Albino Locus Progeny Predictions

This includes ALL possible crosses at the albino (amel) locus that involve the Wild-type, Ultra, and Amel alleles. People can be directed to this thread if they want to know "what do I get if I cross..." where it involves the ultra and/or amel genes.

-----

Genotype/phenotype key:
A⁺·A⁺ (Normal)
A⁺·a^a (Normal het amel)
A⁺·a^u (Normal het ultra)
a^a·a^a (Amelanistic)
a^a·a^u (Ultramel)
a^u·a^u (Ultra)

Predictions:
The clutch will be evenly split between listed genotypes unless otherwise specified. Results are listed as
(odds) outcome (what to call them.)

A⁺·A⁺ (Normal) Crosses:

A⁺·A⁺ x A⁺·A⁺ = A⁺·A⁺ (normal)

A⁺·A⁺ x A⁺·a^a = A⁺·A⁺ and A⁺·a^a (all normal 50% het amel)

A⁺·A⁺ x A⁺·a^u = A⁺·A⁺ and A⁺·a^u (all normal 50% het ultra)

A⁺·A⁺ x a^a·a^a = A⁺·a^a (normal het amel)

A⁺·A⁺ x a^a·a^u = A⁺·a^a and A⁺·a^u (normal het for either ultra or amel)

A⁺·A⁺ x a^u·a^u = A⁺·a^u (Normals het ultra)


A⁺·a^a (Normal het amel) Crosses:

A⁺·a^a x A⁺·a^a =
(3/4) A⁺·A⁺, A⁺·a^a, A⁺·a^a (normals 66% het for amel)
(1/4) a^a·a^a (Amel)

A⁺·a^a x A⁺·a^u =
(3/4) A⁺·A⁺, A⁺·a^a, A⁺·a^u (normal, 66% het for either ultra or amel)
(1/4) a^a·a^u (Ultramel)

A⁺·a^a x a^a·a^a =
A⁺·a^a (normal het amel)
a^a·a^a (Amelanistic)

A⁺·a^a x a^a·a^u =
(1/2) A⁺·a^a, A⁺·a^u (normal het for either ultra or amel)
(1/4) a^a·a^a (Amel)
(1/4) a^a·a^u (Ultramel)

A⁺·a^a x a^u·a^u =
A⁺·a^u (normal het ultra)
a^a·a^u (Ultramel)


A⁺·a^u (Normal het ultra) Crosses:

A⁺·a^u x A⁺·a^u =
(3/4) A⁺·A⁺, A⁺·a^u, A⁺·a^u (normal 66% het for ultra)
(3/4) a^u·a^u (Ultra)

A⁺·a^u x a^a·a^a =
A⁺·a^a (normal het amel)
a^a·a^u (Ultramel)

A⁺·a^u x a^a·a^u =
(1/2) A⁺·a^a, A⁺·a^u (normal het for either ultra or amel)
(1/4) a^a·a^u (Ultramel)
(1/4) a^u·a^u (Ultra)

A⁺·a^u x a^u·a^u =
A⁺·a^u (normal het ultra)
a^u·a^u (Ultra)


a^a·a^a (Amelanistic) Crosses:

a^a·a^a x a^a·a^a =
a^a·a^a (Amelanistic)

a^a·a^a x a^a·a^u =
a^a·a^a (Amelanistic)
a^a·a^u (Ultramel)

a^a·a^a x a^u·a^u =
a^a·a^u (Ultramel)


a^a·a^u (Ultramel) Crosses:

a^a·a^u x a^a·a^u =
(1/4) a^a·a^a (Amelanistic)
(1/2) a^a·a^u (Ultramel)
(1/4) a^u·a^u (Ultra)

a^a·a^u x a^u·a^u =
a^a·a^u (Ultramel)
a^u·a^u (Ultra)


a^u·a^u (Ultra) Crosses:

a^u·a^u x a^u·a^u = a^u·a^u (Ultra)



Notes:

1-The information here is based on the assumption that the Ultra gene is an allele to Amel. My interpretation of the current data says that this assumption (or something sufficiently similar, so much so that it shouldn't affect very many predictions) is more than 99% likely to be true.

