I'm not backpedaling anything. I know what I said. It's obviously genetic. My cinnamons do not produce blushed out and lavender tinted (at hatching) blackback cinnys. I'm sorry but I've never seen a cinnamon produced by anyone that looked like that and it was just a cinny.
When comparing to try to make a call on the GBB the female may be, she more closely resembles a het red than the others. I said she must be. Why am I repeating myself??
Then (for those who need an explanation for their holier than though ways) I thought about what I'd said and how I didn't consider the difference between the proven co-dom lines I'd listed (you know, the ones that have a super form) and the genetic BB's that are the dominant lines. Plus, again, like I said (this is getting tiring) I considered the cinny babies have no stripe. Gargoyles usually have a stripe.
The point is, that female proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be genetic. I know this is a fact because I know what my cinnys would look like otherwise.
Does it really matter if I wanted to call them gargoyles the first day and then realize they are probably a dominant gene and not a co-dom gene? Personally, I'd rather them be dominant blackbacks. My blackback project is just that. I don't want a stripe in what I plan to produce.
So go find someone else to try to put down if it makes you feel better. It isn't going to work in this situation because I got exactly what I wanted out of that unproven female. Who (oh my god!) is not just a nice normal!
