Ok... and my point about the 20 years merely had to do with the fact this idea is not coming from folks who do not have a proven track record of researching and making decisions. We would not hold the degrees we have without some level of proficiency at this. Does it make us better than anyone, of course not. You are looking for a point that was not being made.
Also, bunnykit, would you do us all the favor of formally introducing yourself in the introductions (i.e. not this thread). Fair to know who is calling us out, and actually a requirement of most internet forums. If I missed this intro I apologize in advance, but a search of your 11 posts did not show one.
Also, the fact that a het Pied can make a Pied DEFINES the morph, not the markers for picking one out. Simply, the fact that the visual outcome is changed in the het Pied form, eliminates it from being simple recessive. So we have a morph that makes Pieds that cannot be simple recessive...
Back to the original question. Is Pied a recessive trait? If not, what is it.
Answer: It appears that it is not recessive.
The "do not change it until you have scientific proof" argument is invalid. There is enough proof out there to say that Pied is most likely NOT recessive. This was the main point of my last set of posts, and really the crux of this thread.
This leaves is it Dom, Co-Dom or Inc-Dom?
It is NOT Dominant, that is obvious and agreed upon.
So far, there are NO co-dominant morphs in ball pythons.
So that leaves incomplete dominant. It fits this description well enough that there is zero need for new terms to describe it.
Incomplete Dom may not be the the absolute perfect answer (hard to find in science in general), but it is surely the BETTER answer. We should always be looking for the better answer.
Reply With Quote