The codominance myth

[Anatopism]

Very simply, I think in general, people just don't care. This is something l I have talked to people about, but most of the people I know that got into BPs (outside of this forum anyway...the ones that do so just out of mild interest or who are brand new to the hobby and haven't learned about forums), got into BPs because of interest in the animals and the different morphs, not because of interest in genetics.

I am not saying whether it is right or wrong to use a term that has developed a different definition that is understandable to the community, or incorrect for discussion on genetics, but if I were to take a guess (yes, I am fully aware of what assuming makes me), I would say that if somebody is interested in genetics, they may have had a better time getting into breeding fruit flies with strangely shaped wings, than getting into the spendy hobby that is BP breeding. I figure most people get onto BPs for the sake of BPs, not because of their budding interest in genetics. I am not saying proper terminology or science should be discouraged, I am just trying to explain to you why arguing semantics in this case, likely wont get you very far.

It doesn't make people foolish or stupid, or imply anything at all about education. As previously stated, this is a sociology issue. There are people on all sides of the spectrum as far as genetics and biology experience go. If a person produces and keeps top quality animals, and has excellent husbandry and passion for the hobby, I really don't care if they use a term that may be incorrect for genetics, but has been established to mean one thing to the community. I may explain or go into the finer details of BP breeding/genetics with friends in person, but in general, my priorities are elsewhere.

[CH2O2]

Very simply, I think in general, people just don't care. This is something l I have talked to people about, but most of the people I know that got into BPs (outside of this forum anyway...the ones that do so just out of mild interest or who are brand new to the hobby and haven't learned about forums), got into BPs because of interest in the animals and the different morphs, not because of interest in genetics.

I am not saying whether it is right or wrong to use a term that has developed a different definition that is understandable to the community, or incorrect for discussion on genetics, but if I were to take a guess (yes, I am fully aware of what assuming makes me), I would say that if somebody is interested in genetics, they may have had a better time getting into breeding fruit flies with strangely shaped wings, than getting into the spendy hobby that is BP breeding. I figure most people get onto BPs for the sake of BPs, not because of their budding interest in genetics. I am not saying proper terminology or science should be discouraged, I am just trying to explain to you why arguing semantics in this case, likely wont get you very far.

It doesn't make people foolish or stupid, or imply anything at all about education. As previously stated, this is a sociology issue. There are people on all sides of the spectrum as far as genetics and biology experience go. If a person produces and keeps top quality animals, and has excellent husbandry and passion for the hobby, I really don't care if they use a term that may be incorrect for genetics, but has been established to mean one thing to the community.

I agree.

I may explain or go into the finer details of BP breeding/genetics with friends in person, but in general, my priorities are elsewhere.

I especially agree with this last past. If your priority is just breeding BP's that is fine. But if the topic of genetics happens to come up with your friends , why not use the correct terminology.

What i think i discovered with this discussion is that many people do know the terminology but they resist using it correctly.

[paulh]

I am not saying whether it is right or wrong to use a term that has developed a different definition that is understandable to the community, ....

Did I give the impression that the three-way dominant/recessive/codominant split was unique to herper genetics? That was not my intention. The mouse geneticists use the same split, except they use "semidominant" instead of "codominant". See Genetic Strains and Variants in the Laboratory Mouse. Another case of the textbook writers not keeping up with the professionals.

By the way, there are some good papers on semantics in genetics at http://www.ringneckdove.com. See the Contents page, Science & .. subheading. The papers are listed as Dominance; Dominance, Codominance & Epistasis; and Advances in Classical Genetics. The pedigree problems may be interesting, too.

[OhhWatALoser]

What i think i discovered with this discussion is that many people do know the terminology but they resist using it correctly.

Unless your new to this forum, I would hope most people on here would know the correct terminology, how many times has then been brought up now? This forum is not the entire community, it is far from it. Your acting like the knowledge of few people in this thread is the norm for tens of thousands of people. I don't think there anything anyone can say to make you understand, you'll just have to experience it first hand yourself.

[Anatopism]

Did I give the impression that the three-way dominant/recessive/codominant split was unique to herper genetics? That was not my intention. The mouse geneticists use the same split, except they use "semidominant" instead of "codominant". See Genetic Strains and Variants in the Laboratory Mouse. Another case of the textbook writers not keeping up with the professionals.

My sentence was trying to communicate that what I was saying had nothing to do with what is correct/incorrect, but why people do what they do. Regardless of what is "textbook", different communities tend to develop words to fit for their circumstances, experiences, and habits. I thought you communicated the differences nicely