Kingsnake.com

Posted by: Oz at Wed Oct 12 20:50:05 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Oz ]

I meant this calculation for determining the probable genetics of the offspring... not the parents which I assumed would already be known.

If a visual is produced then yes you would know the parents are hets (they have been proven!)... assuming you were working with pos hets to begin with. BUT... what about the non-visual siblings? These would be 66% pos hets and that's another calculation entirely... lol

Oz
-----
OZZYBOIDS

[ Hide Replies ]

% 0n hets ???? - leehafley, Wed Oct 12 15:16:57 2005

RE: % 0n hets ???? - tns4life, Wed Oct 12 15:19:39 2005

RE: % 0n hets ???? - shawn lockhart, Wed Oct 12 15:47:32 2005

Correction.... - LadyOhh, Wed Oct 12 16:24:26 2005

RE: Correction.... - Oz, Wed Oct 12 17:14:09 2005

explain... - herphobbyist, Wed Oct 12 17:51:23 2005

Correct.... more... - Oz, Wed Oct 12 20:50:05 2005

I think what he ment was ... - toshamc, Wed Oct 12 19:10:35 2005

exactly Tosha.. - herphobbyist, Wed Oct 12 22:39:53 2005

Now that we are all clear... - LadyOhh, Wed Oct 12 23:08:08 2005

not quite - cmlreptiles, Thu Oct 13 08:37:38 2005

what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - Oz, Thu Oct 13 10:21:10 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - anthony james mc, Thu Oct 13 11:59:44 2005

anthony - herphobbyist, Thu Oct 13 12:41:18 2005

RE: anthony - anthony james mc, Thu Oct 13 13:16:17 2005

RE: anthony - anthony james mc, Thu Oct 13 13:31:55 2005

the real awnser - reptilelab, Thu Oct 13 16:00:02 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - CJBianco, Thu Oct 13 13:59:01 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - anthony james mc, Thu Oct 13 14:14:54 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - CJBianco, Thu Oct 13 14:22:34 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - anthony james mc, Thu Oct 13 15:15:50 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - CJBianco, Thu Oct 13 15:24:09 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - cmlreptiles, Fri Oct 14 09:33:03 2005

RE: what???? we are talking probability... it's the most accurate way of - cmlreptiles, Thu Oct 13 18:24:53 2005

RE: Correction.... - Paul Hollander, Thu Oct 13 13:59:53 2005

RE: Correction.... - CJBianco, Thu Oct 13 14:16:46 2005

RE: This is the view that I brought up last year. - CJBianco, Thu Oct 13 13:36:41 2005

good point Chris... - herphobbyist, Thu Oct 13 13:42:02 2005

25% Chance Hets - RandyRemington, Fri Oct 14 07:10:32 2005

RE: % 0n hets ???? - leehafley, Thu Oct 13 14:12:16 2005

STOP THE MADDNESS! - asfreptiles, Fri Oct 14 00:30:44 2005

slight correction - cmlreptiles, Fri Oct 14 09:37:58 2005

>> Next topic: Tucson, Arizona - ncary, Wed Oct 12 15:32:53 2005
<< Previous topic: One of my new additions - NorthernRegius, Wed Oct 12 14:30:53 2005

Enjoy all our content free of charge with a user account that gives you full access to every feature. For added visibility, paid options are available - post in our Classifieds, showcase your business with Banner Ads or a Directory listing, promote reptile events, and more.

Correct.... more...

KINGSNAKE.COM

Quick Links

Community

Legal & Safety

Support