Pinstripe question

If what your saying is that every pin x pin crossing will always 100% give pins, then I have no way to explain it, and there is something much bigger going on with the pinstripes, perhaps some other trait is closely linked to pins, with a probability of 99.999~%.

Are there people with proof that ANY pin crossed with a pin produces 100% pins? I would really like to know. That would decide that there is something definitely going on with those pins and spiders. And apparently, they inherit traits differently than everything else.

But if it helps to understand, call the pinstripes from a Pin x normal cross, het for normal.
If those het for normal pins are crossed with each other, the same punnet's above still apply, and you should theoretically get 25% chance of normals.

I still theorize that the homozygous form of pins are probably lethal. I have no proof, and people will call me crazy, but I can see no other way around this.

But if there are people with the proof of any pin x pin crossing produces 100% pins in a litter, then my whole theory is shot.

There's another project to add to the list, homozygous lethal pins. ;)

I talked to barczyk a lil bit about this last year and there hasnt been any problems with pin to pin breedings and also that he had pretty much given up on tryin to make the super pin

I'll ask him next saturday... I need more definite answers lol, maybe pick up a pair? :D

LOL there ya go!!

How many Pins you produce Gib?
BT

Here's an email from Mr. Barczyk...Are we done yet?
BT

From: bhb@comcast.net
Sent: Sun 1/06/08 9:50 AM
To: brian taylor (brtaylor30@hotmail.com)

You would produce 25% normals. that's the ratio that would work out genetically. Of course that in a huge group of numbers. but you know that. I'll look forward to talking to you tonight. Later, Brian

-------------- Original message --------------
From: brian taylor <brtaylor30@hotmail.com>
I can feel your love right thru the computer...LOL...I'll try and call you about 10PM Sunday night...Answer me a quick question to end an argument on a forum...From a Pin x Pin breeding - Would you or would you not produce theoretically 25% Normals....
BT

LOL BT I stand Corrected Sir! I definitly wouldnt call this an argument ;)

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the unfortunate misuse of the term dominant as in "dominant form" when homozygous should have been used instead. Like the incorrect and often repeated idea that heterozygous only applies to recessive morphs, it's very hard to unlearn incorrect information.

Going back to basics and remembering that genes come in pairs, one from each parent, it's easy to see why a pinstripe or spider from pin/spider X normal is heterozygous for that mutation. It has an unmatched pair of versions of the gene at the pinstripe or spider location (the definition of heterozygous) because only one of the parents had the mutant version of the gene to give. Once you see that spiders and pinstripes with one normal parent are heterozygous animals it's easy to see how when you breed two of them together a baby might get the normal version from both parents.

The only question is if there are also surviving homozygous animals produced when both parents show the mutation and that we don’t yet know. In theory there should be but the lack of a public proven homozygous spider this far in is confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rapture

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

---

Incorrect, Only one parent would need to be homozygous. The other could then even be a normal BP and you still get all pinstripe offspring.

I personally still think it like the spider gene are lethal genes in the super or homozygous form. Do some of you breeders find you lose eggs in pin to pin and spider to spider clutches?

Robin

Here's a new idea from Dave Barker, I think many will find this little tidbit interesting, and also something I was trying to understand. The possibility that the pinstripe has a gene or other trait closely linked to it that we don't understand yet. Anyways, here's what Dave had to say, I hope he does not mind that I post this.

Quote:

---

On Jan 6, 2008 11:35 AM, Dave Barker <vpi@beecreek.net> wrote:


Of course, it's possible that one or both conditions are not even genetic,
but rather are epigenetic in nature and inheritance. Epigenetics, as I
understand it, is the inheritance of traits that are not the expression of a
gene, but rather the expression of some other molecules that are associated
closely with DNA (I believe these molecules "coat" a strand of DNA").

The fact is that I don't really understand epigenetics, it's a fairly new
field of research, and don't have any strong understanding of what all is
involved. I have read that epigenetics can cause some pretty strange
patterns of inheritance, including inheritance that cannot be explained by
classic Mendelian inheritance.

It would be simple enough to buy a pair of pins and breed them together. If
the pattern of inheritance is Mendelian, then either (1) a "super"
homozygous will result if the pin appearance is codominant; (2) a homozygous
pin will result if it is a dominant trait (further breeding would be
necessary to prove it); (3) or a lethal cross is in effect and the
homozygous condition does not exist. Failing those three possibilities, then
the answer would have to involve some non-Mendelian, probably epigenetic,
explanation.

At least that is how I understand it.

Dave

---

I have cut this from the original message.