Posted by:
patoquack
at Sat Oct 13 10:28:59 2007 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by patoquack ]
I think this is a very interesting topic and I enjoy the intellectual challenge.
I am not implying that anyone is seriously challanging my credibility as a person - this discussion is all for the purpose of fun and education.. but I feel the need to preface myself this time..
ALL READERS, PLEASE NOTE.. I am not a genetic expert, but I do understand enough to accurately represent the animals I have purchased, produced or sold. I typically purchase my animals from trustworthy breeders and the few animals that I have purchased as "imports with unknown liniage" I have identified them as such.
now, having said that.. if anyone still cares to continue..
I realized after sending my previous post that I had some obvious errors, but I felt I was much closer to the truth than when I first responded to this thread.
I want to retract the section below.. I still have some thoughts about this that I "feel" are true but can't seem to find the correct way to say it or haven't figured out for myself why it's not true..
>the importance of "het" when referring to a recessive mode of >inheritance is different than when referring to a dominant mode >of inheritance. the "het" is REQUIRED to produce an albino , >but the "het" is not required to produce a hypo. (I think that >made sense)
>which is why I am now going to take a HUGE risk and go back to >my original thought that a hypo het for albino is in my opinion >not a true "double het" - unless you wanted to say that a hypo >het for albino is a double het for Supersunglow.
and I will cling to this ending statement..
>but - of course I could be completely wrong also.
Patrick
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Not true... - patoquack, Sat Oct 13 10:28:59 2007