Enigma Genetics
- Thread starter hyposhawn
- Start date
SaSobek
Member
you cant use in it a punnet square.
It is a dormant gene that means that no matter what ½ of all babies will be enigma you don’t ever need to use it in a punnet square. Punnet square is for figuring out simple recessive genetics.
in one of my next videos i will talk about all the genetic things with geckos.
heiser
New member
I do not have enigmas, but everything I have been told is it is a simple dominant trait. assuming they are simple dominant the following applies;
You can use a dominant gene in a punnet square. That is exactly what you do with normal/amelanistic punnent square where you represent the dominant normal leo gene as "A" and the recessive amel gene as "a". Here you understand that AA is normal and aa is amel. The Aa (and equivalent aA) are heterozygotes (hets), however the normal leo gene is dominant and hets look normal.
With enigma you can use a punnent square where "E" represents the enigma gene and "e" will be the normal gene. In this case the normal gene becomes recessive to (i.e., is dominanted by) the enigma gene. That means that EE, Ee and eE all look like enigma and only ee looks normal. The hets do not look normal. In amels you can't tell a het from a normal (by looks) with out breeding them to find out. You could take normals and possible hets and breed them to an amel. Babies from the amel to normal would all look normal as they would all get one "A" gene from the normal parent (they would of course all be hets getting an "a" gene from the amel parent). The amel to het pairing would result in half amels and half normal looking hets. [all normal looking babies are hets as the amel parent passes an "a".]
Enigmas also have homozygous and heterozygous pairings. The EE is the homozygous and the Ea is the het, both of which have the enigma look/characteristics. You could tell them apart only by breeding them to normals. The homozygous enigma would yield all enigma off spring since it has to pass an "E" gene to the babies. The hets could pass either an "E" or an "e" therefore, half the babies would be enigmas and half normals.
The problem you have when you buy an enigma is you don't know if you have an "EE" or an "Ee" (both look the same) until after you have bred it and proven it out. So, using a punnet square on an enigma is not going to predict what you will get unless you are sure of your enigmas heterozygous or homozygous status.
Does that help?
Regards,
John
You can use a dominant gene in a punnet square. That is exactly what you do with normal/amelanistic punnent square where you represent the dominant normal leo gene as "A" and the recessive amel gene as "a". Here you understand that AA is normal and aa is amel. The Aa (and equivalent aA) are heterozygotes (hets), however the normal leo gene is dominant and hets look normal.
With enigma you can use a punnent square where "E" represents the enigma gene and "e" will be the normal gene. In this case the normal gene becomes recessive to (i.e., is dominanted by) the enigma gene. That means that EE, Ee and eE all look like enigma and only ee looks normal. The hets do not look normal. In amels you can't tell a het from a normal (by looks) with out breeding them to find out. You could take normals and possible hets and breed them to an amel. Babies from the amel to normal would all look normal as they would all get one "A" gene from the normal parent (they would of course all be hets getting an "a" gene from the amel parent). The amel to het pairing would result in half amels and half normal looking hets. [all normal looking babies are hets as the amel parent passes an "a".]
Enigmas also have homozygous and heterozygous pairings. The EE is the homozygous and the Ea is the het, both of which have the enigma look/characteristics. You could tell them apart only by breeding them to normals. The homozygous enigma would yield all enigma off spring since it has to pass an "E" gene to the babies. The hets could pass either an "E" or an "e" therefore, half the babies would be enigmas and half normals.
The problem you have when you buy an enigma is you don't know if you have an "EE" or an "Ee" (both look the same) until after you have bred it and proven it out. So, using a punnet square on an enigma is not going to predict what you will get unless you are sure of your enigmas heterozygous or homozygous status.
Does that help?
Regards,
John
Last edited:
Thanks guys so this would be right?
