I did a write up on the spider, double check it for me?

[blackcrystal22]

blackcrystal22

I donno what to tell you everything you are saying seem to conflict 100% with anything i have read on this site or anything to do with genetics on the web. even seem to conflict with the wiki link posted, so i donno what to tell you.

Then take a genetics class.

Things are very simplified on the web. I don't know why I try to tell you these things that is beyond your comprehension.

But the original post says the gene is "simple dominant" which is incorrect. There is no simple dominant. There are multiple types of dominance and it's never just that simple.

I still stand on that the spider gene is recessive lethality. But here's some 'web' stuff you can read. Since everyone seems to be linking wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_alleles

If the mutation is caused by a recessive lethal allele, the homozygote for the allele will have the lethal phenotype.

http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com...al-alleles.htm
There is more on that website about some other types of inheritance.

Until someone proves otherwise by proving there is a homozygous spider, this is likely the case.

[BAMReptiles]

just to clear things up a bit, recessive lethal can be and is the same as homozygous lethal. so basically he is arguing that spiders are homozygous lethal

[OhhWatALoser]

Then take a genetics class.

Things are very simplified on the web. I don't know why I try to tell you these things that is beyond your comprehension.

But the original post says the gene is "simple dominant" which is incorrect. There is no simple dominant. There are multiple types of dominance and it's never just that simple.

I still stand on that the spider gene is recessive lethality. But here's some 'web' stuff you can read. Since everyone seems to be linking wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_alleles


http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com...al-alleles.htm
There is more on that website about some other types of inheritance.

Until someone proves otherwise by proving there is a homozygous spider, this is likely the case.

ok mr college educated, if you going to talk down on me, then put it in stupid for me.

what is the pinstripe and congo then?
do you have any evidence besides "its about time" of a lethal trait present to claim that this is likely?
What other dominant genes also have recessive lethality?
why do the 2 wiki links contradict each other? (this is rhetorical i already know why)

Sorry I have attempted to do some research and so far nothing as conflicted with genes being classified by the gene itself, it is even stated in one of the wiki links posted above as i pointed out. classifying by phenotype to me is makes no sense because obvious 1 gene can effect multiple phenotypes. If there is bad information literally everywhere, does that make me stupid? highly doubt this is beyond my comprehension. There is alot of holes I need filled in tho.

[TessadasExotics]

I even got out my genetics notes for you.
Codominance means that both traits are present in the F1 generation but only one shows. A lot of ball python genes are actually Incomplete Dominant because when they are bred with another morph gene, they create a new mixture of the two.
We tend to use codominace for all of the traits, which is fine for layman terms most of the time but is incorrect for what you're saying.

If only every one could know this and use it. The terms we use are so inaccurate.

[mainbutter]

What other dominant genes also have recessive lethality?

The jaguar trait in carpet pythons.

[mainbutter]

If only every one could know this and use it. The terms we use are so inaccurate.

100% agreed.

[OhhWatALoser]

The jaguar trait in carpet pythons.

co-dom to the rest of us?

[Serpent_Nirvana]

this is right off the link you posted

"It is critical to understand that dominance is a genotypic relationship between alleles, as manifested in the phenotype. It is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself"

You're misunderstanding what that line means.

The line that you underlined was intended to clear up a completely different common misconception, which is that dominance is a function of the phenotype. Meaning, many people think that a more "intense" phenotype will dominate over a less "intense" phenotype. For example, some people might think that red is dominant to white because red is darker. I really don't know how to explain it better than that because it's an incorrect misconception, but that is what the author is driving at.

You ignored the first line of the Wiki article (emphasis added):

"Rather, the terms simply refer to the visible trait, the phenotype, seen in a heterozygote."

That is in the second line of the paragraph I linked to.

The fact of the matter is, though, that these terms are way too simple to adequately describe genetics as we now understand it. That's why geneticists keep expanding and adding new concepts, such as recessive lethality, and that's why it's such a pain to try and fit these complex genetic concepts into these overly-simplified categories.

I had one genetics professor who hated these terms (dominant, recessive, etc.) for that very reason.

[mpkeelee]

good job on the write-up. as for the rest of this thread, it just makes my head hurt. lol

[Serpent_Nirvana]

I even got out my genetics notes for you.
Codominance means that both traits are present in the F1 generation but only one shows.

I'm a little confused by this. Every genetics class I've ever taken, co-dominance is defined as both traits being present in the F1 generation, meaning that both are phenotypically expressed in full. (As opposed to a "blending" as happens in incomplete dom, like you said.)

What you've typed doesn't actually make sense to me ... If both traits are present (the word "trait" suggesting phenotype, not genotype), then wouldn't that be the same as saying that both "show?"