Quote Originally Posted by GenePirate View Post
Yep, you are correct that a pastel (i.e.) is het for that mutation. It just becomes difficult when someone says "het for pastel" because that implies that two mutated alleles make a pastel. But, a pastel is a het (het for that chromatophore anomaly).
And, yes, in my career I've always done the cap/small letter (i.e., Pp) to indicate one mutated allele for (let's say) pastel and the other unmutated homologous allele (homologous roughly meaning paired or same location). So, for those who need an example, PpHh would be a pastel het for ghost (hypo), and PpHH would be a pastel ghost--you can make up your own letters. It could be helpful for some to insert "n" where there is a normal allele, but for me, it's just too busy. So Randy, Corvid, Dr. Del....good posts. I concur.
The way I read things, when someone says "het for x" they are referring to x as a recessive trait i.e. not visibly discernable from normal.

"Het x" (without the for) to me represents a dom/codom trait that is not a homozygous animal, though both examples could be considered correct.

To muddy things further, if referring to a codominant trait, if you use the term "heterozygous" then you should name the super form to be technically correct.

I have no issue with "het" being used with a dom/codom trait, especially when working out squares. I just make sure to slow down and read very carefully.

Clarifying questions are never a bad thing.

Just my 2 cents.