That my contention with classifying the trait as "incomplete dominant" has nothing to do with any intended disrespect for Rich,or,his work,(I salute him for it.)I read the article shortly after it was first presented,(I've re-read it numerous times.)and,I've also read in detail the criteria for Russell's model of incomplete dominance.At any rate,I'm not neccessarily trying to split hairs here,the fact that now at least a few more people understand the premise of "heterozygousity" as it relates to genetic traits is a step in the right direction.Occaisionaly it is neccessary to look back,and,reassess what we thought yesterday,and,compare it to what we see more clearly today.When discussing this topic many people have sited Rich's article as though it was the eleventh commandment,chisled in stone.(at the time of its publication it was groundbreaking stuff,no one had really taken this approach before.)I'm simply the type of person that is always re-examining everything,I think the real 11th commandment is "The only thing that isn't subject to change,is the notion that everything is subject to change." (*lol*) I'm never as worried about being wrong,as I am about being afraid to think outside the box.(p.s. I still believe it's the most perfect example of a "dominant" trait,I've ever seen! *lol*)

[ Show Entire Thread ]