Hi,
That's another point - it wouldn't have to be on the same allele.
Think of it like NERDs statments about the het pied gene having a visual effect in some combos.
You might end up that what we call harlequins are actually double heterozygous (or homozygous ) for two (visual or non-visual ) mutations and that it is sheer fluke there is a visual effect when the two are in the same animal.
Which potentially leads to some seriously nerfed up results from breeding two visual animals together;
Results
6.25%Normal
12.5%het. Harequin type A (non visual )
6.25%Harelquin type B (non visual )
6.25%Harlequin type A (non visual )
12.5%het. Harlequin type B (non visual )
12.5%Harlequin type A, het Harelquin type B ( visual? )
12.5%Harlequin type B, het Harelquin type B ( visual? )
6.25%Harlequin type A, Harelquin type B ( visual? )
25%het. Harlequin type A, het. Harlequin type B (visual? )
Which would give 56.25% possibly visual animals from breeding to harlequins together. Or 25% if only the double homozygous was a visual expressed combination.
Either way the chances per egg would be different than we would have expected but would need a large sample to try and prove those were the odds anyone was actually getting.
But I'm guessing it cannot be as simple as only the double homozygous being visual as that would mean breeding two harlequins together would give 100% harlequins as a result.
If it was allelic (sp? ) then breeding two visual parents together should give 25% harlequins as a result. But you also couldn't get harlequins from breeding to an animal that didn't have one of the genes.
And all this is based on a blind hope it is that simple and involve a combination of the those concepts or more than 2 genes.
Excuse me I think I need to go lie down with a cloth over my head till the hurting stops.
dr del
Reply With Quote