Posted by:
RandyRemington
at Thu Feb 2 03:05:55 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RandyRemington ]
I think the explanation of other enhancer genes being concentrated by inbreeding pastels is probably the most likely explanation for the unexpected observation that pastels from pastel X pastel tend to be brighter than pastels from pastel X normal. However, I don't think it's the only explanation. One other possibility I can think of is that it might not always be possible to distinguish heterozygous pastel from homozygous super pastel. Perhaps some of the really nice pastels from pastel X pastel breedings are less spectacular super pastels. What kind of results have been seen breeding offspring from pastel X pastel? Do the ones picked out as super pastels always prove homozygous and do the ones picked out as normal (heterozygous) pastels always prove not to be homozygous? I saw an animal sold as a pastel het ghost today that to my untrained eye could easily have passed as a super pastel. I don't know if both of it's parents where even pastels making that possible (seems unlikely that many pastel ghosts have been bred yet) but it sure was a bright adult with extreme fading. It would be nice and convenient for marketing if the line between homozygous (super) pastel and heterozygous/normal pastel where clear and consistent but nature isn’t always so neat.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: more in general if not specifically in this case - RandyRemington, Thu Feb 2 03:05:55 2006