» Site Navigation
2 members and 3,272 guests
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,100
Threads: 248,543
Posts: 2,568,764
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
a lot of good suggestion here, if i have to go with one single project , i will go for desert ghost super orange dream. i consider it like a double recessive project even if OD is co dom. the super form is what should make this project ... astonishing.
1.0 superstripe, killerbee, OD spider fire, black pastel YB, black specter, pastel dinker, spider dinker, banana, banana cinnamon, enchi fire OD, fire dream bee het. russo, pastel superstripe, 2.0 firefly dream YB.
0.2 superpastel yb, 0.2 enchi, 0.1 yellowbelly 0.2 cinnamon, 0.2 normal, 0.1 black widow, black pewter, fire, lemon pastel, pastel, black pastel, bumblebee, spider granite, het. russo, super pastel, pastel specter, specter,lesser pin, OD, fire OD, OD fire het. russo, OD pastel, firefly dream YB, fire bee het. russo, lemon pastel enchi, citrus super enchi, super pastel enchi, pastel ivory, bumblebee dinker
-
-
Registered User
I'm a little confused on why my planned second generation stock, if bred together, would have possible normals.
Here is my plan on first generation in order to make my own dbl het dream (with some extra genes as well):
Genetic Wizard 3.0 calculations by
If I took the visual firefly dbl het lavender/pied and bred them back together, then why would I even have the chance of making a normal? If that is the case then any non-visual would have to be labeled "possible het" for the underlining genes, correct?
Here is my perfect scenario second generation wizard:
Genetic Wizard 3.0 calculations by
I must admit this pairing might be very silly without any good odds of producing something great and therefore a waste of time. Or it could be epic. What do you think?
-
-
Re: Dreamsicle additions
Originally Posted by BriGuy31+
If I took the visual firefly dbl het lavender/pied and bred them back together, then why would I even have the chance of making a normal? If that is the case then any non-visual would have to be labeled "possible het" for the underlining genes, correct?
A visual firefly dbl het lavender/pied has four gene pairs of interest.
Gene pair 1 = a fire gene and a normal gene
Gene pair 2 = a pastel gene and a normal gene
Gene pair 3 = a lavender gene and a normal gene
Gene pair 4 = a pied gene and a normal gene
Each parent gives one gene (chosen at random) from each gene pair to each baby. Which means that there is a chance that a baby will end up with two normal genes in any of the four gene pairs. And if any of the gene pairs in a given baby can contain two normal genes, then there is a chance that all four gene pairs will contain two normal genes and the baby be genetically normal.
In other words, take four dice, each of which has 6 sides. Each die stands for one gene pair in a baby.
1 = two mutant genes in a baby
2 = one mutant gene and one normal gene in the same baby.
3 = one mutant gene and one normal gene in the same baby.
4 = two normal genes in the same baby.
5 = roll that die again until it comes up 1, 2, 3, or 4.
6 = roll that die again until it comes up 1, 2, 3, or 4.
There is a small chance that all four dice will come up showing 4, meaning genetically normal.
There is a higher chance that a normal-looking baby will be het lavender or het pied or double het. But possible (66%) het also means possible (33%) genetically normal.
Make sense?
For what it's worth, I figure there is a 9/128 probability of getting a normal-looking baby. IMO, good enough odds to do the mating. And there is also a chance of lavenders, pieds, super fires, super pastels, and other good stuff.
Good luck.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|