Quote Originally Posted by Jamielvsaustin View Post
Now in english...please.

What's the difference between co dominance and incomplete dominance? Or what do "they" say is the difference? And what do you think it is?

Is that your delima? That you don't think there is such thing as incomplete dominance?

Seriously, can you break it down for me? I am interested, just not smart enough to follow along
It's the other way around. I don't believe co-dominance is a form of inheritance (at least not in the sense that dominance, recessiveness, or incomplete dominance are). Most people working with ball pythons are aware that the mutations they are calling co-dominant are actually incompletely dominant.

It appears to me that the only textbook example I've been shown of co-dominance that differed in any way from incomplete dominance (being blood type) is actually the result of two dominant mutant alleles at the same locus. I believe the AB heterozygous individual is technically the only thing that can be correctly called co-dominant if anything in the mix was to be because both the A and B phenotype are equally expressed.

Just compare it to making a mojave x lesser BEL. Say mojave is AO and lesser is BO (O = wild-type). AB is a mojave x lesser BEL - when bred to a normal, all you get is AO and BO. In the case of human blood type though, AA and AO (or BB and BO) are phenotypically identical, unlike in the BEL complex.

This is my theory at least for now. Hopefully I've expressed it to you in a way that you can understand this time around. Maybe this explanation will be compressed enough for BG to come back and comment on as well.