Why I think we need unproven dominant

[SaintTawny]

It does not mean the super is lethal. If the gene is homozygous lethal, that would mean it is Co-Do/Inc-Dom since, dead is a different visual than, the alive heterozygous.

This isn't strictly true, when you think about the way that gene codes are repurposed in different areas of the body. Take this imaginary situation for example: Imagine that an egg was produced that was homozygous for the spider gene, but showed no visual difference from the heterozygotes we're all familiar with. We would properly call that a dominant gene. Now if that egg failed to hatch, and others like it were proven to be not viable, but the partially developed embryos showed no visual difference from similarly developed heterozygotes, we could still properly call it a dominant gene. I'm of the opinion that enough evidence exists to prove that the same allele that causes the spider mutation also somehow impairs coordination and causes wobble. This one allele can cause changes in the scale pattern AND a deficiency in some protein at the same time, which would make the two inseparable. We wouldn't call it co-dom/inc-dom if this allowed heterozygotes to survive using their single "normal" allele, but was fatal to homozygotes due to complete lack of production of that necessary protein.

interesting, not much new for me here, but its interesting to hear that the super pinstripe had been proven out. I believed pinstripe would be like spider, with a mysteriously missing super form.


For me, whats most important above all else when judging a gene is: Does the super-form exist and is it healthy?

If we're going to get picky about the use of the term dominant vs. co-dominant, I think we should reserve the word Super for homozygotes of co-dominant genes. The phrase "Super Pinstripe" makes it sound like a super pastel, or super mojave, where there is a visual difference between het and homo.