The codominance myth

[CH2O2]

I'm just not gonna play this game anymore. I'll be happy to discuss the topic of the thread. But i wont sit here anymore and continue useless fights.

[OhhWatALoser]

I would call that the perfect oportunity to teach something new to that person. You would be surprised how many people like to learn something new. You wont know untill you try it.

Some people will thank you for correcting them. Other people will continue to use the wrong term because they are stubborn. I say it is better to give those people a chance to make their own choice.

Why not? You teach them the correct term and move on to what you wanted to talk about in the first place and if that person still want to talk about incomplete dominance... ermmm... maybe they are interested in the issue?

Where exactly did you see above anyone that studied biology saying it is not incomplete dominant. I don't see it. Besides if you read and understand, the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant (look above) you will agree that incomplete dominant is the correct term. I am not making it up. I am using the definition of the terms.

Did you read my response to that? Please read again, i have already explained it.

Yes, you don't understand and that is not the problem. The problem is you are making an effort NOT to understand.

But I can. Simply using the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant, I can.

I am not trying to win. I am trying to make you understand the definition of codominant and incomplete dominant. How you use the knowledge is your own choice.

No. YOU seem content to just "talk snakes". Don't presume to judge what other people want without asking their opinion.

What a peculiar way you choose to be understood, when you consistently choose to use the incorrect terminology. No, you are just stubborn. You are standing in front of the trees but refuse to see the forest.

There were grammar and spelling mistakes in your post, which I bolded and corrected. I'm sure you passed high school English so you must know how to write a simple response, yet you choose to still post it incorrectly. You must be stubborn and standing in front of trees and stuff.

Was the message still communicated without any confusion? Yes it was

You assume everything I said comes without experience of the exact situation and many other situation like it. Should we also be correcting people every time they say there no such thing as het pastel? I tired in the past. Found out it's all about how the community uses the word, not the actual definition. The flaw in your argument is you seem to think it matters what mendel called something. The logic behind the word is understood. No one is debating the definitions are correct, we are telling you welcome to how things really are.

[Anatopism]

There were grammar and spelling mistakes in your post, which I bolded and corrected. I'm sure you passed high school English so you must know how to write a simple response, yet you choose to still post it incorrectly. You must be stubborn and standing in front of trees and stuff.

Was the message still communicated without any confusion? Yes it was

You assume everything I said comes without experience of the exact situation and many other situation like it. Should we also be correcting people every time they say there no such thing as het pastel? I tired in the past. Found out it's all about how the community uses the word, not the actual definition. The flaw in your argument is you seem to think it matters what mendel called something. The logic behind the word is understood. No one is debating the definitions are correct, we are telling you welcome to how things really are.

To the OP...

I don't think anybody is trying to argue that incomplete dominance is incorrect, or that it isn't the best possible definition for what we know at the time. People will however fight back if you, whether intentionally or completely implied by accident, insult their intelligence concerning a subject area they are passionate about. Don't ignorantly assume because lots of people use a term incorrectly that they don't know the correct term, or even that it was a mistake to have used codom where it doesn't belong. It is used because it gets the message across... and I am adding this part because you very strongly replied not to "talk for everyone else" when somebody said people "just want to talk snakes"....

People just want to talk snakes. Nobody is arguing the correct terminology. Don't call us idiots because you misunderstand the culture, despite your perfect efforts at approaching us. We can be very helpful and very open minded, maybe take a step back and ask questions as to WHY and get to know us before you start a thread that comes across as a bit preachy. Again take note.... you may not have intended to come across this way! But look at all the responses you got, and tell me that it didn't in some way at least come across as such.

[CH2O2]

There were grammar and spelling mistakes in your post, which I bolded and corrected. I'm sure you passed high school English so you must know how to write a simple response, yet you choose to still post it incorrectly. You must be stubborn and standing in front of trees and stuff.

Was the message still communicated without any confusion? Yes it was

Yes, i did pass high school english. However, english is not my native language. I also speak spanish, french, portuguese and italian. I'm afraid english is not the language i understand best. I did not choose to post mistakes, i just cant help making them. Thank you for the time you spent correcting them.

You assume everything I said comes without experience of the exact situation and many other situation like it. Should we also be correcting people every time they say there no such thing as het pastel?

Yes. If the person in question does not agree, we move on.

I tired in the past. Found out it's all about how the community uses the word, not the actual definition. The flaw in your argument is you seem to think it matters what mendel called something. The logic behind the word is understood.

So you rather continue using the terminology you know is wrong. It is your choice.

No one is debating the definitions are correct, we are telling you welcome to how things really are.

Things only are a certain way when people want them to be. If enough people want, things change.

[CH2O2]

To the OP...

I don't think anybody is trying to argue that incomplete dominance is incorrect, or that it isn't the best possible definition for what we know at the time. People will however fight back if you, whether intentionally or completely implied by accident, insult their intelligence concerning a subject area they are passionate about. Don't ignorantly assume because lots of people use a term incorrectly that they don't know the correct term, or even that it was a mistake to have used codom where it doesn't belong. It is used because it gets the message across... and I am adding this part because you very strongly replied not to "talk for everyone else" when somebody said people "just want to talk snakes"....

People just want to talk snakes. Nobody is arguing the correct terminology. Don't call us idiots because you misunderstand the culture, despite your perfect efforts at approaching us. We can be very helpful and very open minded, maybe take a step back and ask questions as to WHY and get to know us before you start a thread that comes across as a bit preachy. Again take note.... you may not have intended to come across this way! But look at all the responses you got, and tell me that it didn't in some way at least come across as such.

