Somewhat Rare Rescue
- Thread starter rlheugel
- Start date
bigspizz;1258857; said:I was wrong like I said. I have never studied genetics, or wikipedia'd it. My comment was a representation of my misinterpretation of what I thought I have been reading...lol I am seeing the light now though and I "get it". It does not bother me to be wrong. This thread is now PACKED with something we all should know thanks to you.
I wasn't trying to rub it in that I know some genetics and you don't, I was trying to clarify why they don't just "lack a gene". I'm a person who needs to know the "why" behind something. Just telling me it isn't that way doesn't cut it.
As for my earlier comment, I find it fully deserving. Go and read through some of his posts. Bad info once, shame on me. Bad info twice, shame on me. Bad info three (or more) times, shame on him.
He obviously knows a bit about the subject, why not just Google it and make sure it's right? I'd rather have someone say albinism is a curse from a Gypsy and be totally off than be partially right because it's easy to see that a Gypsy curse is wack while partially correct information could be easily construed as being 100% correct. But, this is a derail.
Hopefully people can take a bit away about genetics from this topic.
I am not in disagreement. If someone is consistently wrong in their posts it should be pointed out. It just seemed a bit unkind.
thank you for that bigspizz! if i was consistently wrong i could understand + i didnt say take these words to bed with you and sleep on them. i simply said that so maybe some one would research further. notice how i said "hopefully some one can further elaborate"?? thats because i was unsure!! i left it open to be discussed. maybe YOU should think before you speak and not be so ignorant and be a bit more friendly. i understand your trying to help but maybe you could be a bit more nice about it.bigspizz;1259003; said:
my apologys if i offended anyone, i just needed to get that off my chest.
-mickey
Woah, woah, woah. You guys are gonna kill my thread. I leave for one day, and everything breaks out into this genetics conflict. I wonder if the tendency to argue is influenced by the recessive and dominant traits of one's parents? Anyway, let's just drop so what has become a very interesting thread can stay that way. No more comments or apologies.
Let's just talk about things such as bigspizz's last post. I want to know this same answer. Additionally, what would be the possibilities for mixing different types of jd's and how would you go about consider genetic matricies for jd color morphs. Thanks to everyone who has contirbuted thus far. I think this is very interesting and appreciate the info provided thus far from everyone, especially modest_man, thanks for breaking it down.
Let's just talk about things such as bigspizz's last post. I want to know this same answer. Additionally, what would be the possibilities for mixing different types of jd's and how would you go about consider genetic matricies for jd color morphs. Thanks to everyone who has contirbuted thus far. I think this is very interesting and appreciate the info provided thus far from everyone, especially modest_man, thanks for breaking it down.
I honestly couldn't tell you what would come of an EBJD X Gold. I'm assuming the fry would be fertile, but I'm pretty certain the two color variants are not due to the same allele so you could probably have both gold and EBJD expressed at the same time. The Golds still contain the gold and blue pigment that the WT have, and that the EBJD's have in excess, so in theory you should be able to get an EBJD with the pink background.
If that's correct the first generation of Gold X EBJD would look like the WT, as all the offspring would be heterozygous, as Gold would be aaBB (homozygous recessive for Gold, homozygous dominant for EBJD) and EBJD's would be AAbb (homzygous dominant for EBJD, homozgyous recessive for gold).
So the F1 offspring from the P generation would be 100% AaBb using the classic Punnet Square.
Cross the second generation and you'd get Mendel's classic ratio of 9:3:3:1 for genetic variablilty of two alleles, WT's (AABB (1), AaBB (2), AABb (2), and AaBb (4)), EBJD (AAbb (1), Aabb (2)), Gold (aaBB (1), AABb (2)), and the elusive gold EBJD (aabb (1)).
Of course, this is all theoretical. Until someone actually breeds them or we sequence the genome of the WT vs. EBJD vs. Gold and find the locations of the mutations it's the best I can do.
If that's correct the first generation of Gold X EBJD would look like the WT, as all the offspring would be heterozygous, as Gold would be aaBB (homozygous recessive for Gold, homozygous dominant for EBJD) and EBJD's would be AAbb (homzygous dominant for EBJD, homozgyous recessive for gold).
So the F1 offspring from the P generation would be 100% AaBb using the classic Punnet Square.
Cross the second generation and you'd get Mendel's classic ratio of 9:3:3:1 for genetic variablilty of two alleles, WT's (AABB (1), AaBB (2), AABb (2), and AaBb (4)), EBJD (AAbb (1), Aabb (2)), Gold (aaBB (1), AABb (2)), and the elusive gold EBJD (aabb (1)).
Of course, this is all theoretical. Until someone actually breeds them or we sequence the genome of the WT vs. EBJD vs. Gold and find the locations of the mutations it's the best I can do.
Modest_Man;1260584; said:
You mind showing us a little more effort next time? JJK Sounds good to me. There has to be someone here on MFK who is in the later stages of this experiment. I have been reading a lot of reports that EBJD are hybrids??????????? Today is the first time I have read such a thing, and the people who think they are in fact hybrids are pretty damn adimant...HMMM?? This thread delivers that's all I know!!
I drawed you all a pic as well. Genetics just gets me all hot and bothered. What can I say.
From the genetic testing that's been done (and it's pretty limited, maybe to little to late) the genome matches up. I say recessive mutation, that probably has a linked gene for some sort of intestinal problem that causes EBJD X EBJD fry to die after a few days free swimming. Like the lethal white mutation in horses...but that's a derail as well.
From the genetic testing that's been done (and it's pretty limited, maybe to little to late) the genome matches up. I say recessive mutation, that probably has a linked gene for some sort of intestinal problem that causes EBJD X EBJD fry to die after a few days free swimming. Like the lethal white mutation in horses...but that's a derail as well.
