Pinstripe question

[Louis Kirkland]

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

[muddoc]

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.

[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

[xdeus]

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.

[jkobylka]

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

[AjBalls]

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

[Brimstone111888]

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.

[Ssthisto]

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.

[Ginevive]

Thanks for the info.

[Rapture]

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