Blood boas...

[dross9615]

Okay so I have been looking into blood morphs a lot and I'm not really sure as far as genetics go but hear me out. I could be way off. But anyway. Would it be way off to consider blood boas a co-dominate trait. My reasoning is in "hets" they still show high visual signs of reds. I feel like the pure bloods should better be known as superbloods and the "hets" labeled as normal bloods. If you go on any website and look at any "hets" it is very easy to tell what boa has the blood boa gene.

[dross9615]

If the gene were to be recessive it wouldn't show up visually in hets at all am I correct??

[bigsnakegirl785]

Some hets can have visual markers, but in general those visual markers aren't 100%.

Like with anery sometimes het aneries have lighter, almost white eyes, but not all het aneries have this marker, and some do have this marker and aren't het anery.

I am not familiar with blood genetics, so I couldn't tell you if they're actually dominant or not. I do know there's whispers to start to re-consider the leopard morph as being incomplete dominant, making the hets leopards and homozygous leopards supers.

[dross9615]

But I mean have you seen these hets they are really red. I mean some look better than animals with the full gene.

[Andy_G]

Het bloods tend to be abberant, but some are not. They also tend to have more rust/red/brown, but some do not. For a gene to be considered a co-dominant or dominant trait, poss hets can not exist and there must be consistency to the level of being able to call it a "het" or not a "het" every single time. Poss het blood boas do in fact exist and it's not possible to distinguish hets from non hets 100% every time, so they are not dominant/co-dominant due to that. Calling them such would be off.