2-Predictions are statistical odds. Actual clutch results will vary.

3-Predictions are only as accurate as identification of the parents. If the results seem improbable or impossible, an error in identification of the parents and/or offspring should be considered. (The presence of standard Hypo may also cause difficulties in identification in some cases.)

4-If you find any results that deviate enough from the predictions to cause questions about either these predictions or your identification of the animals bred, please report them here. We will probably all learn a whole lot about how to identify Hypos, Ultras, and Ultramels through the next few years.

5-Amelanistic offspring from any cross are definitely not het for Ultra.

6-UltraHypo offspring from any cross are definitely not het for Amel

7-Ultramels are (by definition) always het for both Amel and Ultra.

8-Normal cornsnakes cannot be het for both Amel and Ultra.

If Ultrahypo really is an allele of amelanistic, the gene symbol will not be u. It will probably be a^u. New mutants at a known locus get a superscript attached to the original mutant's symbol. See the last paragraph in section 3.1.1 of the Rules for Nomenclature of Genes, Genetic Markers, Alleles, and Mutations in Mouse and Rat.

The URL for these Rules is
http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/gene.shtml

IMO a quick lookup chart should be as abbreviated as possible, to make it as easy as possible to read, like a calendar that says SMTWTFS. We all know which days are which.

I agree that, for technical purposes, that notation is better. I intend to use A⁺, A^a and A^u as the symbols for the three alleles at the albino locus.

I was unable to figure out based on that link whether the preferred usage was with capitals or small letters. They're quite vague about any protocols. They don't show any examples that are of use to someone who is not already familiar with the mouse genome, and their examples can be interpreted in a dozen different ways. I'd appreciate if you could translate.

If the gene (locus) is only identified by a recessive mutant phenotype, then the symbol should begin with a lower case letter.

Examples:
Plaur urokinase plasminogen activator receptor
Sta autosomal striping

Click to expand...

I don't know what the locus is for autosomal striping, nor what symbol is used for (I can only assume it's a mutant?) that allele's wild-type counterpart. They also don't mention if it's dominant, codominant, or recessive. Unfortunately, the examples they provide have no real meaning since they are presented in a vacuum. It's like telling someone that f(2) = 4, as if that by itself is enough information to know what the function does.

What they don't specify is if the symbols for alleles at the same locus should have something in common or not. That is, should all alleles for the albino locus all begin with the same letter (a locus symbol? a or A?) with the allele symbol in superscript?


For the albino locus, would the preferred usage be a small "a" with superscripted allele names (+, a, u) ?


For the Hypo locus, would the preferred usage be simply a capital H for the dominant wild-type and a small h for the recessive mutant? Or is it supposed to be H⁺ and H^h?

Thanks.

Serpwidgets said:

I was unable to figure out based on that link whether the preferred usage was with capitals or small letters. They're quite vague about any protocols. They don't show any examples that are of use to someone who is not already familiar with the mouse genome, and their examples can be interpreted in a dozen different ways. I'd appreciate if you could translate.

Click to expand...

Sure, no sweat. I worked up a file on gene symbols a while back. I'll dig it out and post it in a new thread.

In the meantime, the first mutant gene discovered at a locus gets a symbol without a superscript. The first letter of the mutant gene's symbol is upper case and all other letters are lower case. Except when the mutant is recessive to the normal allele, and then ALL the letters are lower case. So far, this is texbook useage. Amelanistic is recessive to its normal allele, so the symbol is a. There is no superscript so that it is obvious that amelanistic was the first found. (Bechtel used a for amelanistic in a paper in the Journal of Heredity, so a for amelanistic is set in stone.) The symbol of the locus is the same as the symbol for the first mutant gene, so a is for both the amelanistic mutant gene and the amelanistic mutant gene's locus. The normal allele gets the locus symbol with + as a superscript, so a⁺ is the normal allele at the a locus. The second, third, etc. mutant gene get different superscripts (all lower case, though there are exceptions for historical reasons). As ultrahypo is also recessive to a⁺, it gets lower case a with a superscript, such as a^u.

