Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Recessive versus Co-dominant Genetics



Which is better?

Recessive or Co-dominant?

One can argue both ways.

Let us first touch on what is what in terms of Recessive and Co-dominant in genetics.

Recessives are those morphs that require two parents that carry the same gene (in this case, Albino) to reproduce itself. Heterozygous animals are normal looking animals that carry the gene to produce Albinos, and you would need a pair of the gene carriers to produce a visual recessive Albino.

Co-dominant animals are animals that already express the morph visually and only require a normal looking animal to reproduce itself.

So which is better?

Well... that is a matter of opinion. I know a friend breeder of mine who only does Co-doms. He says that there is much more of a return on co-dominant animals, as when you breed a co-dom animal to another, you get visuals that year.

Now, I must respectfully agree and disagree at the same time. Yes, you do get immediate satisfaction if you breed a co-dom to a normal (most of the time, but we are assuming odds are in our favor). BUT recessives, because of the time that it takes to produce them, hold up in terms of value more.



Because it takes those two normal looking gene carriers to produce that one visual, the time and effort you put into it is that much more worth while, in terms of satisfaction (in my opinion) as well as fiduciarily.

Yet on the other side of the coin is that the sooner one has a morph, the sooner one can use it. I agree wholeheartedly, but Hets are still technically morphs in their own right. They just don't look like much.

So the argument continues...

Depending on how patient you are, how much you LOVE the morph you are working with, and how much you want to spend all play a big part in what is worth while to you.

Recessives are fantastic, and a lot of people love Albinos, Pieds, Clowns and other recessive morphs. But, co-doms are also amazing, and can do great things in combos, and by their lonesome.

So I call it a draw.

I will work with both as much as I can, and see if I can't combine as many as I can to see what pops out. It'll just take some extra time.



Have a fantastic day, my friends.

3 comments:

BlackJackReptiles said...

What is the difference between Co-Dominant and Dominant?

Heather Wong said...

Co-dominant gives you half visual morphs from a co-dominant to normal breeding. A Dominant morph would give you ALL visual morphs to a normal.

Jackie M. said...

Correction:

Co-dominant and dominant genes are similar in that they both produce morphs, even if the animal is only carrying ONE copy of the gene. If a single-gene co-dominant or dominant animal is bred to a normal, the babies each have a 50/50 shot of picking up the gene and being morphs themselves.

Co-dominants are different from dominants, however, in that an animal with TWO copies of the gene has an even more extreme appearance--ie. there's a "super" form. Pastels and lessers and cinnamons are examples of co-dominant genes. If a co-dominant super is bred to a normal, ALL of the babies will inherit a single copy of the gene, and be morphs. None of them will be normals--though none of them will be supers, either, unless you mate your super to another morph carrying that gene.

Dominant genes work exactly the same way, except that there's no "super" form. Spiders and pinstripes are dominant genes. A ball python can be carrying two copies of the spider gene, and it will produce all spiders as a result, but it will still visually look the same as a single-gene spider ball python.

See also:

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52