I agree the homo caramel/homo sharp would be a 1/16 animal and that would prove out the two gene pair theory.

You did not see the other proof though, a normal boa. If the three gene / one gene pair theory is correct, then two paradigm boas crossed would not have one single normal gene between them. So if ANY baby came out normal looking, then that would disprove the three gene theory. If you assume two pairs and both parents het, AND discount the double het offspring, that would account for 5/16 of the babies would be "normal"

1 normal not het for anything (the other end of the 1/16 jackpot)

2 het caramel (not het sharp)

2 het sharp (not het caramel)



>>there will be no 4 gene carring possibility aka homo caramel homo sharp. That will be the true test and may take a while being that it would be a one in 1/16 snake.
-----
Thanks,

Dave Colling

www.rainbows-r-us-reptiles.com

0.1 Wife (WC)
0.2 kids (CBB, selectively bred from good stock)

LOL, to many snakes to list, last count:
13.26 BRB
11.16 BCI
And those are only the breeders

lots.lots.lots feeder mice and rats

[ Hide Replies ]

• Paradigm genetics...thoughts on theory? - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 16:41:22 2006
• Well Chris - giantkeeper, Fri Sep 22 16:47:23 2006
• More, for everyone - giantkeeper, Fri Sep 22 16:49:53 2006
• ^ EVERYONE SHOULD READ ABOVE ^ n/p - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:02:27 2006
• The breeding that had Normals... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:01:40 2006
• I don't know Chris - giantkeeper, Fri Sep 22 17:04:01 2006
• I don't know either... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:07:11 2006
• It is VERY plausible, more.... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:10:52 2006
• That would be the next test... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:14:11 2006
• RE: That would be the next test... - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:55:49 2006
• Very true if this is the case........... - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 19:07:42 2006
• Not only would it be a 1/16... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 19:39:50 2006
• Actually, higher odds of proving.... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 19:49:32 2006
• RE: Actually, higher odds of proving.... - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 20:20:00 2006
• look here............... - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 20:25:57 2006
• Exactly.... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 21:16:54 2006
• I agree. - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 21:22:31 2006
• RE: Actually, higher odds of proving.... - ChrisGilbert, Sat Sep 23 14:07:13 2006
• RE: Paradigm genetics...thoughts on theory? - vcaruso15, Fri Sep 22 17:43:40 2006
• The flower analogy... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:01:57 2006
• From reading... - Psycodelic, Fri Sep 22 17:44:22 2006
• The Caramel... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 17:57:37 2006
• RE: The Caramel... - styrsnake, Fri Sep 22 18:40:26 2006
• I feel the same way... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 19:35:19 2006
• RE: From reading... - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:24:31 2006
• YUP! - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:30:28 2006
• wonderful world of multiple alleles - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:05:51 2006
• Paul, thanks, and more... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:11:33 2006
• Chris, paul has it right....duh ; - )... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:19:45 2006
• or even better - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:21:11 2006
• I'm saying... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:26:06 2006
• RE: I'm saying... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 18:30:12 2006
• That's what I am getting at... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 18:32:53 2006
• RE: I'm saying... - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:45:15 2006
• Must exit. Good discussion. n/p - Paul Hollander, Fri Sep 22 18:57:38 2006
• Sorry you had to go... - ChrisGilbert, Fri Sep 22 19:37:49 2006
• Well, I'm no Paul but...... - rainbowsrus, Fri Sep 22 19:57:49 2006
• I could very likely be wrong... - ChrisGilbert, Sat Sep 23 14:03:54 2006
• gonna disagree and agree... read........ - joshhutto, Sat Sep 23 01:07:34 2006
• I was thinking about... - ChrisGilbert, Sat Sep 23 14:45:51 2006