I am pretty sure this had been brought up, but can someone explain to me why the hypo gene is co-dominent instead of complete dominance?

Not trying to start an argument, it just seems like the herp community often struggles with the basic concepts of genetics, let alone more complicated ones. Reasoning I see here often doesn't correlate what I learn in classes or read in text books.

I have to give my respect to people like Paul for really trying Paul H for trying to bring it to the next level. But are we building on a broken foundation (not you Paul, making a generalization)?

I could be wrong (I certainly do not have my degree in this), but I just wanted to hear some explanations for this!

Thanks!

[ Hide Replies ]

• In light of the recent genetics topics - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 20:37:57 2006
• Hypos are NOT Co-dominant... - ChrisGilbert, Tue Sep 26 20:58:04 2006
• Yup. . . - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 21:01:01 2006
• The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - tsusnakeguy, Tue Sep 26 21:36:23 2006
• No... - ChrisGilbert, Tue Sep 26 22:05:15 2006
• RE: No... - tsusnakeguy, Tue Sep 26 22:36:30 2006
• There is not a 100% visual difference... - ChrisGilbert, Tue Sep 26 23:44:49 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 22:13:16 2006
• One typo. . . - SuppleReptiles, Tue Sep 26 22:16:11 2006
• I could agree with incomplete n/p - tsusnakeguy, Tue Sep 26 22:32:48 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - Paul Hollander, Wed Sep 27 13:50:43 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - PanamaRed, Tue Sep 26 22:45:16 2006
• RE: The hypo gene is co-dominant.... - awesomo6000, Tue Sep 26 23:30:06 2006