Posted by:
Sojourn
at Sat Apr 9 17:46:37 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Sojourn ]
Rich states....
"Thus, this cross and the others described previously provided t;he first evidence that the salmon trait in boas was a dominant trait to the normal condition (equal to the wild type)."
Sounds correct to me. I believe it was the choice to call the homozygous form a "super" that began the snowball that is now a boa industry standard, and widespread misnomer. Those who were familiar with the term super, in its co-dominant fasion regarding other species, maybe just assumed it was so, and therefore it was.
Somehow, I feel this needs to change. The first step is talking about it. This seems like the best venue for discussion I know.
Jesse Van Atta
[ Hide Replies ]
- Who was it that decided that hypomelanism was co-dominant? - Sojourn, Sat Apr 9 11:11:53 2005
- You are completely right. - Randall_Turner, Sat Apr 9 12:35:14 2005
- Hi Randy.... - Sojourn, Sat Apr 9 13:09:17 2005
- Nope.. - Randall_Turner, Sat Apr 9 14:20:13 2005
- RE: Who was it that decided that hypomelanism was co-dominant? - ChrisGilbert, Sat Apr 9 13:26:15 2005
- It may be useful to check how Rich explained it...... - gray, Sat Apr 9 14:27:42 2005
 In the article...... - Sojourn, Sat Apr 9 17:46:37 2005
- Bingo! - Rainshadow, Sat Apr 9 14:31:12 2005
- RE: Who was it that decided that hypomelanism was co-dominant? - graciascott, Sat Apr 9 14:34:31 2005
- I have tried to tackle this one before, but ... - creptilia, Sat Apr 9 19:03:37 2005
- I must admit my ignorence (and I don't spell good either) - SteveM, Sat Apr 9 22:00:58 2005
|
