• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Motley and Stripe interactions

What I meant was if 75% of the offspring will be homo motley or motley stripe but it may not be visually possible to identify which ones are which because the motley tends to be a more dominant trait wouldn't it make more sense to (as Mastershaven said) list it as a motley poss homo stripe? Instead of a motley het motley/stripe?
 
Just for the record, I am not trying to be a PITA here. I am really trying to learn this and how everything correlates.
 
ultimuttone said:
What I meant was if 75% of the offspring will be homo motley or motley stripe but it may not be visually possible to identify which ones are which because the motley tends to be a more dominant trait wouldn't it make more sense to (as Mastershaven said) list it as a motley poss homo stripe? Instead of a motley het motley/stripe?
Click to expand...
The motley and motley/striped 75% could be listed as m<sup>m</sup> · ? or as motley poss het motley/stripe. "Motley poss homo stripe" is not kosher because homozygous striped is m<sup>s</sup> · m<sup>s</sup> and is striped, not motley.

They say that Eskimos have 47 different words for snow of varying types. We may need that many for motleys, stripes, and intermediates of various types. :)
 
So basically for the 50% that are motley/striped, you are basically SOL on labeling them correctly? Or at least on what everyone would agree is correct?
 
Last edited:
ultimuttone said:
Just for the record, I am not trying to be a PITA here. I am really trying to learn this and how everything correlates.
Click to expand...
I am following this thread with interest, I don't think you are being at all a PITA! The best way to learn anything is to not be afraid to ask a lot of questions. This is a tough combo of genes, to understand the interaction between them etc. but man they are beautiful!
 
Thanks Jen. I just know how things can come across on the forum, I don't want to seem argumentative.But as you said I won't learn if I don't ask.:)
 
ultimuttone said:
So basically for the 50% that are motley/striped, you are basically SOL on labeling them correctly? Or at least on what everyone would agree is correct?
Click to expand...
You got it. That's the way it goes when two heterozygous individuals are mated. In the same way, normal poss het albinos appear when you mate two heterozygous albinos.
 
Hey, guys, it's been fun, but I've got to log out. I'll drop back in tomorrow to see where this thread goes.
 
paulh said:
You can't call a motley a het motley. A het motley has a motley mutant gene paired with a normal gene and looks normal rather than motley. A motley has a pair of identical motley mutant genes. They are different gene configurations and different appearances.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is necessarily true, because of this part:
A motley has a pair of identical motley mutant genes.
Click to expand...
If that is true, then you can't call a "normal het amel" a normal, since it is only het for normal. ;)

I think the problem is that (because almost everything we've been working with is recessive to normal) there's an assumption that using a morph name implies it is homozygous for that morph. As you know, this isn't true at the motley locus. It can have the motley phenotype without being homozygous motley. But, it's still "a motley" phenotypically. So in this case I believe the most accurate way to say it would be "motley het stripe," which IMO would equate to "normal het amel." :)

As far as what to put in the registry, unless I'm sure it's het stripe, I would list it as homozygous motley and put in the Special Notes section, "poss het stripe" or "possibly motley/stripe genotype."

My reasoning for this is that if someone believes it is het stripe, they would count on it being capable of producing stripes when bred to a stripe. The other way around, they still know they will get motley patterns, and maybe stripes... but maybe not.

We have the same situation with hypo & amel: if you breed two amels het hypo together, the offspring are "50% poss het hypo, 25% poss homo hypo," or "75% poss het or homo hypo." The same would apply to two anerys het caramel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top