Posted by:
Rainshadow
at Sat May 27 10:03:11 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Rainshadow ]
There were still several unanswered questions about the trait,and how it performed,we now have the luxury of examining the original data compared to multiple generations of actual breeding results to "fill in the gaps". (The trait has proven itself to be "dominant",not "co-dominant",not "incomplete dominant".) at the time it was written,I believe that the stumbling block that no one could get over was: "if the trait is dominant,why do only half the babies in a given test litter show the trait???"...the answer: "the animals used in the trials were heterozygous examples,not homozygous ( "supers" )at that time the term heterozygous was only used in conjunction with recessive traits,being very new to genetic anomolies,the writer felt that the term "incomplete dominance" best fit the results that had been seen at that point. "Co-dominance" was adopted in an effort to explain why the trait seemed to have a "compoundable" quality when bred to another gene carrier. (the presumption of three distinct,consistant phenotypes.) My input to the thread above would be that, I have actually bred the trait,numerous times...I also have a fairly good "handle" on genetics & its various terminologies. I feel the the trait best classifies itself as "dominant",not because I want it to be,but because this is the classification that most clearly & accurately fits the results that it shows consistantly...let someone write an article proving it "isn't"
-----
EMAIL
[ Hide Replies ]
|
When this was written... - Rainshadow, Sat May 27 10:03:11 2006