Pinstripe question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

---

That's incorrect. Providing they are both heterozygous Pinstripes, breeding Pinstripe x Pinstripe would hopefully lead to the production of a clutch of eggs, with each egg having the following genetic probabilities:

25% normal
50% heterozygous Pinstripe
25% homozygous Pinstripe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

---

I don't know which Punnett square you use, but it doesn't work on mine. As others have stated though, I assume that the pins in her mock breeding were Heterozygous, since noone knows of a proven Homozygous one yet.

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

Uh... no. Unfortunately that's not how genes work. Punnet Squares are your friend. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

there would be 25% normals...



If your statement above were true, then the flipside would also be true..... Normal looking het x normal looking het couldn't producing anything except normals... We all know that isn't true.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

Nope pin to pin will give you all pins ;)

---

This is the very same, except with spider.

http://www.ballpython.ca/what_get/dominant.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

Swing and a huge miss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gib

didnt use kind of punnet square....just some good old fashioned common sense...

Breed a visual animal to a visual animal and there is no way you can get a nonvisual offspring...simply for the fact that both every offspring will get atleast one copy of said genes

---

That only works for recessive traits, Gib... if you breed two animals with the same visual recessive morph, you cannot get anything but that recessive morph - like having a blue-eyed couple, who are not capable of producing brown-eyed children*.

Dominant traits don't work the same way, though - you can get the visual trait for either homozygous or heterozygous gene pairs. For example, a visual brown eyed couple can produce blue-eyed offspring... simply because the trait for blue eyes can 'hide' heterozygously under the dominant brown-eyed trait.

Likewise, the normal pattern trait can 'hide' under dominant Pinstripe... and if both pinstripe parents carry "not pinstripe" then there is a 25% chance for each egg that each parent will hand over the recessive normal trait to their offspring and produce a normal-looking hatchling.

* This is a massive simplification of the eye colour traits in humans - it's actually several related sets of genes that produce eye colour, and that's how you can get green, hazel and grey eyes - but generally speaking, blue eyes are recessive to brown eyes in the absence of any other eye colour genes.

Thanks for the info. :)

For a Pin x Pin breeding to have a 0% chance at normals, each Pin parent must be a homozygous Pin...