Proving a morph, kind of..?

[Jonas@Balls2TheWall]

Here is the formula you want.

P^n > 0.99

P = probability of a single egg not producing a pastel
^ = to the power
n = number of eggs.

The probability of producing a pastel is 25% = 0.25. So P = 0.75.

By a little trial and error with my calculator, n = 17. So you hatch 17 eggs. Every baby is normal, enchi, bright enchi or something other than a pastel. Then you have a 99.2% probability that the bright enchi parent is not a pastel enchi. More eggs raises the probability, but 99% is a good cutoff point.

If one or more pastels hatch, then you can stop before 17 eggs, of course.

Thanks for posting. I remember a similar formula from Bio classes.

[Aes_Sidhe]

Yea that works for dominant gene but....
What if Your "dinker" is Recessive ?? I took like 5-6 years ??? for BHB to Prove Sunset....???

[RoseyReps]

Yea that works for dominant gene but....
What if Your "dinker" is Recessive ?? I took like 5-6 years ??? for BHB to Prove Sunset....???

Very true. But my question was specifically about already proven incomplete dominates

I would think a possible recessive / dinker would take at least 4 years to prove out. All depends on how many girls you get from the first pairings (assuming your dinker was a boy.) Girl dinkers would take longer to prove I suspect.

I thought I read somewhere that brain admitted to dropping the ball a bit with the sunset, as in wasn't pushing proving it out after it didn't show up as incomplete dom? I could be way off in la la land on that one.

Edit: think I misinterpreted the first part of the post, disregard my second sentence. >_<