% normal het for blah blah. Just another way for someone to create hype about what hes got for sale IMO. Only my $0.02
BoAddict
12-01-04, 09:20 PM
how is it mis leading?
varanus69
12-01-04, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by BoAddict
how is it mis leading?
i think it is misleading by saying that it is co-dom ghost cuz only half of the trait is co-dom,the hypo half. anery is not co-dom so therefor there is no such thing as c-d ghost. With true c-d's if you bred them to normals you get 50% with that trait which you wouldn't in this case.
It is not misleading because the anery gene is still recessive.
Only the salmon gene is co dominant and that is exactly what you get. If you want to produce ghosts breed your ghost to an anery female and you will get 50% ghosts the 50% will be anerys. Hence the co dom ghost. Breed a dominant ghost to an anery get 100% ghosts.
How can you produce a ghost if you bred a ghost to an albino since you have no anery gene in the albino. If you had an albino het for anery (aka albino het for snow) then you could produce ghosts.
Ghosts are actually very valuable in terms of their genetics because you have an animal that expresses a cod om trait and recessive trait at the same time. It allows you many different combinations when bred to the right animals.
Another similar genetic combination is the sunglow which is a salmon that expresse the recessive albino trait. If you look at it in monetary terms sunglow and ghost males are especially valuable for breeding.
You have to understand and get a grasp of the terminology behind the genetics and it all makes sense.
It gets even more confusing when you get into the triple hets and many different combinations of triple hets will be available in the near future.
Jeff_Favelle
12-02-04, 01:41 AM
Are Sunglows called co-dom Sunglows or dominant Sunglows? Same combo of gene-types.
BOAS_N_PYTHONS
12-02-04, 02:12 AM
JEFF:
Again not fully sure but I think its,
Sunglow = combination of 1 codominant trait 1 recesive trait
:)
Cya...
Tony
Jeff_Favelle
12-02-04, 02:34 AM
JEFF:
Again not fully sure but I think its,
Sunglow = combination of 1 codominant trait 1 recesive trait
Again, how is that ANY different than a ghost, which is a "combination of 1 codominant trait 1 recesive trait "?????
BoAddict
12-02-04, 03:53 AM
my guess would be yes since it is pretty much the same thing as the ghost with the anery being switched with the albino
if its NO then all logic points to the ghost would be a no too
Jeff you are right you can have co dom sunglows as well as dominant or super sunglows.
If you bred a sunglow male to lets say a female salmon Dh for sunglow female roughly 25% of the sunglows in that litter would be dominant or super sunglows. You would also have about 25% of the salmon Dh for sunglow come to be super salmon DH for sunglow.
Since you are breeding a codom salmon (with the albino gene expressed sunglow) to a codom salmon carrying the albino gene 25% of all offspring would receive to copies of that co dom salmon gene and be supers or dominants.
Works the same way for motleys and arabesques. WE know that there have been super motleys the purple patternless and all black boa there appear to be super arabesques produced by Steve Hammond the orginator of the morph but I beleive you would have to test breed those to find out for sure.
Dan
Jeff_Favelle
12-02-04, 10:18 AM
So the super form of the Arabesque is not visible (like a Spider in BP's)? Would make sense. Its been a LONG time since Arabesques came out, so no wonder we haven't seen on yet.
Scales Zoo
12-02-04, 10:23 AM
Now I'm confused.
I thought that the word dominant applied to things like spider and arabesque, cause the supers looked like the spiders. (And maybe salmon too)
But things like pastel (B.P's), were co-dom, cause the supers look more pastel than just the pastels. Kind of like the hets showing part ofthe homo form.
Is it correct to call the super forms dominant, or is it accepted slang in the snake world?
Ryan
Scales Zoo
12-02-04, 10:28 AM
Oh, and while kind of on the subject, have there been any snows produced that were also showing salmon? You'd think someon would have put their sunglow on a ghost.... and get some supersalmon snows - whatever they'd be worth, holy cow.
