• Posted 12/19/2024.
    =====================

    I am still waiting on my developer to finish up on the Classifieds Control Panel so I can use it to encourage members into becoming paying members. Google Adsense has become a real burden on the viewing of this site, but honestly it is the ONLY source of income now that keeps it afloat. I tried offering disabling the ads being viewed by paying members, but apparently that is not enough incentive. Quite frankly, Google Adsense has dropped down to where it barely brings in enough daily to match even a single paid member per day. But it still gets the bills paid. But at what cost?

    So even without the classifieds control panel being complete, I believe I am going to have to disable those Google ads completely and likely disable some options here that have been free since going to the new platform. Like classified ad bumping, member name changes, and anything else I can use to encourage this site to be supported by the members instead of the Google Adsense ads.

    But there is risk involved. I will not pay out of pocket for very long during this last ditch experimental effort. If I find that the membership does not want to support this site with memberships, then I cannot support your being able to post your classified ads here for free. No, I am not intending to start charging for your posting ads here. I will just shut the site down and that will be it. I will be done with FaunaClassifieds. I certainly don't need this, and can live the rest of my life just fine without it. If I see that no one else really wants it to survive neither, then so be it. It goes away and you all can just go elsewhere to advertise your animals and merchandise.

    Not sure when this will take place, and I don't intend to give any further warning concerning the disabling of the Google Adsense. Just as there probably won't be any warning if I decide to close down this site. You will just come here and there will be some sort of message that the site is gone, and you have a nice day.

    I have been trying to make a go of this site for a very long time. And quite frankly, I am just tired of trying. I had hoped that enough people would be willing to help me help you all have a free outlet to offer your stuff for sale. But every year I see less and less people coming to this site, much less supporting it financially. That is fine. I tried. I retired the SerpenCo business about 14 years ago, so retiring out of this business completely is not that big if a step for me, nor will it be especially painful to do. When I was in Thailand, I did not check in here for three weeks. I didn't miss it even a little bit. So if you all want it to remain, it will be in your hands. I really don't care either way.

    =====================
    Some people have indicated that finding the method to contribute is rather difficult. And I have to admit, that it is not all that obvious. So to help, here is a thread to help as a quide. How to become a contributing member of FaunaClassifieds.

    And for the record, I will be shutting down the Google Adsense ads on January 1, 2025.
  • Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

Are there really any CoDomiant Morphs in Leopard Geckos?

Do you think there is at least one CoDominant Morph in Leopard Geckos?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 58.1%

  • No

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 8 25.8%

  • I don't know. I just go by what everybody else says.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Total voters
    31
1Bob said:
Are you sure?
If "M" represents the mack snow gene, upper case since Mack snow is a dominant trait. Then "m" would be the resessive gene representing not a Mack snow.
Then If a Mack snow is bread the result could be
MM is a Mack super snow,
Mm Regular Mack Snow, and
mm normal type (Mack snow sibling)
There is a very good chance I have this wrong, this is the way I thought it would work if the Mack snow where the result of a single gene. Which I thought it was. Is the Mack snow trait polygenetic?
Click to expand...
I believe the Siblings are the "same" as the non Albinos from the Het Albino Crossings.
aa would be Albino
Aa would be het Albino
AA would be Normal

Just like the Mack example.

LMK if it isn't to clear
 
Co-Dominant has three phenotypes:

MM (Homozygous aka "Super")
Mm (Heterozygous aka "Mack Snow")
mm (Normal)
 
So I wasn't off base. Is a normal that results from a pairing that also produces mack snows or super snows always called a mack snow sibling? If yes, than snow sibling can definately be called homozygous ressesive for mack snow. This is because the mack snow is a dominant trait (well co-dom or incomplete-dom). The term homozygous just states that both alleles are the same and should always be followed with dominant or ressesive. Heterozygous is one of each so it doesn't matter. It seems that in practice, many just use the term homozygous if it is the state that expresses a phenotype other than normal.
Example Bell Albino: If the phenotype is a Bell albino the alleles are bb which is the homozygous ressesive genotype. Bell Albino is a ressesive trait so many may just say that it is homozygous. Though homozygous ressesive is more accurate. A normal phenotype is either heterozygous for bell and is Bb or homozygous dominant for bell BB.
 
The term Mack Snow Sibling is just a term to sell more hatchlings. As of right now, there is no evidence of them being nothing aside from Normals.

For example:
When breeding Het Albino x Het Albino, you get non het non Albinos aka Normals. A Mack Snow Sibling would be the same.

1Bob said:
So I wasn't off base. Is a normal that results from a pairing that also produces mack snows or super snows always called a mack snow sibling? If yes, than snow sibling can definately be called homozygous ressesive for mack snow. This is because the mack snow is a dominant trait (well co-dom or incomplete-dom). The term homozygous just states that both alleles are the same and should always be followed with dominant or ressesive. Heterozygous is one of each so it doesn't matter. It seems that in practice, many just use the term homozygous if it is the state that expresses a phenotype other than normal.
Example Bell Albino: If the phenotype is a Bell albino the alleles are bb which is the homozygous ressesive genotype. Bell Albino is a ressesive trait so many may just say that it is homozygous. Though homozygous ressesive is more accurate. A normal phenotype is either heterozygous for bell and is Bb or homozygous dominant for bell BB.
Click to expand...
 