A Mack Snow Enigma x A Mack Snow Albino=
6.3% Super Snow
6.3% Mack Snow
6.3% Mack Snow Enigma
6.3% Super Snow Enigma
18.9% Mack Snow het Albino
12.6% Normal het Albino
12.6% Enigma het Albino
18.9% Mack Snow Enigma het Albino
6.3% Super Snow het Albino
6.3% Super Snow Enigma het Albino
A Mack Snow Enigma x A Mack Snow Albino=
6.3% Super Snow
6.3% Mack Snow
6.3% Mack Snow Enigma
6.3% Super Snow Enigma
18.9% Mack Snow het Albino
12.6% Normal het Albino
12.6% Enigma het Albino
18.9% Mack Snow Enigma het Albino
6.3% Super Snow het Albino
6.3% Super Snow Enigma het Albino
heiser
New member
I didn't run the punnet on your combination, but it looks like that is reasonable but assumes your enigma is heterozygous ("Ee") as opposed to homozygous ("EE"). In the later case all offspring would be enigma as all would be heterozygous and as mentioned enigma is dominant (all hets have the enigma characteristics). You have only half the offspring as enigma, which only happens is the enigma is heterozygous.
You will find out if you enigma is heterozygous or homozygous after you breed it and all the babies hatch. Good luck.
Regards,
John
You will find out if you enigma is heterozygous or homozygous after you breed it and all the babies hatch. Good luck.
Regards,
John
heiser
New member
The industry still just calls them enigmas, mainly because most people don't know (or don't care) if theirs is het or homozygous. I suppose if you followed the norm such as in pastel ball pythons you might call the het an enigma and the homozygous form a super enigma. Pastel in ball pythins is dominant and the homozygous is called a super pastel. I believe the same is true for spiders and super spiders. With these two the super form looks different so to be honest the trait should be considered incomplete dominance and that may be why enigmas are not being called supers for the homozygous form, you can't tell from looking if it is EE or Ee.
I noticed that some engimas have the problem of head tilt and circling when they are upset/stressed. I wonder if this is homozygous engima trait or if it shows up in all enigmas?
I noticed that some engimas have the problem of head tilt and circling when they are upset/stressed. I wonder if this is homozygous engima trait or if it shows up in all enigmas?
SaSobek
Member
Wait a minute here. im not trying to be an donkey or anything, but Super enigma? Is this such a thing? is it proven? By what breeder? And when was this made?
I have hatched over a thousand enigmas of all colors and crosses. I have never heard of there being a super form.
I have hatched out 12 strait enigmas from a single male and then the “non enigmas” started to hatch and at the end it was caught up. I have heard of people hatching 75% enigmas and I have heard of people hatching out 25 % I have had the same result from different crosses I have done its just the odds of the breeding .
To have a proven super enigma I would say that it would have to have hatched 30 + babies all enigma for me even to think about believing in such a thing.
Here is the deal enigmas do have an issue. Like it or not enigmas, even as much as we out cross we might not ever get rid of the “spinning/ star gazing “ that they do. From what I have seen it is caused by stress with strange things that happen with them such as get to 30 grams and stop eating. Not all enigmas do all or any of these things but it dose happen. They are beautiful geckos and they do do some cool things to the way leopard geckos look. The best way to look at it is like a spider ball python. But the difference with the spider is they are usually better eaters then normals in most cases.
I have enigmas that don’t do any spinning at all. I have bred them to totally unrelated geckos with out ever having any enigma in their background. And there is still a % of babies that are enigma that hatch out with the enigma issues.
I have noticed that enigmas that are of the last babies to hatch out of a female in a season are usually weaker then enigmas that are the first eggs from a female. I don’t know why this is but it must have to something with the “stress” if you will is almost causing issues with the babies.
I have out crossed enigmas to every subspecies that I have and still the issue pops up.
I have bred enigma to enigma. I wanted to do some testing to see if there was a super or not. only two out of 10 eggs hatched . The others died in the egg the two that hatch were enigmas. The ones that didn’t were not far along enough to tell if they were enigma or not.
