Just a slight correction; Actually, it is not possible that on a second generation that some offspring could be produced with no Hogg genes. There are literally millions of genes and about half would be contributed by one parent and half by the other. So regardless of how the resulting offspring "appear', in the breeding described, approximately 25% of the genes would in fact have come from the Hogg. If you are talking about one specific gene, then yes, some offspring will not have any Hogg genes for whatever that one characteristic that you are keying in on, but overall, it is just statistically impossible that on the second generation that no Hogg genes would be inherited. Also keep in mind that many many genes may control whatever characteristic that you are keying in on.

It's a little bit like this, sort of. My Dad was full blooded Norwegian. My Mom is half Norwegian and half Swedish. This makes each of their kids, I of course being the eldest, smartest and best looking of the bunch, 3/4 Norwegian and 1/4 Swede. Now, it is not possible that any of us could have been born without any of the genes originally contributed by my Mom's Father. He was the Swedish person in the bunch. It just is not possible that any of us do not have any genes that originally came from him. It is just statistically impossible given the numbers of genes involved. I hope that makes sense.

That being said, some crosses have been done and on the second generation the offspring look completely like one type or the other. However our eyes do not see down to the genetic level. It is also possible through selective breeding to "make" Boas that "look" like some other type of Boa though there are no genes from that other type of Boa.

The whole thing is just a lot more complicated than things often seem on the face of it.

[ Hide Replies ]

• question on percentage of "purity" - voodoomagik, Wed Aug 9 14:35:37 2006
• RE: question on percentage of "purity" - maizeysdad, Wed Aug 9 14:44:38 2006
• makes perfect sense... - j_becwar, Wed Aug 9 14:49:19 2006
• RE: question on percentage of "purity" - rainbowsrus, Wed Aug 9 14:52:55 2006
• Thanks, you guys! - voodoomagik, Wed Aug 9 15:19:24 2006
• ...and to really obsess about it... - voodoomagik, Wed Aug 9 15:32:51 2006
• That is how it is done, but... - ChrisGilbert, Wed Aug 9 15:34:27 2006
• Thanks, Chris! - voodoomagik, Wed Aug 9 15:39:09 2006
• I've noticed that too... - ChrisGilbert, Wed Aug 9 18:28:38 2006
• YES, Chris!!!! >>> - voodoomagik, Thu Aug 10 10:25:32 2006
• Actually: - boaphile, Wed Aug 9 16:52:52 2006
• Thanks Jeff... - ChrisGilbert, Wed Aug 9 18:31:41 2006
• RE: Actually: - voodoomagik, Thu Aug 10 10:40:44 2006
• RE: question on percentage of "purity" - wstreps, Wed Aug 9 17:09:00 2006