1Bob said:
So I wasn't off base. Is a normal that results from a pairing that also produces mack snows or super snows always called a mack snow sibling? If yes, than snow sibling can definately be called homozygous ressesive for mack snow. This is because the mack snow is a dominant trait (well co-dom or incomplete-dom). The term homozygous just states that both alleles are the same and should always be followed with dominant or ressesive. Heterozygous is one of each so it doesn't matter. It seems that in practice, many just use the term homozygous if it is the state that expresses a phenotype other than normal.
Click to expand...

A Mack Snow sibling is a normal. Nothing special about it. You can't have homozygous for Normal nor is Normal recessive, Normal is Wild-Type, nothing more.
 
Super Mack snow, Mack snow, and normal are the three phenotypes that can result if you pair up two Mack snows. The corresponding genotypes with respect to the Mack snow gene are homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and homozygous recessive respectively. The genotype describes the pair of alleles that are responsible for a particular trait. If the trait is dominant, then a normal phenotype has the genotype homozygous recessive for that particular trait. If a trait is recessive, then a normal phenotype can have a genotype of heterozygous or homozygous dominant. Note: I am not trying to describe what is most commonly done in the industry; rather, I am describing what is commonly used by the scientific community. This was the underlining idea throughout the thread, industry jargon Vs. Scientific jargon.
 
1Bob said:
Note: I am not trying to describe what is most commonly done in the industry; rather, I am describing what is commonly used by the scientific community. This was the underlining idea throughout the thread, industry jargon Vs. Scientific jargon.
Click to expand...
The thought of the thread was make the point that Mack Snows are not Co-Dominate, but are Incomplete-Dominate. Mack Siblings are not labeled as recessive to reduce the confusion. There is nothing special genetically about them, they are the same as all of the normals produced from other breeding.
 
Cool thanks.
I understand why it would reduce confusion for some. But I think that it's also that most people don't want to bother describing both the phenotype and the genotype and prefer to use just one descriptor. And why the hell not, most of the time the single descriptor very clearly describes the animal. The only time the genotype really matters is when an animal is het for a recessive trait or for an incomplete dominant trait where you get the super/regular forms.
 
Interresting thread, thanks for the input. Now since I understand what Incomplete Dominance is, I definitely do agree that Macks are In-Dom
 
Anybody got their August copy of Reptiles Magazine yet (I know it is a little early)? There is an article on basic gentics, with a section on incomplete and co-dominance. I actually thought about writing an article myself, but I am glad somebody did.
 
First of all, it's very difficult to compare cornsnake genetics with that of leopard geckos. I have found that with leos, it is not as straight-forward as with corns, and there seems to be more questions raised with every question answered.

I think where many are confused is when we refer to a 'het' simply in terms of recessive traits. "Technically", the term heterozygous means that each offspring carries one copy of each parent's genetic make up, and in some cases it's the copy copy that isn't expressed. So, when we look at Mack Snows as co-dominant, we see that with a Mack Snow x Normal, the offspring will either be a Mack Snow or it will not be. We rarely think that the Mack 'sibling' could be a het for Snow, but in reality it is heterozygous for snow.

To complicate things a little bit, Albey crossed his Linebred/Fasciolatus with Macks (not sure if they were Homo or Hetero for the Mack Gene), and to my knowledge no Super Snows were produced. I picked one of the offspring up, when she is ready to breed, I will be breeding her to my Tremper Hybino Male. I'll post my results from the cross once I have offspring to help prove anything out.
Click to expand...
In this case if a Mack Snow was crossed with an E. fasciolatus, the offspring would either be macks or they would not be. The only way to produce SS's from that combination would be if both parents were snows. There have been SS's produced from Mack co-doms paired with line-bred snows.
 
Golden Gate Geckos said:
So, when we look at Mack Snows as co-dominant, we see that with a Mack Snow x Normal, the offspring will either be a Mack Snow or it will not be. We rarely think that the Mack 'sibling' could be a het for Snow, but in reality it is heterozygous for snow.
Click to expand...

What? :shrug01:

Mack Snow = Xx (het)
Super Snow = XX (homo)

So if a Normal is produced from Mack x Normal, it would not carry a gene for Mack at all, if in fact we're talking about co-dominance. A Mack Snow (if we're speaking of co-dominance) is the heterozygous while the Super Snow is the homozygous.
 
Golden Gate Geckos said:
I think where many are confused is when we refer to a 'het' simply in terms of recessive traits. "Technically", the term heterozygous means that each offspring carries one copy of each parent's genetic make up, and in some cases it's the copy copy that isn't expressed. So, when we look at Mack Snows as co-dominant, we see that with a Mack Snow x Normal, the offspring will either be a Mack Snow or it will not be. We rarely think that the Mack 'sibling' could be a het for Snow, but in reality it is heterozygous for snow.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you on the definition of the word heterozygous Marcia, but I do not agree that a mack "sibling" (aka, normal offspring with a mack snow parent) is het for Mack Snow. Mack snows are the "het" for the mack snow gene, Super Snows are the "homo" for the Mack Snow gene. Mack snow is a dominant gene which has a super form, which makes it Co-Dominant. There is no het for Mack Snow just like there is no het for the Enigma gene. A Mack Snow carries only 1 copy of the Mack Snow gene, the mack "sibling" is created because the non Mack Snow gene got passed on to the offspring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top