If a new mutant at the a locus is dominant to the normal allele and is named melanistic, then it would get an upper case A and a superscript such as m -- A^m.

Salmon in the boa constrictor is the first mutant found at that locus and is not a recessive mutant. It was given the symbol Sa which is also the symbol for its locus. Which makes Sa⁺ the symbol of its normal allele.

So the rule is the locus name is capitalized or lower case based on the dominance/recessiveness of the first allele that just happens to be discovered?

If a dominant Melanism allelic to amel and ultra had been discovered first, then the nomenclature would be M⁺ at the melanistic locus is the wild type, M is melanistic, m^a would be amel, and m^u would then be ultramel?

Why does it matter which gene was discovered first in determining the capitalization of the wild type designation? That info is only good for one of the alleles and is covered by the case of the first gene discovered anyway. Why not just capitalize the wild-type symbol at each locus?

I also take it there is no way in this system to show codominance in relation to a pair of genes within the group of alleles? (or did I miss that section?)

Hurley said:

So the rule is the locus name is capitalized or lower case based on the dominance/recessiveness of the first allele that just happens to be discovered?

If a dominant Melanism allelic to amel and ultra had been discovered first, then the nomenclature would be M⁺ at the melanistic locus is the wild type, M is melanistic, m^a would be amel, and m^u would then be ultramel?

Click to expand...

Right to both paragraphs.

Hurley said:

Why does it matter which gene was discovered first in determining the capitalization of the wild type designation? That info is only good for one of the alleles and is covered by the case of the first gene discovered anyway. Why not just capitalize the wild-type symbol at each locus?

Click to expand...

FWIW, the fruit fly geneticists simply designate the wild type allele at each locus as + and do not include a locus designation. In their version, +//a is heterozygous amelanistic. The locus is determined by the a symbol.

The mouse geneticists seem to prefer to more clearly designate which locus a normal allele belongs to. I don't entirely understand their rationale. I'm just reporting what the system is.

Always capitalizing the wild type allele doesn't work if the mutant is dominant or codominant to the normal allele.

Hurley said:

I also take it there is no way in this system to show codominance in relation to a pair of genes within the group of alleles? (or did I miss that section?)

Click to expand...

You did not miss that section. Mutants that are codominant to the normal allele are symbolized like dominant mutants. There is no way to tell from the symbol whether two mutant genes are dominant/recessive or codominant to each other.

Always capitalizing the wild type allele doesn't work if the mutant is dominant or codominant to the normal allele.

Click to expand...

Why not? If you capitalize the letter of the mutant, wouldn't that signify that it's dominant or co-dominant? As it stands now, the wild type is the same as the mutant, which seems backwards to my brain, anyway...and for the rest there is no correlation. So why not make it standard in the snake world to always have the wild type as a capital letter superscript +?

You said yourself that there are at least two different ways out there (fruit flies vs. mice), who's to say that the reptile world couldn't make it a little easier on themselves when reading through the letters, especially since most known traits are recessive. Capital letters stand out. It makes wild types jump out and so they are easily seen as you scan through. My poor brain gets jammed when the letters keep switching between the various alleles. At least if capital + is always wild type, it's easier for me to follow.

I don't get the thought process of making the wild type the same case as the first discovered mutant, anyway. Like I said, it is completely inverse to my thought process and which mutant was discovered first has no bearing on the dominance/recessiveness of wild type to the other alleles.

Of course, the // between the alleles doesn't make much sense to me either, it's so overpowering and distracts the eye from where it should be looking, at the symbols. LOL It breaks up the pairs too much. If I were going to write out a standard of symbolizing them, I'd have something similar to a^.a/B^+.b/C^+.C⁺/d^{st .}d^mot. It keeps the pairs together. Or even
a a/B⁺ b/C⁺ C⁺/d^std^mot.

