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

[OhhWatALoser]

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.

See no matter how many times i read it over, i still can't see it any other way. i mean point me out where i go wrong

A dominant trait does not mean "stronger," and recessive does not mean "weaker." Rather, the terms simply refer to the visible trait, the phenotype, seen in a heterozygote.

I understand this as, I'm going to call the albino gene recessive, because in the het form, i cannot see the phenotype. I don't call a super pastel recessive, i call it co-dom, because it is seen in the het form. The phenotype makes the gene described the way it is. which he says later on in the quote i posted before.

If there are only two phenotypes, and a heterozygote exhibits one phenotype, by definition the phenotype exhibited by the heterozygote is called "dominant" and the "hidden" phenotype is called "recessive." The key concept of dominance is that the heterozygote is phenotypically identical to one of the two homozygotes. The homozygous trait seen also in the heterozygous individual is called the 'dominant' trait.

I don't see any argument here

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.

See i don't see anything about misconception, it is only stating how i already think

, e.g., whether it is regarded as 'normal or abnormal,' 'standard or nonstandard,' 'healthy or diseased,' 'stronger or weaker,' or 'more or less' extreme. It is also important to distinguish between the 'round' gene locus, the 'round' allele at that locus, and the 'round' phenotype it produces. It is inaccurate to say that 'the round gene dominates the wrinkled gene' or that 'round peas dominate wrinkled peas.'

Now we call them genes in the the reptile world, but would wouldn't lesser be one allele make a heterozygous, and a BEL have 2x lesser alleles.

If this is incorrect then what does the the previous statement mean and what exactly is the difference between the gene locus and allele. because I thought where the alleles physical hung out was called the locus, and the alleles were what we think of as morphs.