One theory is that paradox are chimeras. Sort of the opposite of twins. The idea is that instead of one baby splitting into two (identical twins), a chimera is created when two babies merge into one. If both of the babies are the same phenotype, the chimera would look like that phenotype and you would probably never notice anything odd about it. Chimera’s may happen regularly with normal looking siblings without ever being detected. But as clutches that can produce more than one phenotype become more common we may be seeing chimeras of dissimilar siblings making the paradox look where parts of the skin are from one phenotype and other parts are from the other phenotype (often the normal with a morph phenotype). The reproductive organs could be from either phenotype but under the chimera theory you wouldn't expect the accident that created the paradox to be passed on. Maybe the tendency for chimeras could run in a line sort of like twins running in a family but you couldn't count on reproducing it every time.



Of course this theory could be totally wrong and something different could be going on to create paradox.

[ Hide Replies ]

• does a paradox have to be a morph??? - irishanaconda, Fri Jul 10 17:38:48 2009
• RE: does a paradox have to be a morph??? - Bolitochrome, Fri Jul 10 19:13:44 2009
• RE: does a paradox have to be a morph??? - mistysprouse, Sat Jul 11 00:13:09 2009
• RE: does a paradox have to be a morph??? - RandyRemington, Sat Jul 11 00:57:48 2009
• RE: does a paradox have to be a morph??? - Watever, Sun Jul 12 09:09:15 2009
• Sure about that? - RandyRemington, Sun Jul 12 15:47:58 2009