I didn’t want to keep the enigmas from this enigma to enigma cross because I dint want to do anymore work on the project to prove them. Is there a super enigma? I don’t know. Would I want one personal? No
The reasons would be the fallowing. One the issues that the enigmas have. I believe if there was a super form the issues would be even worse in that animal. If this was the case, ethically that isn’t a great thing to breed for. I know that the enigma creates some of the coolest looking geckos in the hobby. But ethically is it responsible of us to keep breeding and inbreeding geckos with issues. If you are trying to clean up the issues that the enigma has then yes you will need to breed the best enigma you can find to what ever you want and keep out crossing till you cure the issues. I know breeders that have bred enigmas now for 4-5 generations and still see the issues.
IF there is a super form. IMO it would be foolish to breed for more supers knowing the issues that the enigmas have because in doing so you would be breeding enigma to enigma to get such a gecko and at this time with the issues that these geckos have IMO would be ethically wrong. As breeders it is our resposibility for us to improve the gecko as best we can so that they dont have issues no matter what they may be.
this was all my view on it
back to your question on what you will get.
Ok as for genetics. you have……..
A Mack Snow Enigma x A Mack Snow Albino=
All you have to do is break it down this is how you do it.
Ok one is an albino and the other is just plain not het for albino. That means that all babies are 100% het albino.
Next step do the enigma part. ½ of all babies will be enigma. (trust me you dont have a super enigma)
Next will be the mack snow
Mack snow to mack snow = ¼ normal ½ snow and ¼ super snow.
Ok so here it is all are het albino
½ enigma X ¼ normal= 1/8 normal 1/8 normal enigma
½ enigma X ½ snow = ¼ snow , ¼ snow enigma
½ enigma X ¼ super snow = 1/8 super snow, 1/8 super snow enigma
So
1/8 normal het albino
1/8 enigma het albino
2/8 snow het albino
2/8 snow enigma het albino
1/8 super snow het albino
1/8 super snow enigma het albino
It is easier to look at it as a fraction then a % because when you are putting 2,3,4,, or even 5 genetics into one gecko fractions are just an easier way to see what you might get
I have hatched over a thousand enigmas of all colors and crosses. I have never heard of there being a super form.
I have hatched out 12 strait enigmas from a single male and then the “non enigmas” started to hatch and at the end it was caught up. I have heard of people hatching 75% enigmas and I have heard of people hatching out 25 % I have had the same result from different crosses I have done its just the odds of the breeding .
To have a proven super enigma I would say that it would have to have hatched 30 + babies all enigma for me even to think about believing in such a thing.
Here is the deal enigmas do have an issue. Like it or not enigmas, even as much as we out cross we might not ever get rid of the “spinning/ star gazing “ that they do. From what I have seen it is caused by stress with strange things that happen with them such as get to 30 grams and stop eating. Not all enigmas do all or any of these things but it dose happen. They are beautiful geckos and they do do some cool things to the way leopard geckos look. The best way to look at it is like a spider ball python. But the difference with the spider is they are usually better eaters then normals in most cases.
I have enigmas that don’t do any spinning at all. I have bred them to totally unrelated geckos with out ever having any enigma in their background. And there is still a % of babies that are enigma that hatch out with the enigma issues.
I have noticed that enigmas that are of the last babies to hatch out of a female in a season are usually weaker then enigmas that are the first eggs from a female. I don’t know why this is but it must have to something with the “stress” if you will is almost causing issues with the babies.
I have out crossed enigmas to every subspecies that I have and still the issue pops up.
I have bred enigma to enigma. I wanted to do some testing to see if there was a super or not. only two out of 10 eggs hatched . The others died in the egg the two that hatch were enigmas. The ones that didn’t were not far along enough to tell if they were enigma or not.
I didn’t want to keep the enigmas from this enigma to enigma cross because I dint want to do anymore work on the project to prove them. Is there a super enigma? I don’t know. Would I want one personal? No
The reasons would be the fallowing. One the issues that the enigmas have. I believe if there was a super form the issues would be even worse in that animal. If this was the case, ethically that isn’t a great thing to breed for. I know that the enigma creates some of the coolest looking geckos in the hobby. But ethically is it responsible of us to keep breeding and inbreeding geckos with issues. If you are trying to clean up the issues that the enigma has then yes you will need to breed the best enigma you can find to what ever you want and keep out crossing till you cure the issues. I know breeders that have bred enigmas now for 4-5 generations and still see the issues.