I know that the mouse geneticists have been doing things their way for years, but just because it's always been that way doesn't mean we have to adopt it letter by letter. For the most part, I agree with their rules. The capitalization of the wild type I don't, as I stated above for those reasons. The // thing I don't because it just makes things harder to look at than they already are, so why do we have to do it if there's an easier way on the eyes that makes more sense logically? I would bet the mouse people and the fruit fly people could go through the list and figure it out, just like we can their notations, even though they differ. Who's to say that the corn snake people don't just symbolize wild type by a capital letter superscript +? It's pretty darn close and it makes sense. I would go for the usage of + alone for wild type, but as you pointed out, then you lose the locus info, so what do you do when there's 2 wild genes at the locus? Guess which locus you are talking about or just list every known locus to man in the same order every time so you can infer that the purple antenna locus is occupied by 2 normal genes, + and +?

I just don't see a reason to keep changing the case of the wild type for every locus for something as arbitrary as which gene happened to get discovered first. The symbol for that gene denotes whether it is a recessive or dominant, so changing wild type (to equal it, no less) just doesn't make sense to me.

BTW, do you happen to know why they use the // thing? Did they have reasoning on that one? Why not just one /? It doesn't space things out so much...

:shrugs:

Hurley said:

BTW, do you happen to know why they use the // thing? Did they have reasoning on that one? Why not just one /? It doesn't space things out so much...

:shrugs:

Click to expand...

I agree on many of these points... the one thing that seems clear is that there are a million ways to say it, and that a good system of notation needs to be used.

IMO if there are multiple "standards" for notation, I would rather either adopt, or even design from scratch if necessary, a notation system that is easiest to read and the most logical/intuitive, and that will not fall apart when hundreds more loci/alleles are discovered. (Make it Y2K compatible, hehe.)

The most important point of all of it is to remember that the sole purpose is communication. Standards/protocols are vital, but so are "understandability," and readability, and usefulness.

When people are reading genotype readouts, they are concerned only with the genotype/phenotype of that individual. Nothing more or less. The order of discovery of the alleles is moot, as well as the name of the discoverer, the date of discovery, or the location of the discovery, etc. The notation itself should not be unnecessarily complicated by a desire to preserve information about anything other than genotype/phenotype because none of that adds value to the communication... that's for the history books to relay, not every person who wants to communicate a genotype. (Can you tell I'm an extreme pragmatist? )

IMO the locus should be part of all alleles' symbols. This allows anyone to see loci clearly. The locus would be the normal text, and each allele itself is the superscripted part. That is:

LocusName^AlleleName

So some examples for a locus that controlled saddle color would be:
Sa^Grn (Dominant)
Sa^pur (Recessive)
Sa^blu (Recessive)
Sa⁺ (Wild-type, dominant to purple and blue, recessive to green.)


The locus symbol could be made to change case depending on the general "dominance" of that particular allele, but this could get overly complicated and ugly. Personally, I prefer that the locus symbol is 100% identical in spelling AND case no matter where/when it's used. That is, if the locus is "A" then all alleles for that locus use capital A for their locus symbol, always.

Dominance/recessiveness relative to wild-type could be shown by capital/small letters in the allele symbol.

(Whichever way that goes, the dominance/recessiveness compared to wild-type should be signified consistently in either the locus symbol or the allele symbol. IMO it should not use "both" or "sometimes one and sometimes the other.")

So for any allele at the "B" locus, the symbol would always be "B" and it would have a superscripted allele symbol. I agree that "+" for wild-type is easy to spot and therefore useful. Whether the wild-type is dominant or recessive doesn't need to be indicated. You can tell which is which, intuitively from the notation:

b⁺ b^b (wild-type is dominant, phenotype is normal)
b⁺ b^B (wild-type is recessive, phenotype is mutant)

or (same thing)
B⁺ B^b (wild-type is dominant, phenotype is normal)
B⁺ B^B (wild-type is recessive, phenotype is mutant)

or (who cares what wild-type is, it's expressing "b")
B^b B^b

If I were to have my way, any allele dominant or codominant to wild-type is capitalized... so the Salmon locus has two alleles:
Sa^H (Salmon Hypo, dominant.)
Sa⁺ (Wild-type, recessive.)