And, can you tell a super salmon from a salmon by looking at it? My guess is that most people can't, as there are poss super salmons advertised.
Ryan
Scales Zoo
12-02-04, 10:36 AM
To further make things interesting, I was just msn'd by a friend, who said that the co-dom snake traits aren't actually truely a co-dominant trait (as can be found in plants) but is actually incomplete dominance, correctly.
Sometimes learning on the internet is difficult - gotta get me some more books.
Ryan
Jeff
The pic I saw of a possible super arabesque was a few months ago. The best way to describe it would more extreme in pattern, you really would have to see the photo. I tried finding it but I have no idea what I did with it.
The arabesques have been around a long time but they tend to be more fragile than most morphs. They tend to grow slower reproduce less often and with less regularity so there has actually been less work done with them as far as breeding them into the other morphs. You are starting to see more of them now albino arabesque, salmon arabesque, sunglow arabesque, Dh sunglow etc. I wonder what breeding a motley to an arabesque might produce?
In regards to the super arabesque you would have to test breed it to know for sure. The same can be said about the super motleys because right now it is only an assumption as to the fact they are the super form. There may be some other weird gene involved but we should know in the next couple of years for sure.
Same goes for the super salmons and dominant ghosts you have to breed them and prove them out to know for sure.
They are generally more reduced in pattern and cleaner but you still have to prove them out with test breedings.
Ryan I beleive I read an article by Rich Ihle when he proved out the salmons and he actually did call it incomplete dominance but for what ever reason in snake circles people began using co dom but essentially it is the same thing.
Dan
Jeff_Favelle
12-02-04, 07:28 PM
Motely x arabesque will be something stupid like a lucy or something, ha ha!
One must agree however, that even though you have to breed it out to be 100% sure, MOST super salmons are indeed more super than their heterozygous salmon counterparts.
Yeah, the whole incomplete dominance thing rears its head every few months. Problem is, its part of the industry/market's lingo. Co-dom is here to stay.
I just had to add b/c it was me that mentioned to Ryan about the incomplete dominance.
Co-dom doesn't have to be here to stay. Many "old" names have been slowly phased out if enough people use them, ie "goini" "sticticeps" etc.
It looks really silly to argue co-dom/dominant when we're not even using the correct words to describe what is happening in these morphs.
The only reason why the correct terms aren't used is b/c of ignorance, so many herpers have not even heard of incomplete dominance, not say of it's relationship with co-dominance.
Co-dominance and incomplete dominance are not the same thing!
Incomplete dominance is a melding of wild type and morph type, which is what we are seeing in salmons/hypos in boas, and pastel in ball pythons.
Co-dominance is when both wild type AND morph type appear TOGETHER, and distinctly in an organism. I can not think of any snake morph that fits this description.
Dominant traits are like "spider" in balls, where the het and homo form are indistinguishable.
Honestly, this is first year biology, heck, it's all Bio 12 stuff.
Scales Zoo
12-02-04, 10:14 PM
I have to agree.
A short story.....
When I was 13, the Corn snake manual came out. It had the punnet square, and lots of info about genetics.
I had some complicated questions after reading it, and asked my biology teacher. She told me to see the highschool biology teacher with my question. He did not have the answers to my questions, and told me I knew more about genetics than anyone in the school (him included). I've been a genetic freak every since, and just can not comprehend anyone spending what a ghost costs,without having a true understanding of what genetic potential it has.
Improper usage of terms being prevalant in snake breeding just would make us look stupid talking ot an acedemia type. Why can't we use the proper terms. It has been very difficult for me to relate my bastardized knowledge of co-dom snake genetics, to information about general genetics that I have found on the net.
My questions were kind of loaded for you Dan, hoping you would set the genetic terms straight for all, so I didn't feel like a putz.
So, Dan - what do you think about all this? You have answered so many genetic questions for me in the past - i was hoping you'd be able to clear up the jumble for me.
