"if, as you claim you have some understanding of these issues, then you have no excuse."

Did I miss the part where I offered anything vaguely resembling an "excuse"...???

It is because I have some understanding of these issues that I am unwilling to inaccurately represent these animals as "25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python".

I could not tell you how many genes are involved in the phenotype of these animals. I could not tell you how many genes are involved in the genotype of these animals. My guess is that you would be similarly unable to provide these numbers. In the absence of specific knowledge regarding the numbers of genes involved, how is it possible to accurately predict the precise genetic composition of these animals...???

In what I would consider to be an ill-advised and ill-informed leap to conclusion, you appear determined to specify that the specific genetic makeup of each and every one of these animals is precisely 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python. If the numbers of genes involved were infinite, I would agree with your position - at least as far as the genotype goes. Since I share your views that the number of genes involved in the phenotype are most likely relatively few, I would still take the position that the phenotype would exhibit varying degrees between the two extremes which I have previously discussed.

My position, however, is that the undetermined number of genes involved means that precise statistical interpretation is impossible. Even if precise statistical interpretation were possible, anything short of an infinite number of genes leaves open the possibility for deviations from your 25%/75% ratio.

Which of the following is a more accurate statement regarding the genotypes of these offspring...???

1) The genotypes of each and every one of these offspring is precisely 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python.

2) The genotypes of each and every one of these offspring vary. 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.

Obviously you consider statement #1 to be the more accurate statement; I do not. Statement #1 would be accurate in the numbers of genes involved were infinite. Since the number of genes involved is not infinite, and since the number of genes involved is unknown, statement #2 is absolutely the more accurate of the two.

"i revert to my earlier statement that you are misrepresenting your animals."

Perhaps I should similarly revert to my previous response:

"We are not selling these animals. I stated that our beliefs regarding the genetics of these animals were exactly that - our beliefs. I am not sure how you can interpret this to be "misrepresentation"."

In my opinion, categorically stating that each and every one of these animals is precisely 25% Angolan Python 75% Ball Python is misrepresentation.

It would appear that we are at an impasse. You are willing to adopt a position that is unsupportable by factual evidence (unless, of course, I am supposed to accept your "say so" that it is true). I am unwilling to accept that position, and prefer instead to specify a 100% guaranteed accurate range that I know with absolute certainty the genotype of these animals will fall within.

I see no point in repeating or reiterating any of this ad nauseam. I still haven't finished looking at all of the pictures in my genetics comic books, and I still have several coloring exercises to complete. Give me a couple more years and I may yet graduate to pop-up books...

By the way, you inspired me to consider one particular name for this particular hybrid. What do you think of...

"Candy Mastodon het for Firedragon Angolan Balls".

[ Show Entire Thread ]