Its amazing to me how many herpers missapply genetic probabilities. I sent you an e-mail Jimmy, but for the rest of you, just a bit of clarification. If you want to do some further reading, pick up a higher level biology book or college genetics text, or research "law of idependent assortment" on-line.

Punnett squares do apply to EACH INDIVIDUAL offspring, not clucthes.

Lets look at albinism in BPs. In a het to het breeding, druing meiosis (the type of cell divsion that creates sex cells) mom can donate either the dominant or recessive allele, completely at random (there is a .50 chance of getting a copy of the recessive allele into a given egg). Dad can also contribute either the dominant or recessive allele (again, .50 chance per sperm cell). Therefore the probability that any one ofspring would be homozygous recessive is .50 X.50, or .25 (25%).

Contrary to popular belief, the odds don't "owe you". IN other words, if you have crappy odds one season, it does not mean you can expect better odds next year. Lets say you have a monster 16 egg clutch (we wish, right). Anyway, lets say all of these babies look normal...you completely missed. The next year, each offspring still has the same 25% chance of being an albino. remember, each egg is an individual event. Think coins. Flip a quarter 20 times, and its possible that you see ole' George all 20 times. On the 21st flip, its still a 50% chance of being heads. You can not, nor should not, expect the tails to "catch up".

The same goes with possible hets. Some folks think you increase you chance of actually getting a het if you buy all the offspring from the same clutch. In actuality, you could buy all of the offspring each from a different clutch and have exactly the same odds.

[ Hide Replies ]

• breeding hets - pheonix, Mon Jul 9 14:31:58 2007
• RE: breeding hets - alpharoyals, Mon Jul 9 14:36:38 2007
• RE: breeding hets - pheonix, Mon Jul 9 14:40:13 2007
• check out my little page on genetics... - JP, Mon Jul 9 14:54:29 2007
• RE: breeding hets - rsherman79, Mon Jul 9 14:38:21 2007
• To clarify what the others have said.... - JP, Mon Jul 9 14:49:35 2007
• Geezy, that had a lot of typos...lol. np - JP, Mon Jul 9 14:51:16 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - pheonix, Mon Jul 9 14:54:48 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - jimmyeo3, Mon Jul 9 15:01:34 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - pheonix, Mon Jul 9 15:06:01 2007
• not really... - JP, Mon Jul 9 15:09:19 2007
• "to clarify"..... - alpharoyals, Mon Jul 9 17:04:14 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - jimmyeo3, Tue Jul 10 08:46:18 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - JoshHutto, Tue Jul 10 09:42:14 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - alpharoyals, Tue Jul 10 12:21:43 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - jimmyeo3, Tue Jul 10 12:39:06 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - alpharoyals, Tue Jul 10 13:01:28 2007
• RE: To clarify what the others have said - alpharoyals, Tue Jul 10 13:06:49 2007
• Further clarification... - JP, Tue Jul 10 13:08:45 2007
• quick correction - "law of segregation" - JP, Tue Jul 10 13:15:10 2007
• RE: Further clarification... - vcane, Tue Jul 10 13:46:19 2007
• yep... - JP, Tue Jul 10 14:53:58 2007
• RE: Further clarification... - jpman78, Tue Jul 10 16:56:31 2007
• RE: Further clarification... - jpman78, Tue Jul 10 17:15:50 2007
• 100% confused! Lol n/p - alpharoyals, Tue Jul 10 17:43:14 2007
• RE: breeding hets - pheonix, Mon Jul 9 15:20:09 2007
• RE: breeding hets - pfan151, Tue Jul 10 13:44:08 2007
• Good stuff... - JP, Tue Jul 10 15:06:18 2007
• RE: breeding hets - Paul Hollander, Tue Jul 10 17:07:35 2007