Ryan
Scales Zoo
12-02-04, 10:20 PM
Oh, and Jeff, feel free to interject. I know from reading previous posts on ssnakess.com, that you do have some biology classes under your belt.
The people who are going to sell expensive snakes in the future, have a good grasp on genetics. Those people, will be able to sell more snakes, if the buyers also have a better grasp on simple genetics. Just my opinion.
Ryan
Jeff_Favelle
12-03-04, 01:02 AM
Oh, no one EVER said it wasn't high school stuff. I agree. I'm just saying it won't change. Co-dom sounds too good. I took 5 years of the damn stuff after grade 12 and I still use co-dom, LOL!
But yeah, it even makes sense when you reason it out. A Pastel is "almost" a super. But not quite. Its incomplete. BUT... it IS dominant over the wild type. Hence "incomplete dominance".
But it'll never change. Not in a million years.
Welll....maybe in a million years. But no sooner. ;)
I have to agree.
A short story.....
When I was 13, the Corn snake manual came out. It had the punnet square, and lots of info about genetics.
That's so funny Ryan, because that's the exact same thing that happened to me. By the time I figured it out (had lots of help at that age, ha ha!), I went into Biology 9 and 10 with more knowledge than the TA's, substitute teachers, and other students combined. I thought I was king shizznit. LOL! But really, all that happened was that I was exposed to it while the others weren't. And if I'm exposed to something long enough, ha ha I'll eventually clue in.
Did I mention that it would never change?
;)
No offense Katt and Ryan
Come on guys do you really think you are making it any easier for people to understand. I realize incomplete dominance and co dom are not the same but all I was trying to say is you might as well think of it in the same manner. Just to keep it simple.
What were we trying to do other than let the guy know what he would produce if he bred a so called dominant ghost to an albino.
I can bust out my grade 12 text books as well and start spitting out definitions but will it really help someone figure out what will be produced from pairing 2 particular animals. NO
I have taken genetics up to my ying yang in University and can do pretty much all of the crosses we are dealing with in snakes in my head because they are so simple as far as genetics goes.
Does that mean everyone can , probably not so by keeping it simple and keeping with accepted snake jargon I was hoping better explain how the genes work. When was the last time you saw an add for incomplete dominant salmons. Never? I guess if I produce some super salmons this season should I call them double incomplete dominants? Just adds up to even more confusion for the newbies.
Don't get me wrong I do understand what you are trying to say we should use the proper terms but unfortunately some genius 10 years ago came up with co dominant and it stuck.
Scales Zoo
12-03-04, 01:39 AM
Whoa, Big guy, I meant no offense at all - hope you didn't read anything into my post.
I was just trying to finally figure this stuff out, and figured you'd have the answers to my questions, as you are the genetics guy IMO.
As far as keeping it simple for new people, It's all been confusing the hell out of me.
I can live with calling supers, dominant, I guess, If I have too. But just cause the rest of the people might be using terms incorrectly, doesn't mean I have to accept that - and relay technically incorrect information to those who ask me.
Dominant traits are different than co-dom traits, and super co-doms are not the same as dominant - from what I was reading.
I'll arm wrestle you over the terms to use, haha.
So, speaking of triple hets, which i know you like - any salmons snows produced yet. Is there a name reserved for them if it hasn't been done yet?
Just wait till I bring up the statistical probabilities of producing 50% het snows from hets. There is a lot of misleading info, even for those of us who think they understand it. Statistics is weird, especially when figuring out double and triple hets.
And for the record about the grade 12 textbook comment (cheap shot).... Saskatchewan grade 12 textbooks don't mention this kind of stuff, I re-read them to make sure. Of course I had to borrow them from someone who actually got to grade 12 in Leader, which narrowed it down to just a few people...... :)
I can also do genetics in my head, so nyah :)
Ryan
Scales Zoo
12-03-04, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
That's so funny Ryan, because that's the exact same thing that happened to me. By the time I figured it out (had lots of help at that age, ha ha!), I went into Biology 9 and 10 with more knowledge than the TA's, substitute teachers, and other students combined. I thought I was king shizznit. LOL! But really, all that happened was that I was exposed to it while the others weren't. And if I'm exposed to something long enough, ha ha I'll eventually clue in.
