Thanks for the library suggestion. If I do decide to study quantitative genetics in more depth, I've probably got everything I would need on a bookshelf about 3 feet from where I'm sitting.

While I appreciate your explanation of the meaning of "F1 within genetics circles", this is a concept with which I am reasonably well acquainted. If you notice, I used the "genetics circles" definition of F1 in my rebuttal of your statement that our animals are F2 offspring. I am also aware that the terms F1, F2, etc. are used by some snake breeders in several incorrect ways. Aside from the example that you quote, F1, F2, etc. are also used by some snake breeders to specifically denote how many generations removed from the wild certain specimens are; F1, for example, would be considered by these breeders to be the offspring of wild-caught parents.

I find your closing statement of particular interest:

"...i am however, sensitive to the proliferation of poor information available with hybrids. very tired of seeing "candy mastodon het for firedragon" instead of "25%speciesX, 25%speciesY, 50%speciesZ" in describing hybrid snakes."

In perhaps the same way that you are sensitive to the issues you discuss above, I am sensitive to the proliferation of inaccurate terminology within snake-breeding circles. The continued inventiveness of snake breeders in discovering new and wonderful ways to misapply filial-generation terminology is cause for wonder. Even worse - in my obviously humble opinion - is when apparently more thoughtful and well-educated folks such as yourself similarly pervert the otherwise precise definition inherent in the expression of these terms. On the one hand you blithely refer to our offspring as "F2 animals" (which they are not), and yet on the other hand you express your displeasure with those who use terminology that does not meet your specific criteria of acceptability. A case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps...???

I understand - probably better than you appear to consider that I do - every single statement and every single example in your post. There is absolutely nothing in your post that I find confusing or beyond my "need to visit the library more frequently" capability to understand. This is not to say that I agree with everything that you say, but merely that I understand it.

As far as I can see, the issue comes down to one of interpretation. If I toss a coin 100 times I might get all heads. If I toss a coin 30,000 times I still might get all heads...probaly not, but I might. While it is true that as the number of coin tosses approaches infinity the distribution of heads and tails approaches the "perfect" 50/50, the smaller the number of coin tosses, the more likely that this distibution will be skewed. If you believe that Angolan Pythons and Ball Pythons have an infinite number of genes, then I can certainly understand your postulate that our animals are 25% Angolan Pythons 75% Ball Pythons. Since I do not believe the number of genes involved to be anywhere close to infinitity, however, I am more inclined to believe my postulate.

I would like to refer you to the following statements that I made in a separate post:

"When you cross an Angolan Ball to a Ball Python, the offspring will have varying genetic makeups...
At one extreme they would be 50% Angolan Python 50% Ball Python.
At the other extreme they would be 100% Ball Python.
The likelihood of either of these extremes occurring would be extremely small.
The most common outcome would be animals that were either 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python or something very close to these ratios."

If you will note, I indicated that the most common outcome would be animals somewhere in the range of 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python. Since I do not believe that an infinite number of genes are involved, however, by belief is that is is possible for the offspring to have a genetic makeup more biased towards one or other of the indicated extremes.

You may regard my opinion as "incorrect"...that is your prerogative. You may believe that my knowledge of genetics is in need of a trip or two to the library...that is also your prerogative. You state that you "didn't mean to be insulting"...and I believe you; I think that "being insulting" just comes more naturally to some than it does to others. But there again, now I am expressing more of my opinions...and I already know what you think of my opinions.

How about if we agree to disagree and go on to more fruitful endeavors...???

[ Show Entire Thread ]