What do you think the markings/coat color on a Dalmation are? A mutation, a dominant mutation. And I beg to differ, markings are the phenotype, not the genotype...which is what makes every mutation what it is. And while we're comparing apples to oranges, did you know a (recessive) white button quail can show the white phenotype, and also be a (dominant) redbreasted button quail? This is true in BQ genetics, and it's also true in some of the new reptile morphs available today. A luecistic ball python can carry the genotype for a wide range of colors/patterns, even though it only physically express's the luecistic phenotype. I must agree with krustyart, a con expressing the "pink" phenotype can still be a calico. Going back to the link I provided earlier in this thread crazygregs fish exhibit traits common to a recessive and co-dom gene pairing. His intial pairings are as follows: pink X calico, 2 "light" calico fry from this pairing were then paired, the results were 25% "dark" marble 25% pink, and 50% "light" marble. These are classic recessive color morph X co-dom color morph results! And they do indeed indicate a "super" form. I'm rather disgusted at how you keep trying to force the facts into what you "want" this gene to be. Seriously, stop bulldozing everything you don't want to hear into the ground, all your doing is muddying the waters, and confusing an issue that shouldn't be confusing! It's a co-dom gene, thats it & thats all.First of all - if it's not pink - what is it? Purple? So yes, obviously, non-marbled pink convicts are pink.
Second of all - you forgot that their mother is a pink convict - so the pink fry are het for calico (depending on the genetics behind this mutation.)
Third - "Calico" is not a breed in itself, like a Dalmatian, but rather, a mutation. In other words, there is no such thing as an all-white calico cat. The markings themselves, are what makes an animal a calico.
It will be interesting to see if any of your fry are pink.
What do you think the markings/coat color on a Dalmation are? A mutation, a dominant mutation. And I beg to differ, markings are the phenotype, not the genotype...which is what makes every mutation what it is. And while we're comparing apples to oranges, did you know a (recessive) white button quail can show the white phenotype, and also be a (dominant) redbreasted button quail? This is true in BQ genetics, and it's also true in some of the new reptile morphs available today. A luecistic ball python can carry the genotype for a wide range of colors/patterns, even though it only physically express's the luecistic phenotype. I must agree with krustyart, a con expressing the "pink" phenotype can still be a calico. Going back to the link I provided earlier in this thread crazygregs fish exhibit traits common to a recessive and co-dom gene pairing. His intial pairings are as follows: pink X calico, 2 "light" calico fry from this pairing were then paired, the results were 25% "dark" marble 25% pink, and 50% "light" marble. These are classic recessive color morph X co-dom color morph results! And they do indeed indicate a "super" form. I'm rather disgusted at how you keep trying to force the facts into what you "want" this gene to be. Seriously, stop bulldozing everything you don't want to hear into the ground, all your doing is muddying the waters, and confusing an issue that shouldn't be confusing! It's a co-dom gene, thats it & thats all.