That is weirdly funny, and I feel closer to you now that you posted that. I never thought I was king shizznit, just been trying to find someon smarter than I am, since I was 6, still waiting - haha.
Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
Did I mention that it would never change?
;)
yes, it seems as co-dom is here to stay, as was mentioned by Dan. I prefer the term "co-dom (actually incomplete dominance)" and "dominant, true un-adalterated dominance"
Ryan
No offense taken guys and I certainly wasn't implying that you two didn't know what you're taking about. I was posting mostly for newbies who are not aware of all that crazee genetic jargon.
Once awareness starts eventually understanding can begin.
I still do not believe co-dom is here to stay. I have seen colubrid terms dropped and moved all the time (ie the different hypos in hondos, old subspecies names). All it takes is for a few people to start using a term properly.
As for super salmons, double incomplete dominant? I say homo for salmon!
Anyhow, I hope some newbie out there had their interest piqued and googled incomplete dominance.
No offense taken guys and none meant.
Like you said it may not be the proper terminolgy but it is here to stay and for the the new people it probably is the easiest way to explain how the genes work.
That all I'm saying LOL
Dan
Well Dan, I guess we can be eltitist with our "book learning". We can debate incomplete dominance/co-dominance til we puke.
Now kiddos let's learn about gene frequency!
Jeff_Favelle
12-03-04, 12:25 PM
I still do not believe co-dom is here to stay. I have seen colubrid terms dropped and moved all the time (
Colubrids are no where near the industry machine of Ball Pythons and Boas, the main two groups that have "co-doms" in them. If it has the potential to cost sales, then people ain't going to be the first ones to do it.
I still call GTP's "Chondros". Scientifically its incorrect. I'm not about to stop it though. ;)
And "gene frequency" has been changes to allele frequency. Ask Hardy. Or Weinberg. LOL! Nerds rule! :D
I have to put new tape on my glasses tomorrow. How about you guys!!
Jeff_Favelle
12-04-04, 04:40 AM
LOL, you mean you haven't already??
The MAIN problem I have with the whole "dominant ghost" thing, is that its not universal. Why don't they call them dominant sunglows? I just don't like how the same genetics are worded differently. If its a super ghost, call it a super ghost. If its a super sunglow, call it a super sunglow. For the longest time, I thought dominant ghosts were a new line of ghosts that would produce ghosts when bred to a normal. I mean, it stands to reason that if an animal is a "dominant ghost", shouldn't it produce more ghosts, and not salmon het anerys?
K.I.S.S. :)
Scales Zoo
12-04-04, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by BigDan
I have to put new tape on my glasses tomorrow. How about you guys!!
My mom is going to do it for me so I don't hurt myself, again.
Ryan
varanus69
12-04-04, 04:27 PM
. For the longest time, I thought dominant ghosts were a new line of ghosts that would produce ghosts when bred to a normal. I mean, it stands to reason that if an animal is a "dominant ghost", shouldn't it produce more ghosts, and not salmon het anerys?
thats exactly what i was saying in the beginning jeff ( would produce ghosts when bred to a NORMAL!!!). But any way this thread took a hard left turn way back so but i still got an answer as i see it. My opion: ghost are hypo X aneries, so the HYPO gene is co-dom or dom or what ever someone wants to call it today. ANERY is not so there for IMO ghosts are not.
Jeff_Favelle
12-04-04, 05:00 PM
I agree varanus. Its pretty hard to accept the moniker "dominant ghost", when the same doesn' apply to sunglows, which is the same type of genetics. Some conistency would be nice.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.