Thank you so much for this comment; very well stated, VERY WELL STATED!Originally Posted by kc261
Something that stood out to me more than her color (mostly cuz I know that color in a photo on a computer monitor is highly unreliable so it's the last thing I look at when playing the id-this-morph game) is that some of her dark spots have blurry outlines. It isn't like something I've never seen before, but it isn't really common either.
But, I don't really see anything that indicates to me she is a morph. Maybe something unproven or one of the subtle ones, but not one of the ones I know and could ID from a photo on the internet.
The problem with the terms recessive, dominant, codominant and incomplete dominant are that they are things that were made up by humans to try to describe what they saw in nature. They aren't perfect. There may well be recessive traits where being het for it shows absolutely no trace in any animal that is het for it. But, that doesn't mean whoever labeled albino BPs as recessive was correct. Maybe it really is codom but the difference is so subtle in most animals we haven't learned to recognize it yet. I think it is more likely that it just doesn't fit either definition. For it to be codom, all animals het for it have to show the codom form. For it to be recessive, all animals het for it have to show absolutely no influence. But we are learning that there are lots of genes that fall between those 2, with the influence being able to be seen in some animals that carry it, but not all of them.
Reply With Quote