The way that you are explaining it would be incomplete domanance I believe. For example you breed a red flower (super hypo) to a white flower (normal), you will get all pink offspring (reg hypo). If you two pinks together you will get 25% red, 50% pink, 25% white. Does that make sense? What you have is a blending of the phenotype. The initial offspring (from red x white) don't match either parent. I will explain later why I don't feel it is this


The reason why it is not co dominent is because you don't have 2 genes. For example, lets say you had a spotted clover and a tipped clover. When you breed them together the offspring would both tipped and spotted (but not blended between the two) Both traits are fully expressed. Hypomelanism is only one gene.


Does that make sense?

[ 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