Quote:
Originally Posted by JCCS
Being a lineage, the hets are just as much "Lipsticks" as the albinos/sunglows/etc.
|
Hmm.
A 'het for Y' is an animal that carries (with some degree of certainty, up to 100%) one copy of the gene 'Y'. There's some slop with this, since keepers seem to mostly accept that an animal can be 'het for snow' where snow is the combination of albino and anerythristic; in this case, 'het for Y' entails that 'Y' is two genes that the animal carries one copy of each.
An 'X line' animal is such in virtue of one or (preferably, IMO) both of its parents being 'X line' animals. Usually (and in the case we're discussing here), 'being an X line' derives from the animal's progenitors having been part of a project of some (famous) breeder.
If I breed two 'X line' animals together, the offspring would be 'X line'. If I breed a generic animal to an 'X line' animal, I may or may not be justified in claiming that the F1s are 'X line' (personally, I'd say they're 'X-line' x generic). But what these 'X line x generic' animals are not is 'het for X line', since lineage isn't a single locus gene, but rather is a history and whatever polygenic traits that the animal acquired during that history.
Consider '50% het for X', which makes sense but '50% chance that a progenitor of this animal passed through the hands of breeder B' does not, at least not in the same way.
Because Lipstick is a line, and because a line isn't a gene, there aren't any 'het for Lipstick' animals (although there may be het Kahl albino animals with some Lipstick lineage in their makeup).