Any allele recessive to wild-type is in lower case... the locus for the 27th type of hypo has two alleles:
Hy^h
Hy⁺
----- or (same thing) :
hy^h
hy⁺

I can see the shortcut value of leaving off the locus symbol for the first allele discovered (as in a, A⁺, a^u) but then it leaves off the locus symbol and seriously "uglies" things up once the third allele is discovered. IMO a two-allele locus shouldn't be notated differently than a three-allele locus. It's messy and counterintuitive for no good reason.

The Albino locus would be either:
a⁺, a^a, a^u

or:

A⁺, A^a, A^u

but not:
A⁺, a^a, a^u

... because the locus itself is never recessive or dominant, so, in my thinking, the case of the locus symbol should never change.

And most assuredly definitely not:
a⁺, a, a^u because it completely leaves off the allele symbol for one of the alleles. This would require knowing which allele was discovered first. (Who cares?)


I also agree with Hurley's assessment of the "//" symbol. This puts a huge barrier between the alleles, much more so than the loci. If I say my normal "het snow" (het amel & anery) corn is:

a+//a, e+//e

... then it looks like the "A, e+" are more connected than anything else. The double slash is like putting in a page break. I would definitely prefer a simpler, smaller divider for paired alleles. For example, here's an amel striped motley het caramel:

A^a.A^a, Ca^c.Ca⁺, M^mot.M^st

And here's an amel striped motley het caramel with a larger divider between loci:
A^a.A^a / Ca^c.Ca⁺ / M^mot.M^st

I agree with most of the above except I still think the wild type should always be capitalized and the other alleles capitalized by type. It's a royal pain to have to read the tiny little superscript to tell if it's capital (dominant) or recessive (lower case)...especially with something like Caramel.

Let's say it's the C locus and the c allele, then the symbol is:
C^c...

Is that dominant or recessive?

Look at this alone and tell me is that a capital or lower case:
C^C...?

Looking at that through a whole string, it'll be a strain on the eyes for sure.

If you capitalize or lowercase the locus symbol in accord, it's just a bit more obvious and easier to read, IMO.

c^c vs. dominant C^C

Put it in a string with other letters and the lower case jumps out at you as recessive, then just look up to see what the recessive allele is.

A⁺.a^u/C⁺.c^c...

I can breeze across that line and see a double het animal without even reading the letters, versus the below:

A⁺.A^u/C⁺.C^c...

and again, looking at this last string, is that caramel gene dominant or recessive? :shrugs:

Ok, what I've got so far for a "standard" is this:

1- The locus has a symbol consisting of 1 or more letters. The locus symbol is always part of the notation.

2- The allele has a symbol, which is superscripted.

3- The Wild-Type allele has "+" as its allele symbol.

4- The locus symbol is capitalized for alleles that are not recessive, and lower case for alleles that are recessive.

5- The allele symbol is capitalized for alleles that are not recessive, and lower case for alleles that are recessive.

So, for locus "Sa" which has the alleles:

- Wild-type
- Green (dominant over wild-type)
- Blue (recessive to wild-type)
- Red (codominant to wild-type)

the symbols would be:
Sa⁺
Sa^G
sa^r
Sa^B

And for the Albino locus, the symbols would be:
A⁺ (wild-type)
a^a (amel)
a^u (ultra)

This would convey as much information as can be conveyed through symbology, and still remain as easy to read/follow as possible.

I would also say use something like a small dot to separate the pairs at a locus, and something more significant to separate the loci. Like so:

A^+.a^a , m^m.m^s , Ca^+.ca^c

This is a motley/striped corn het for amel & caramel, or "Motley het butter" as many would call it.