So many people claim to know the correct term is incomplet dominance but choose to use codominant because everybody else only understands codominant. I'm starting to believe everybody knows the correct terminology but thinks everybody else doesn't. Actually, i think everybody already knows it is really incomplete dominance but uses the excuse of everybody else not knowing so they dont have to use the correct term.

If so many people knows the correct term, it should be easy to change. I'm sorry but that does not seem very open minded to me. I dont get why people are not willing to use the correct term when they learn it. I just dont get it.

And i dont think i was preachy. I think people reacted strongly because they dont like the suggestion i made that codominance is incorrect terminology.

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

You would think this community would stop behaving this way and showing its arse, I mean this thread is only all over Facebook and the Internet since it was reported via The Reptile Report...

Considering the fact that any and all threads that are interesting, contain good facts, or experience that herpers all over may want to know, are being linked all over by The Reptile Report, I would personally be embarrassed for the world to see these replies.

The OP is factually correct. We are all aware of this. Another fact is that it would be nearly impossible to get hundreds of thousands of herpers to suddenly change their terminology. It's similar to the problem we occasionally get with a morph having different names because breeders can not agree who named it first or produced it first.

Good luck getting the reptile community to begin using all the proper genetic terminology..


Factoid: "There are no such things as Hogg Island or Columbian boas"

[OhhWatALoser]

And i dont think i was preachy. I think people reacted strongly because they dont like the suggestion i made that codominance is incorrect terminology.

If that's what you got out of this thread, I don't think there much hope for you understanding this is a sociology issue not a biology one like you keep pretending it is. You're not listening to our experience with this exact issue. I don't think there anything left to say that hasn't already been said, no reason to repeat things again. Good luck changing things and adding more confusion to this already confusing hobby.

[paulh]

Fact: Different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for codominant. Some use a phenotype-based definitions and others a biochemical definition. And different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for incomplete dominant. Again either a phenotype-based definition or a biochemical definition. And there is not a one to one correlation between definitions based on phenotype and definitions based on biochemistry. Two genes that are biochemically codominant can produce a heterozygote with a phenotype that is intermediate between the two homozygotes.

Fact: A and B blood types are codominant because we use a sensitive chemical test. To the naked human eye, both are just red. In other words, sensitivity of the test can affect conclusions.

Fact: Distinguishing between codominant and incomplete dominant requires adding another term -- overdominance. Overdominance = the heterozygous form is not intermediate between the two homozygotes. The heterozygote is superior in performance or has a survival advantage compared to either homozygote.

Fact: Matings of codominant and incomplete dominant and overdominant genes produce the same results. In all three, the two homozygotes and the heterozygote can be distinguished. And the genotype results are the same as the phenotype results for a given mating.

Fact: "Codominant" has fewer characters than either "incomplete dominant" or "overdominant". Therefore, "codominant" is easiest to write.

Fact: Three definitions are easier to teach than five definitions.

Conclusion: Splitting mutant genes into three categories (dominant, codominant, recessive) is simpler for a breeder to use and teach than splitting mutant genes into five categories (dominant, codominant, incomplete dominant, overdominant, recessive).

[Aztec4mia]

So we have established that "co-dom" is not technically correct and but has been socially accepted as simple way to describe BP genetics. So now lets get down to the part that matters and let see some pics of the snakes.

[CH2O2]

Fact: Different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for codominant. Some use a phenotype-based definitions and others a biochemical definition. And different genetics texts do not use the same definitions for incomplete dominant. Again either a phenotype-based definition or a biochemical definition. And there is not a one to one correlation between definitions based on phenotype and definitions based on biochemistry. Two genes that are biochemically codominant can produce a heterozygote with a phenotype that is intermediate between the two homozygotes.

Can you please show me a biochemical definition of codominant and incomplete dominant? Are you saying that by using such a definition, a pastel snake would be correctly classified codominant insted of incomplete dominant?

Fact: A and B blood types are codominant because we use a sensitive chemical test. To the naked human eye, both are just red. In other words, sensitivity of the test can affect conclusions.

I agree

Fact: Distinguishing between codominant and incomplete dominant requires adding another term -- overdominance. Overdominance = the heterozygous form is not intermediate between the two homozygotes. The heterozygote is superior in performance or has a survival advantage compared to either homozygote.

No problem here.

Fact: Matings of codominant and incomplete dominant and overdominant genes produce the same results. In all three, the two homozygotes and the heterozygote can be distinguished. And the genotype results are the same as the phenotype results for a given mating.

Fact: "Codominant" has fewer characters than either "incomplete dominant" or "overdominant". Therefore, "codominant" is easiest to write.

Ermmm.... lol? Are you saying people are just lazy?

Fact: Three definitions are easier to teach than five definitions.

True. But why would you think people are ignorant and cant learn 5 definitions? Maybe it is the people that do know the definitions that refuse to teach them.

Conclusion: Splitting mutant genes into three categories (dominant, codominant, recessive) is simpler for a breeder to use and teach than splitting mutant genes into five categories (dominant, codominant, incomplete dominant, overdominant, recessive).

So your conclusion is that breeders wont learn 5 definitions because they are either lazy or ignorant. I don't believe that. I believe people that do know and understand the definitions are unwilling to teach them.