IF there is a super form. IMO it would be foolish to breed for more supers knowing the issues that the enigmas have because in doing so you would be breeding enigma to enigma to get such a gecko and at this time with the issues that these geckos have IMO would be ethically wrong. As breeders it is our resposibility for us to improve the gecko as best we can so that they dont have issues no matter what they may be.
this was all my view on it
back to your question on what you will get.
Ok as for genetics. you have……..
A Mack Snow Enigma x A Mack Snow Albino=
All you have to do is break it down this is how you do it.
Ok one is an albino and the other is just plain not het for albino. That means that all babies are 100% het albino.
Next step do the enigma part. ½ of all babies will be enigma. (trust me you dont have a super enigma)
Next will be the mack snow
Mack snow to mack snow = ¼ normal ½ snow and ¼ super snow.
Ok so here it is all are het albino
½ enigma X ¼ normal= 1/8 normal 1/8 normal enigma
½ enigma X ½ snow = ¼ snow , ¼ snow enigma
½ enigma X ¼ super snow = 1/8 super snow, 1/8 super snow enigma
So
1/8 normal het albino
1/8 enigma het albino
2/8 snow het albino
2/8 snow enigma het albino
1/8 super snow het albino
1/8 super snow enigma het albino
It is easier to look at it as a fraction then a % because when you are putting 2,3,4,, or even 5 genetics into one gecko fractions are just an easier way to see what you might get
SaSobek
Member
SaSobek
Member
click on the link and do it yourselfReptile Genetics Calculator
heiser
New member
Interesteing that no one has "super" enigmas. I was just stating what an EE enigma might be called (although super is more often used in incomplete dominance). Not that I knew of a homozygous form (wasn't really interested until you just reported on your results). Of course this points to the original poster havinng a het and then he can be more certain of results.
The fact that enigma to enigma hasn't been fruitful is interesting as well. It could quite possibly be that the homozygous enigma is a lethal gene combo. In which case, of course no "super" will ever exist. Thanks for the info on your breeding of enigmas. I hadn't heard from anyone that bred that many whether or not they got any homozygous enigmas. Your results certainly seem to point to a lethal gene combo. I had heard that enigma to enigma resulted in very poor production, but agian from several smaller breeders.
I agree with you on not producing weak or inferior geckos and if enigmas can't be "cleaned up" then you are right it might be best to remove them from the hobby or make it clear that enigma to enigma is a big no-no. It may also be that if they can be cleaned up that eventually a super form may be possible. Too much work for me, lol. I imagine it would be quite a few generations as you stated a few people you know have several generations of engimas (and I assume out crossed that many generations) and there are still issues. Seems unlikely enigmas will clean up and the hobby may need to live with the spinning and stay away from homozygous forms (i.e. not breed enigma to enigma). I have seen quite a few enigmas that don't spin so hopefully they will clean up.
Still issues of lethal gene combos are interesting. You and I both know many people will breed engima to enigma just because they aren't aware of the problems associated with it. It will be interesteing to see if anyone eventually gets a super or more likely if more reports of poor production of enigma to enigma come out. it may be that those unfamilar with the problem may not even recognize poor productivity. Your results were obviously very poor, but if only the homozygous combo proves lethal then a het to het may only result in 25% egg mortality and a lot of "newbies" might chalk that up to inexperience or a bad incubator.
It would be interesting to me to hear of anyone elses experience with enigma to enigma.
ps. Hyposhawn, sorry i did not pay attention to the albino part of second question (the mack/mack cross), they must all be het albino. I was really just looking at the general enigma relation as that's what you originally asked about. I'll try to be more precise next time ; )
Regards,
John
The fact that enigma to enigma hasn't been fruitful is interesting as well. It could quite possibly be that the homozygous enigma is a lethal gene combo. In which case, of course no "super" will ever exist. Thanks for the info on your breeding of enigmas. I hadn't heard from anyone that bred that many whether or not they got any homozygous enigmas. Your results certainly seem to point to a lethal gene combo. I had heard that enigma to enigma resulted in very poor production, but agian from several smaller breeders.
