Genetics and price.

[Kury]

Hi peoples.

I have an assortment of questions to ask, that I haven't found exact answers to anywhere else. Shorter questions first:

How much would a hatchling/juvenile female albino ball python cost, on average? That's in Canada, so I want Canadian price. I've heard 10,000 is about the top, what's the bottom? And what's the average?

Now, same question, only, pastel ball python. Female, juvenile. All the same. What's the average Canadian price?

And again, same question, only, 100 percent het for albino.



Now for the more complex "interesting" questions. I've been reading stuff about squares and genetics, I understand the simple recessive, and I'm getting into the double het ones- slowly. What I haven't found, and thereby do not understand, is dominate and co-dominate.

First questions, what are some of the main dominate morphs?

Second, main co-dominate morphs? (pastel, right? Anything else?)

And then... could anyone explain it in simple squares? or give me a link to a website that explains it good?


That would be all. Thanks in advance ^_^

[Invictus]

Ok, I'll try to answer these just based on my own "market research".

- Hatchling albino balls are going for about $3500. If you pay more than $5000, you are being SERIOUSLY ripped off.

- pastels are about $1500 for males, $2500 for females, plus or minus 10%.

- Het for albino males are about $300, females are about $900-$1200 depending on natural beauty.

Co-dominant traits occur in 50% of offspring from a co-dom to normal breeding. In other words, if you breed a pastel to a normal, 50% of the resulting clutch would be pastel.

If you breed 2 pastels together, the co-dominant trait expresses itself twice, resulting in a "super pastel". This can become dominant, and if it did, you could breed a super pastel to a normal, and 100% of the offspring would be pastel (the co-dom form.)

Hope this helps, and I hope I'm right on this. Genetics can be confusing. :S

[Invictus]

Oh, and just to add this... the 50% is not a guarantee. It's the probability.

[Ron]

Samantha,

The main dominant morph right now is the Spider or Spider-Webbed. It is considered a dominant because there has not been any visible "super" Spider produced yet. It has been said that the "super" cannot be distiguished from a regular Spider but I don't believe anyone has proven that a "super" even exists.

I still view Mojaves as a dominant trait even though Leucistics have been produced from Lesser Platty x Mojave. Until a Leucistic or any other "super" is produced from a Mojave x Mojave I'll still view Mojaves as a dominant gene.

As for co-dominant, The only that come to mind are Pastel Jungles and Cinnamon Pastels.

Pete Kahl has a good genetics page to check out and I think Tim Cranwill has a good explanation on his page too.

[Ptindy]

Red Axantic I believe is co-dominant as well. Those are running in to 10k a piece range tho I think. Talk to Corey Woods, he'll be able to fill you in with all the morphs.

Mike

[Derrick]

http://www.reptimania.co.uk/ballmorphs.htm
The above is a link listing a bunch of morphs both proven and unproven and states whether they are simple ressive/co-dom or dominant some are wrong but most are correct. It also has links to the originating breeders page for each morph

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/genetics_intro.html

This one explains the whole genetic thing. Thier explanation of a dominant gene is a little scewed. A super pastel is is the homo form of a co-dom gene. It isn't dominant because otherwise the babies would be super pastels if bred to a normal. What you would get is just normal pastels. A dominant gene show the same traits whether in the het or homo form

on another note you can get male pastels as low as 1000$

[munchy]

Originally posted by Derrick
http://www.reptimania.co.uk/ballmorphs.htm


thats a cool link.:) thanx

[Kury]

Thanks everyone,

I had no clue albinos were so inexpensive. I'm not sure where I read my prices, or maybe I got them mixed up. Nice to know though.

I never checked newenglandreptile for the genetics, I think they have the best explanation so far.

And Cranwills explanation is the easiest to understand- wish I'd been there when I first learned of the punnet square :p

But again, thanks everyone. I think that answers all my questions... for now.