All the name calling aside, you were countered on your position about genetics. I am interested in how you can possibly say that Jon R, proved anything without back breeding? I am curious as your such a stickler for accuracy when it comes to genetics. Or did your anger simply get the best of you.
You said he proved the first Mexican axanthic was recessive, because he bred it to several normal and only produced visual normals. I have to wonder how that proved anything. I am under the belief that one more step is necessary and that is to back breed an offspring(possible het) back to the possible recessive parent. Or het to het, which is less accurate and takes more events to prove out.
Or even how can you say that my breeding did not indicate a recessive trait. As I bred a visual axanthic founder, to a visual axanthic founder, and received 3 out of 3, visual axanthics.
Then you stated, all I did was breed two like looking animals and received like looking neonates. Which is silly and naïve, we are not talking about normal colored animals, we are talking about a morph, an abnormal trait. While I agree, more work needs to be done and I and others will do it. You seem to think, I am the luckiest guy in the world. So can you explain yourself?
Start with question number one, how was what Jon R. did, prove anything? And two, why do you dismiss what did occur? three neonate axanthics?
Remember, All I said was, I did produce the first captive hatched Kennerlyi axanthic. I actually produced the first three. That's one, two, and three. hahahahahahahahaha
I guess I could post pics of their bellies to PROVE they are axanthics. Best wishes

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]