Posted by:
RandyRemington
at Tue May 17 11:47:10 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RandyRemington ]
While I agree there is a lot of confusion right now I respectfully disagree on the cause and the best solution.
True, there aren't a lot of us that talk about hets for co-dominant genes but I think the sooner the snake community gets educated on genetic terminology the better. I think it's the exclusive use of phenotype terms with dominant type mutations that has contributed to people thinking that "het" means something like "normal looking gene carrier" just because it works out that way with recessive mutations. If they understood that heterozygous really means having a pair of unmatched genes they could quickly grasp that a hypo that produces half hypos with normals is heterozygous for some new dominant type hypo gene. There where some normals produced too right? It sounds like it hasn't technically been proven co-dominant yet as it could turn out to be completely dominant. For now we just know it's some type of dominant although I would also bet on a white phenotype for the homozygous "flame hypo". But then I happen to think white snakes are darn cool regardless of how many people might be able to produce them. Even if there where only one line we would all EVENTUALLY be able to get one.
The nice thing about learning to use genotypes is that the genotype inheritance applies to all mutation types - recessive, co-dominant/incomplete dominant, and completely dominant. I think it will simplify thing in the long run.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Genotypes Simplify - RandyRemington, Tue May 17 11:47:10 2005