I agree with you on not producing weak or inferior geckos and if enigmas can't be "cleaned up" then you are right it might be best to remove them from the hobby or make it clear that enigma to enigma is a big no-no. It may also be that if they can be cleaned up that eventually a super form may be possible. Too much work for me, lol. I imagine it would be quite a few generations as you stated a few people you know have several generations of engimas (and I assume out crossed that many generations) and there are still issues. Seems unlikely enigmas will clean up and the hobby may need to live with the spinning and stay away from homozygous forms (i.e. not breed enigma to enigma). I have seen quite a few enigmas that don't spin so hopefully they will clean up.
Still issues of lethal gene combos are interesting. You and I both know many people will breed engima to enigma just because they aren't aware of the problems associated with it. It will be interesteing to see if anyone eventually gets a super or more likely if more reports of poor production of enigma to enigma come out. it may be that those unfamilar with the problem may not even recognize poor productivity. Your results were obviously very poor, but if only the homozygous combo proves lethal then a het to het may only result in 25% egg mortality and a lot of "newbies" might chalk that up to inexperience or a bad incubator.
It would be interesting to me to hear of anyone elses experience with enigma to enigma.
ps. Hyposhawn, sorry i did not pay attention to the albino part of second question (the mack/mack cross), they must all be het albino. I was really just looking at the general enigma relation as that's what you originally asked about. I'll try to be more precise next time ; )
Regards,
John
Last edited:
How do you do it on paper?
heiser
New member
I will use your mack albino/mack enigma cross as an example:
Start with the easy genetics..
Mack albino
.........a........a
M......Ma......Ma
m......ma......ma
Note the mack is not a super mack so het is used (Mm)
Mack enigma
.........E........e
M......ME......Me
m......mE......me
mack is het and assumes enigma is het (based on discussion by Matt). This takes care of the visible traits.
Now to keep things staight add in the Normal genes for the enigma in the mack albino. You need to do this to understand how the enigma gene from the other parent will behave. Since it is normal, in the terms we used to represent genes it is "EE" [i.e., it is not an enigma]
You get:
...........E...........E
Ma......MaE......MaE
Ma......MaE......MaE
ma......maE......maE
ma......maE......maE
Notice I duplicated the genes even though the ratio is the same (50% Ma and 50% ma). This is only for book keeping and is useful if you had other genetics you wanted to track.
Do the same for the mack enigma...add in the Albino genes...it is "AA" [again not an albino].
..........A............A
ME......MEA......MEA
mE......mEA......mEA
Me......MeA......MeA
me......meA......meA
These two sets of three letter gene representations give you the possible genetic contributions from the parents. So now multiple these in a punnent square [The mack albino is accross the top and hte mack enigma down the left]:
..........MaE.........MaE.........maE.........maE.......MaE....MaE....maE....maE
MEA...MaEMEA...MaEMEA...maEMEA...maEMEA
mEA...MaEmEA...MaEmEA...maEmEA...maEmEA
MeA...MaEMeA...MaEMeA...maEMeA...maEMeA
meA...MaEmeA...MaEmeA...maEmeA...maEmeA
MEA
mEA
MeA
meA
Again there is a lot of duplication and you can multiply all of them out and it will work, but instead of getting something like 1/8 you get the equivalent 8/64. I did not multiply all of it just the non-redundant quarter...you get the same percentage (the other three quarters give equivalent answers). If you had more genetic combos (for instance both were enigmas or the enigma was also het albino) the full square allows better book keeping.
