Posted by:
DaveyFig
at Mon May 28 17:16:12 2007 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by DaveyFig ]
Thank you for answering, I am glad someone did. I couldn't tell if what was being said is that the grnadmother of this litter was of the same phenotype or not. Nobody ever came out and said "The mother was a prodigy", so it was left for us to assume.
If in fact the grandmother looked like the prodigys, it seems more likely to be a simple recessive. Without her being a prodigy, it is safer to assume that the father that was nearly white as a neonate was of some type of codominant and the main contributor to the look of the babies, and that the cleanliness and color of the mother when bred to this codominant male produced something different than was seen in other litters. The quick route to see if it is recessive would be to breed that male to one of the others that have to be het as well right? ANything produced by the female Jeff had/has, should be 100% het if this is how the mutation is working.
Mother nature doesn't use a punnet square, so basing assumptions on numbers alone, and not the phenotype of the parents didn't seem quite right. It would be no different than if someone bred 2 normals and got an animal that looked to be some sort of anery. You wouldn't say that the parents MUST be het anery, or that the babies are in fact a simple recessive anery without breeding trials.
-----
Davey Giltner
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: I need more. - DaveyFig, Mon May 28 17:16:12 2007