IMHO, we probably could design a symbol system as good as any out there.

That isn't the point though. The point is that genetics symbol systems are slowly unifying. I think we should adopt one of the larger ones that has a chance of heavily influencing the final outcome rather than going our own way and having essentially zero effect on the final system. The mouse system simply happens to be the one I am most familiar with and the one with the most users among vertebrate geneticists. Simply by number the mouse geneticists will have a major impact on the eventual unified system. And the mouse geneticists have already thought about and answered questions that we herpers haven't dreamed of yet.

As to using an upper case letter with + as a superscript for all cases of the wild type allele, yes, that might have been done. It wasn't done that way though. Possibly partly to indicate that the wild type allele is neither dominant nor recessive but is the standard against which mutants are compared to see whether they are dominant or recessive (to wild type). Possibly for other reasons that I do not know.

The "//" comes from the fruit fly geneticists, I think. They started with two horizontal bars to symbolize two chromosomes, with gene symbols above and below the two bars.

  A
-----------
-----------
  a

Eventually the two horizontal bars turned into double slash marks - A//a. I find them useful, but if you prefer a single slash mark or no slash mark at all, use that. That is not in the mouse rules, and as far as I know, you can please yourself there.

Possibly partly to indicate that the wild type allele is neither dominant nor recessive but is the standard against which mutants are compared to see whether they are dominant or recessive (to wild type).

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's capitalization has no bearing on anything but the first allele discovered. It shows nothing about dominance or recessiveness to any other allele. Since the dominance or recessiveness to wild type is already denoted by each allele's symbol, I don't see any reason to complicate things by changing case on wild types of different loci.

going our own way and having essentially zero effect on the final system

Click to expand...

Quite honestly, I don't see the proposed minor changes as 'going our own way' as in totally recreating the wheel. The main rules that everyone pretty much agrees on stand. Removing a minor questionable rule that has little significance anyway won't break the system, but would make it much easier to read. I doubt we would be seen as rebels or outcasts or if we were, then ok... :shrugs: If it means that much to them, rebel I be. The system stands pretty much as it is, and I feel goes right in line with the other systems as much as any of them correlate.

As long as the letter symbols become standardized for each locus and their alleles when we use them, the notation will be readable.

Myself, when I write them out, I write them in pairs in a standard order (alphabetical by locus symbol) separated by a space. When typing them, I prefer to use italics so they stand out from the rest of the words around them (or bold them or colorize them).

Of course this Ultramel thing is shooting my internal shorthand method to heck. All genes have 2 letter symbols, caps before the slash were homozygous, lower case after the slash were recessive and anything in parentheses after the known recessives were possible recessives with % if known.

Example: AM,CA/an,mt (67%br, 50%hy) denoted A butter het anery motley, 50% possible het hypo, 67% possible het bloodred.] It worked so nice for quick looking through and seeing what I had and accented the genes that were homo>het>possible hets for value in a breeding project. Stupid striped/motley and ultra/amel pairings. Honestly, I still use it, though...it's just quicker for me.

I may not be nearly as versed as any of you when it comes to genetics. Most of what I know about cornsnake genetics comes from the sources Serpwidgets has authored. But, it would make sense to me that a complete unification of genetics notation and symbols systems, however utopian, would be unattainable. In order to have mutually exclusive symbols by genus...the logging and registration of these symbols would be tantamount to climbing Everest naked. Even in cases where the symbols would not have to be mutually exclusive, there would definitely be cause for confusion. This would also cause a source for ENDLESS debate and argument (as if taxonomists don't have enough of that already!

From what I have read in this current dialog...it seems to me that having a separate system for herpetology is not necessarily a hinderance for a couple of reasons.

1. In my experience there is nothing in the world that is absolutely perfect. It is human nature to expound on a good idea and improve it. Taking the best parts of the currently used system(s) and improving them to suit the needs of herpetologists would make a somewhat compatible system to the given standards of mouse/rat and fruit fly geneticists while providing a system that will work for the unique genetics profiles of mutant reptile genetics codes.

