"Whiz kids",but I have a basic understanding of simple,commonly accepted genetic theory...will that do? If so then please give me some idea,(ball park anyway.)of the percentage of presumed accuracy of your marker theory? if it is as broadly subjective as you described,and fades from view with age,then I would say "NO" to the presumption of "co-dominance",what are we talking about in terms of accuracy? 75-85-95%? higher? I would tend to doubt it...Amelanism is one of the more common "universal" inheritable anomolies,this simply means that it can be seen,and easily distinguished at a glance,not only in one,or two species,but literally across the board so-to-speak,in almost every known species of vertabrate,(as well as countless intertabrates.)it classifies itself as "simple recessive" through its behavior,not just because you,or I "want it to be real bad." (*lol*) also,I don't think the criteria you're describing shows much dramatic difference in appearence from mild subvective variance seen in non-amelanistic gene carriers (wild type)...that's just my opinion though,and I'm not a genetics expert,you could try running it past Paul Hollander,and see what he thinks?(I'd also love to hear his opinion of animals being homozygous & heterozygous simultaneously! hey,I could be wrong on that one,but if I'm doing a math problem,and get the wrong answer,I don't try to reinvent my pencil,it's usually just ME
-----
EMAIL quit editing my signature!

[ Show Entire Thread ]