Never Encourage a teacher -What I know about color genetics Lesson #2A

[Illia]

Quote:
Wheaten from one parent, BBR from the other. That's where the fawn color comes from. As for the white and gray, pics could help.




By "well put" I was mainly referring to the analogy of the different E locus though. Didn't read it all through as nicalandia admitted too

 

[mibirder]

Quote:
I don't see anything that is inaccurate based upon what I've written. I admit that not every detail will apply without exception (such as with sex-linked traits and several of the dilution,extenders, or restrictor colors but then I have even brought those up)

Let me see if I can clarify for you.

I see no conflict between the definitions linked and what I've explained (note I didn't intend to define anything, but rather explain what the outcome of the that definition is in layman's terms).

The groups I've mentioned are those from Van Dort and relate to the discussions of solid colors, dilutions, extension/restriction and patterns in Hutt's Genetics of the Fowl and elsewhere (With the exception of the e-series discussed in Lesson #2). These discussions are based in the phenotypes as expressed by the genes and are not group together to represent closeness on the chromosome (which would be useful in predicting crossing over between gene combinations).

I don't think there's anywhere I said anthing about the blue gene (or silver or mahogany) or whether the base alleles can or can't be mixed. I haven't discussed anything about specific colors up to this point. I did mention (in the first post), in introducing intermediate/heterozygous that some genes do, in fact mix while others are purely dominant/recessive.

Yes, I agree (am aware) pigment color is subtractive and that light color is additive. Its related to the fact that what we register in our brain is actually the combinations of light particles that are reflected off the surface of the pigment (kind of like "seeing" what's no reflected rather than what's absorbed by the pigment. The actions of eumemelenin and phenomelenin are those of pigment just as with the pigments. The point I was trying to making (which seems to have been lost) was that even with just three primary pigments, several combinations can be had to produce others. Most folks can relate to the primary colors of pigments and their interactions rather than the interactions of colored light. For example more would be familar (via experience) with the subtractive affect of mixed primary pigments to produce black rather than primary light adding to producing white - unless I guess if they have theater experience.

What I'm trying to do is to give some basic background information so that those less knowledgable can understand better in asking their questions and understanding the response they get. Its not intended as a biochemical disseration on genetics but enough so that others don;t feel left out of the point others try to make.

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
oh how I wish you were here as often(I concider you as one of my mentors since my early days at the coop and you are still are)

some times I have to just agree to disagree with some of our friends here...

Quote:
Quote:

Page 5 of the 2001 APA standard,
Quote:
Chris

 

[KDailey]

In my opinion, even if something isn't exactly correct in every way, it still gets me started somewhere. Right now, anytime I try to ask questions, I can't explain the majority of the answers I get. And I don't know where to start to ask them for a simpler explaination.

It would be easier for me to get slightly off information that gives me a good idea of how everything works and then correct the little things than to try and grasp a bunch of really complicated information that gets me nowhere.

So I, for one, appreciate the lessons.

 

[nicalandia]

Quote:
I dare not debate with Sonoran

Quote:
its ok, most of the time I just fly thru the long long Answers too...

Quote:
oh how I wish you were here as often(I concider you as one of my mentors since my early days at the coop and you are still are)

some times I have to just agree to disagree with some of our friends here...

Quote:
Quote:

Page 5 of the 2001 APA standard,
Quote:
Chris

2 wrongs don't make one right...

and lets leave that at that, I care not to further this anylonger...

 

[nicalandia]

Quote:
I do too... its easier for n00bs...

I had to learn the HARD way on the Coop so many years ago...and Sonoran was/is one of my teachers...

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
I dare not debate with Sonoran

Quote:
its ok, most of the time I just fly thru the long long Answers too...

Quote:
oh how I wish you were here as often(I concider you as one of my mentors since my early days at the coop and you are still are)

some times I have to just agree to disagree with some of our friends here...



Page 5 of the 2001 APA standard,
Quote:
Chris

2 wrongs don't make one right...

and lets leave that at that, I care not to further this anylonger...

Then why bring it up?
I would assume that the APA did some research on the factor before posting it in there standard.

oxford journals

1997 The American Genetic Association :

We investigated the pattern of inheritance of maternal melotic errors responsible for a high frequency of triploid progeny in a selected line of chickens. For the genetic analysis, F1 and backcross populations were produced from crosses between normal diploid individuals of the triploidy line and a control line. Triploid embryos were produced by 35% and 67% of reciprocal F1 females and by 24% and 67% of reciprocal backcross females. These results exclude autosomal recessive and sex-linked recessive or sex-linked dominant inheritance. A single autosomat dominant gene is also not likely to be responsible. However, the results are consistent with the determination of triploidy by a single autosomal gene with no dominance, and an even better fit is obtained by two ioci, an autosomal gene with no dominance and a sex-linked gene. The results cannot exclude a multifactorial mode of inheritance, but the rapid response to selection for triploidy and consistent expression of the meiotic errors in different genotypes suggest that meiotic mutations at one or two loci are the most plausible genetic basis for the trait.

Chris​

 

[KDailey]

Can we please just get back to the lessons?

 

[nicalandia]

Quote:
X2

 

[catdaddyfro]

Quote:
I don't see anything that is inaccurate based upon what I've written. I admit that not every detail will apply without exception (such as with sex-linked traits and several of the dilution,extenders, or restrictor colors but then I have even brought those up)

Let me see if I can clarify for you.

I see no conflict between the definitions linked and what I've explained (note I didn't intend to define anything, but rather explain what the outcome of the that definition is in layman's terms).

The groups I've mentioned are those from Van Dort and relate to the discussions of solid colors, dilutions, extension/restriction and patterns in Hutt's Genetics of the Fowl and elsewhere (With the exception of the e-series discussed in Lesson #2). These discussions are based in the phenotypes as expressed by the genes and are not group together to represent closeness on the chromosome (which would be useful in predicting crossing over between gene combinations).

I don't think there's anywhere I said anthing about the blue gene (or silver or mahogany) or whether the base alleles can or can't be mixed. I haven't discussed anything about specific colors up to this point. I did mention (in the first post), in introducing intermediate/heterozygous that some genes do, in fact mix while others are purely dominant/recessive.

Yes, I agree (am aware) pigment color is subtractive and that light color is additive. Its related to the fact that what we register in our brain is actually the combinations of light particles that are reflected off the surface of the pigment (kind of like "seeing" what's no reflected rather than what's absorbed by the pigment. The actions of eumemelenin and phenomelenin are those of pigment just as with the pigments. The point I was trying to making (which seems to have been lost) was that even with just three primary pigments, several combinations can be had to produce others. Most folks can relate to the primary colors of pigments and their interactions rather than the interactions of colored light. For example more would be familar (via experience) with the subtractive affect of mixed primary pigments to produce black rather than primary light adding to producing white - unless I guess if they have theater experience.

What I'm trying to do is to give some basic background information so that those less knowledgable can understand better in asking their questions and understanding the response they get. Its not intended as a biochemical disseration on genetics but enough so that others don;t feel left out of the point others try to make.

Carry on just the way you are going there teacher. Its a fine job I might add esp. for the ones still needing to learn this stuff (the basics Genetics 101) a little better, a little at a time. 2 or 3 of the posters already know all when it comes to this genetics stuff and that's usually right where they start out with it just like the average joe has already been thru genetics class # 5356.

We weren't quite at E/e^b much less Bl/S yet but I think we can get there from here though if ya'll hang onto your horses a bit. We 'bout had a run-a-way already.

And please

don't get ruckus started up here and get the thread closed OK

Jeff