So you now look at each combo and find all small letters (we used small letters to represent the visible trait) and remember one "m" is snow and one "e" is enigma (both are dominant to normal) while you would need "aa" for albino (recessive to normal) [note: you can't get albino in this case, only hets "Aa"]. You end up with:
MaEMEA normal het albino
MaEmEA mack snow het albino
MaEMeA enigma het albino
MaEmeA mack snow enigma het albino
maEMEA mack snow het albino
maEmEA mack super snow het albino
maEMeA mack snow enigma het albino
maEmeA mack super snow enigma het albino
or
1/8 normal het albino
2/8 mack snow hey albino
1/8 enigma het albino
2/8 mack snow enigma het albino
1/8 mack super snow het albino
1/8 mack super snow enigma het albino
Not sure this helps, but maybe...as Matt said genetic combos with many genetic morphs become cumbersome and good book keeping is the key to success.
Regards,
John
Start with the easy genetics..
Mack albino
.........a........a
M......Ma......Ma
m......ma......ma
Note the mack is not a super mack so het is used (Mm)
Mack enigma
.........E........e
M......ME......Me
m......mE......me
mack is het and assumes enigma is het (based on discussion by Matt). This takes care of the visible traits.
Now to keep things staight add in the Normal genes for the enigma in the mack albino. You need to do this to understand how the enigma gene from the other parent will behave. Since it is normal, in the terms we used to represent genes it is "EE" [i.e., it is not an enigma]
You get:
...........E...........E
Ma......MaE......MaE
Ma......MaE......MaE
ma......maE......maE
ma......maE......maE
Notice I duplicated the genes even though the ratio is the same (50% Ma and 50% ma). This is only for book keeping and is useful if you had other genetics you wanted to track.
Do the same for the mack enigma...add in the Albino genes...it is "AA" [again not an albino].
..........A............A
ME......MEA......MEA
mE......mEA......mEA
Me......MeA......MeA
me......meA......meA
These two sets of three letter gene representations give you the possible genetic contributions from the parents. So now multiple these in a punnent square [The mack albino is accross the top and hte mack enigma down the left]:
..........MaE.........MaE.........maE.........maE.......MaE....MaE....maE....maE
MEA...MaEMEA...MaEMEA...maEMEA...maEMEA
mEA...MaEmEA...MaEmEA...maEmEA...maEmEA
MeA...MaEMeA...MaEMeA...maEMeA...maEMeA
meA...MaEmeA...MaEmeA...maEmeA...maEmeA
MEA
mEA
MeA
meA
Again there is a lot of duplication and you can multiply all of them out and it will work, but instead of getting something like 1/8 you get the equivalent 8/64. I did not multiply all of it just the non-redundant quarter...you get the same percentage (the other three quarters give equivalent answers). If you had more genetic combos (for instance both were enigmas or the enigma was also het albino) the full square allows better book keeping.
So you now look at each combo and find all small letters (we used small letters to represent the visible trait) and remember one "m" is snow and one "e" is enigma (both are dominant to normal) while you would need "aa" for albino (recessive to normal) [note: you can't get albino in this case, only hets "Aa"]. You end up with:
MaEMEA normal het albino
MaEmEA mack snow het albino
MaEMeA enigma het albino
MaEmeA mack snow enigma het albino
maEMEA mack snow het albino
maEmEA mack super snow het albino
maEMeA mack snow enigma het albino
maEmeA mack super snow enigma het albino
or
1/8 normal het albino
2/8 mack snow hey albino
1/8 enigma het albino
2/8 mack snow enigma het albino
1/8 mack super snow het albino
1/8 mack super snow enigma het albino
Not sure this helps, but maybe...as Matt said genetic combos with many genetic morphs become cumbersome and good book keeping is the key to success.
Regards,
John
heiser
New member
m = mack snow
e = enigma
a = amelanistic/albino (I wrote albino only as it is shorter and more commonly used although amelanistic is the better choice)
The capital letters represent the normal looking gene for the corresponding trait;
M = recessive/normal (not mack snow)
E = recessive/normal (not enigna)
A = dominant/normal (not albino)
Your confusion may be how some people use a punnet square and nomenclature. Take simple recessive amel...represent an Amel animal as "aa" and most people will represent the normal animal as "AA" while others use "NN" then het for amel is either Aa of Na. The problem with using an "N" to represent normal comes to play with muliple genes and book keeping. If you use "N" it is hard to tell which original parent the gene came from. If you use a capital letter corresponding to the trait (e.g., "A", "M" or "E") it is (imho) easier to tell where the genetics come from and you can quickly tell a het for any given trait if you see the capital letter in the gene representation.
