» Site Navigation
3 members and 721 guests
Most users ever online was 9,191, 03-09-2025 at 12:17 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,880
Threads: 249,079
Posts: 2,572,005
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
Re: Super x Super = ?
I think the non genotype terminology is very confusing.
What does “super” mean? I'm thinking “visibly different looking homozygous of a co-dominant mutation” but I'm not sure. If it's more general and is the same as “homozygous” then a dominant mutation could have a super too, it would just look the same as the hets for that dominant mutation. I prefer to use “homozygous” which has a more established meaning - having matching versions of the gene in question.
And what about “dom X dom”? Dominant refers to the mutation type, not a specific animal. I think the example was meant to indicate het X het for a mutation that happened to be the dominant type. But if we just call it het X het then it's easy to remember the same genotype inheritance rule that applies regardless of mutation type and was probably learned back with albino hets:
het X het = 25% chance homozygous mutant, 50% chance heterozygous, 25% chance homozygous normal.
It's just that once you apply the dominant mutation type to these results you see that the 25% homozygous mutant look like the 50% heterozygous so comprise 75% of the clutch looking the same. In this case you could refer to them as a group of 33% chance possible homozygous or even 66% chance possible hets I suppose. It will take some getting used to if we do eventually prove a dominant mutation.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|