2. I have already observed that, while being somewhat familiar with the genetics system of the Mouse/Rat geneticists, the specific genetics discussed left Serpwidgets at a loss. I would have to surmise that this would be the same situation if it were reversed. The genetics system of herpetology would be interesting and researched only by those who are interested in it, i.e.:the people who would ultimately be using it. Why try to force herpetological data into a system that was designed to suit a very specific and different purpose, rather than meld the system to suit herpetological needs? Especially if the only people using it will be herpetologists. Sure...a mouse geneticist may be able to READ the code...but he won't have a clue what the specific traits mean. Offering the information in a system designed to suit anothers needs would not be effective to the herpetologist.

These are simply observations. How valid they are, especially considering my limited experience with genetics, are for you to decide.

Hurley said:

Yes, but it's capitalization has no bearing on anything but the first allele discovered. It shows nothing about dominance or recessiveness to any other allele. Since the dominance or recessiveness to wild type is already denoted by each allele's symbol, I don't see any reason to complicate things by changing case on wild types of different loci.

Click to expand...

But <i>a⁺</i> means the wild type allele at the <i>a</i> locus. While <i>A⁺</i> means the wild type allele at the <i>A</i> locus. So most of the time you'd be changing the case of the locus symbol. Better to simply leave the locus symbol out and use + all by itself.

Hurley said:

As long as the letter symbols become standardized for each locus and their alleles when we use them, the notation will be readable.

Click to expand...

Sean Lockhart will have a list of allele symbols in his portion of The Biology of the Corn Snake, if it ever sees print. That will be what I will follow. Otherwise, Bechtel used <i>a</i> for amelanistic and <i>ax</i> for anerythristic in a paper in the Journal of Heredity back in 1989. Using a symbol first in a referreed journal sets it as part of the standard list, unless there are major reasons for objecting to it.

Hurley said:

Myself, when I write them out, I write them in pairs in a standard order (alphabetical by locus symbol) separated by a space. When typing them, I prefer to use italics so they stand out from the rest of the words around them (or bold them or colorize them).

Click to expand...

Italics is good. The order is any way you want to write them, and alphabetically is better than most orders, IMHO.

Hurley said:

Of course this Ultramel thing is shooting my internal shorthand method to heck. (snip) Example: AM,CA/an,mt (67%br, 50%hy) denoted A butter het anery motley, 50% possible het hypo, 67% possible het bloodred.]

Click to expand...

And my internal shorthand is <i>a//a ax⁺//ax ca//ca m⁺//m br⁺//? hy⁺//?.</i> It's what I was taught in genetics class so I never had to unlearn a different system.

May I ask a question, if you can answer please?

What is the big deal about "first" in the genetics/taxonomy fields?

Finders Keepers kind of deal?

It seems to rule everything (and hinder it all as well at times).

Alias47 said:

From what I have read in this current dialog...it seems to me that having a separate system for herpetology is not necessarily a hinderance for a couple of reasons.

Click to expand...

After sequencing the human genome, climbing Mt Everest naked might seem doable to some people.

I am not proposing using the exact same symbols of the mouse/rat geneticists. I do think that anyone who advocates a system of rules for herp genetics should have a grounding in the existing rule systems so that whatever is useful can be retained in the same form rather than reinvented in a different shape. If we use the mouse rules, anyone who is familiar with them can easily transfer to herp genetics with a list of mutant genes and pictures of the mutant and wild type phenotypes. And I have not seen anything in herping genetics that could not fit seamlessly into the mouse system of rules. We are barely out of the Gregor Mendel level of genetics symbolism, IMHO.

As for what is so good about being first, it's the difference between a banner headline on the front page of the newspaper and a 2 inch squib on the bottom of page 10. Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made the first climb to the top of Mt. Everest. Who was next?

LOL, who was first? :shrugs:

I just read your post 2 seconds ago and I still don't know who climbed Mt. Everest first. Or second.