For instance in my previous post the representation for a mack super snow enigma het albino is:
maEmeA.......[this could/should be rearranged to mmEeAa]
First rearrangement to gene pairs is very easy, second you can quickly see two lower case "m"s so super snow and also quickly determine it is the het form of enigma from the "Ee" not the (nonexistant) super form and it is easy to see it is het for albino from the "Aa"
If I used "N" to represent the normal gene pairing for all of the traits the mack super snow enigma het albino becomes:
maNmeN
Now you need to count lower case letters; two "m" so super snow, one "e" so enigma (het) and one "a" so het albino. Also rearranging become more cumbersome it should be rearranged to mmNeNa (as opposed to mmNNae or another perturbation)
You would have no idea of the parents genetics for something like the het albino, which I represent as MaEMEA (rearranged = MMEEAa). Using "N" it would be NaNNNN, both are het albino. Really a matter of choice, which ever you are more comfortable with. If you like "N" just replace all of my capital letters with "N"s. I use this for book keeping and error checking (for me it is easier to see if I made a mistake if I use different letters). This is also more conventional.
Remember too that punnet squares or genetic trees don't always work. Codominance and linked genes are two examples where the ratios might not work for you. In addition, lethal gene combiunations can mean that the babies that hatch don't match the ratios since one groop nevers hatches.
e = enigma
a = amelanistic/albino (I wrote albino only as it is shorter and more commonly used although amelanistic is the better choice)
The capital letters represent the normal looking gene for the corresponding trait;
M = recessive/normal (not mack snow)
E = recessive/normal (not enigna)
A = dominant/normal (not albino)
Your confusion may be how some people use a punnet square and nomenclature. Take simple recessive amel...represent an Amel animal as "aa" and most people will represent the normal animal as "AA" while others use "NN" then het for amel is either Aa of Na. The problem with using an "N" to represent normal comes to play with muliple genes and book keeping. If you use "N" it is hard to tell which original parent the gene came from. If you use a capital letter corresponding to the trait (e.g., "A", "M" or "E") it is (imho) easier to tell where the genetics come from and you can quickly tell a het for any given trait if you see the capital letter in the gene representation.
For instance in my previous post the representation for a mack super snow enigma het albino is:
maEmeA.......[this could/should be rearranged to mmEeAa]
First rearrangement to gene pairs is very easy, second you can quickly see two lower case "m"s so super snow and also quickly determine it is the het form of enigma from the "Ee" not the (nonexistant) super form and it is easy to see it is het for albino from the "Aa"
If I used "N" to represent the normal gene pairing for all of the traits the mack super snow enigma het albino becomes:
maNmeN
Now you need to count lower case letters; two "m" so super snow, one "e" so enigma (het) and one "a" so het albino. Also rearranging become more cumbersome it should be rearranged to mmNeNa (as opposed to mmNNae or another perturbation)
You would have no idea of the parents genetics for something like the het albino, which I represent as MaEMEA (rearranged = MMEEAa). Using "N" it would be NaNNNN, both are het albino. Really a matter of choice, which ever you are more comfortable with. If you like "N" just replace all of my capital letters with "N"s. I use this for book keeping and error checking (for me it is easier to see if I made a mistake if I use different letters). This is also more conventional.
Remember too that punnet squares or genetic trees don't always work. Codominance and linked genes are two examples where the ratios might not work for you. In addition, lethal gene combiunations can mean that the babies that hatch don't match the ratios since one groop nevers hatches.
Last edited:
Riverside Reptiles
Administrator (HMFIC)
John, thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. I'm sure that many users will find that helpful. If you ever feel like writing up a genetic primer for leo morphs, feel free to do so and I'll sticky it to the top of the forum.