Sample genetics chart.

I made this chart to explain BP genetics to a friend, after punnett squares didn't sink in. I thought it might be helpful to newer hobbiests who have questions about genetics. I used albino, pastel and spider in my example, but any simple recessive morph can be used in place of the albino, and any co-dom can be switched in for the pastel/spider. This was a lot bigger, but I left out all the double het breeding, etc. to save space.

http://www.inkednation.com/images/us...0780112431.jpg

Nice chart, Jake! Only the first one isn't right, the normals and hets are all 66% het. You'll know when they are hets when they're proven out. The rest looks goods to me :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nordinho

Nice chart, Jake! Only the first one isn't right, the normals and hets are all 66% het. You'll know when they are hets when they're proven out. The rest looks goods to me :D

---

Thanks. It says that to the right of them with arrows showing that the 50% that are hets and the 25% that are normal comprise all the normal looking animals, which are all 66% poss. het albino. I know it's a little confusing and small, but I wanted to keep it as the results would show for a punnett square.

Allright, i get what you mean. I wish i had this chart when i started learning genetics. It would have saved me a lot of time ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nordinho

Allright, i get what you mean. I wish i had this chart when i started learning genetics. It would have saved me a lot of time ;)

---

Yeah, I know what you mean. The double het breeding and other bigger charts are good to have on hand. Those results start getting crazy. If anyone wants them let me know.

Thats allot easier to understand in black and white then having it explained to you over a phone or e-mail..good work, and nice job.:gj:

Thanks. Hopefully newbies can find it. It seems like even when BP genetics are explained in a straight forward manner, a lot of people just can't visualize the outcome. This should help.

well it did help,luckily in bio we're doing the punnett square so i'll be doing some more of that in a while.

Very nice!


I really like your idea.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jar2476

Thats allot easier to understand in black and white then having it explained to you over a phone or e-mail..good work, and nice job.:gj:

---

Yea...I agree!!! Great referance chart ;)

cracking diagram there ...concise and easy to understand , well worth the effort , nice one

Here is the chart for breeding double hets together as requested.
http://www.inkednation.com/images/us...0078192926.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

http://www.inkednation.com/images/us...0780112431.jpg

---

Great chart, I really like your use of color.

I would change the white box on the Recessive genetics slide to read something along the lines, "All normals are 66% possible het until proved otherwise".

If you dont put something like "66% possible heterozygotes" or abbreviate it to "66% poss. het", then people are likely to confuse the theoretical genotypic ratio, which is the expected frequency of getting a given genotype from a specific cross, and an unproven organism's probability of being heterozygous.

It's easy to dintinguish between the two if you know what is going on and you're an expert, but your chart's aim is to simplify things for beginners. Of course, I'd also modify you two-trait chart as well to avoid this potentially confusing ambiguity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nordinho

Nice chart, Jake! Only the first one isn't right, the normals and hets are all 66% het. You'll know when they are hets when they're proven out. The rest looks goods to me :D

---

Apparently, it already confused one person.

See this thread also.

People may also want to use this Punnett square tool.

I agree it's a little confusing the way I worded it. I just had this saved on my computer and thought I'd put it on here. I whipped this up in front of my friend while I explained things. I guess it's a little rough without someone explaining it. I'd make a new one that is clear and explains everything, but it looks like there are already a few out there that do a good job. I really like Markus Jayne's idea. I hadn't seen that before.