To my knowledge there has been no evidence to support the claim that Arabesques are "co-dominant"(for this to be the case,there would need to be a reliably visual distinction between the het. & homozygous forms of the trait.(maybe there are & I just haven't followed close enough?)...when using the term "co-dominant" think "Tiger Retic" this is a classic example of "co-dominance".(as it applies to reptile mutations.)In any given clutch of "Tigers" produced from two gene carriers,it is quite obvious which are "supers",and,which are not. As for the traditional hypo trait being "incomplete dominant",I don't see it at all. it has proven over "multiple generations"(far too many to count!) to be a simple dominant trait,when plugged into Punnet's square as such,you get an exact representaion of how the trait has worked for the last 10 years or so,and,still does today...so there IS such a thing as a "het. hypo",but no,it doesn't look "normal" in appearence.(it expresses the trait characteristics...ie;"dominant" )

[ Hide Replies ]

• Anybody working with.....? - jgr, Mon May 9 13:19:11 2005
• RE: Anybody working with.....? - callmedaddie, Mon May 9 13:36:03 2005
• Incorrect... - Rainshadow, Mon May 9 13:57:56 2005
• RE: Incorrect... - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 14:06:03 2005
• Pretty darned close... - Rainshadow, Mon May 9 14:32:04 2005
• What I've gathered - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 16:35:52 2005
• RE: What I've gathered - callmedaddie, Mon May 9 16:45:15 2005
• RE: What I've gathered - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 17:12:34 2005
• Chris is right..... - mdc, Mon May 9 17:22:02 2005
• RE: Chris is right..... - jgr, Mon May 9 17:27:23 2005
• Question answer - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 17:31:59 2005
• RE: Question answer - callmedaddie, Mon May 9 17:58:45 2005
• You are right... - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 17:28:21 2005
• RE: What I've gathered - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 17:14:48 2005
• IF.... - Rainshadow, Mon May 9 17:47:30 2005
• Couldn't have said it better myself. - ChrisGilbert, Mon May 9 21:15:25 2005