Bumble Bee X double het caramel glow?

[Kevin_Hornby]

Nope. There is no caramel ont he side of the bumblebee. Because the bumble bee is not mixed with the Caramel until after the punnett square.

That is why the letters are small to represent normal. But they are present because the alaea (sp) is there

[kc261]

There are lots of different ways of doing punnett squares, and all of them (at least all of the correct ones!) will yield the same results.

One thing that seems to be confusing you is that in the examples given, a capitol letter indicates the mutant gene, while a small letter indicates a normal gene. Therefore, Pp is a pastel (one mutant gene), pp is a normal, and PP would be a super pastel (although there is no possibility of getting that in your original question).

I could go through and solve the question using my method, but that would probably only further confuse you.

[Turbo Serpent]

ahhh this makes some sense, thank you turbo serpant!!

now

PS=actual Bee
Ps=Pastel carrying spider gene?
pS=Spider carrying pastel gene
ps=normal?

But co-doms don't carry genes right? Only recessives can hold other genes like the double hets for example. Theres no pastel carrying a hidden gene right?

Recessive Heterozygous is a non visual gene so it carries the gene but without proof visually. The visual is the Homozygous form.

Co-Dom/Dom Heterozygous and Homozygous are visual. Co-Dom the Heterozygous and Homozygous forms are visually different while the Dominant both Heterozygous and Homozygous appear the same, only breeding will tell if you have Het or Homo.

[Turbo Serpent]

That is why the letters are small to represent normal. But they are present because the alaea (sp) is there

Well then in that case you need to list every single dormant allele in existance.

When doing a punnett you only list the genes of the parents. No listing of dormant genes for simplicity reasons.

[Kevin_Hornby]

I actually find it makes more sense to me if I list all the genes that are involved on both sides.

[Turbo Serpent]

However, don't make things more complicated than they are. The bee has NO chance of throwing a caramel or ghost gene, so take those out of the mix. Similarly, the double het CG has NO chance of contributing a pastel or spider gene, so take those out of the mix. Only consider what your breeders can contribute, then assume the rest. You will wind up with this:

......PS Ps pS ps
Cg
cg
CG
cG

Exactly my point! Thank you!

[Turbo Serpent]

There are lots of different ways of doing punnett squares, and all of them (at least all of the correct ones!) will yield the same results.

One thing that seems to be confusing you is that in the examples given, a capitol letter indicates the mutant gene, while a small letter indicates a normal gene. Therefore, Pp is a pastel (one mutant gene), pp is a normal, and PP would be a super pastel (although there is no possibility of getting that in your original question).

I could go through and solve the question using my method, but that would probably only further confuse you.

Everywhere I have read the mutant (recessive) gene is lower case. Because Normal (dominant) is upper case... but as long as you know what you are reading it shouldnt matter I guess.

[GenePirate]

One thing that seems to be confusing you is that in the examples given, a capitol letter indicates the mutant gene, while a small letter indicates a normal gene. Therefore, Pp is a pastel (one mutant gene), pp is a normal, and PP would be a super pastel (although there is no possibility of getting that in your original question).

I could go through and solve the question using my method, but that would probably only further confuse you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that you're talking about dominant always being represented by a capital and recessive always being lower case. Yeah, if anyone works in real Science, then that is the case--always. However, I think it makes it easier for everyone if the recessive gene (or mutant gene) of interest is capitalized, even though it's technically incorrect, and would, as you suggested, confuse everyone.

[kc261]

Well then in that case you need to list every single dormant allele in existance.

When doing a punnett you only list the genes of the parents. No listing of dormant genes for simplicity reasons.

When I was a bio major in college, I was taught to do punnett squares that made matching pairs. For example, if we are breeding an albino x spider, you would list AAss for the albino, and aaSs for the spider. You can skip pastel, because it doesn't come into play at all. That way the offspring show up as AaSs or Aass rather than AS or As, which could make it look like the albino and spider genes are paired on the same allele, even though they aren't.

I've found it easier to drop out the genes you have termed "dormant" (I'd argue the correctness of that term, but it doesn't really matter). As long as the person doing the punnett square understand that those genes are there, and they just aren't bothering to write it down, they'll probably be fine. However, someone who is struggling to understand it, or is just in the habit of doing it the more formal way, might get confused if they try to skip that step.

As long as it is done correctly, either way will yield the same results, so both showing them and not showing them can be considered correct.

[Turbo Serpent]

When I was a bio major in college, I was taught to do punnett squares that made matching pairs. For example, if we are breeding an albino x spider, you would list AAss for the albino, and aaSs for the spider. You can skip pastel, because it doesn't come into play at all. That way the offspring show up as AaSs or Aass rather than AS or As, which could make it look like the albino and spider genes are paired on the same allele, even though they aren't.

The way I was saying to do it would not yield AS or As, but rather AaSs and Aass like you said.