Quote:
|
Originally Posted by groovygeckos
Well anyways, the way I had understood it. There is only a difference in the outcome of both appearances being present and not mixed. And the other was that both are present but blended together.
Something like:
red and white =both red and white
and
red and white= pink
|
Yeah, the idea is that 'co' means "at the same time" and they both are expressed simultaneously. So if black and white are codominant to each other on a mouse, you might have a mouse with black hairs and white hairs.
Incomplete dominant would mean you would get a blending of the two, so if black and white are incomplete dominant on a mouse you might get what looks like a gray mouse.
The thing is, if black and white are codominant, you could have any of the following:
· a white mouse with black patches
· a black mouse with white patches
· a black mouse with 2 white hairs on it
· a white mouse with 2 black hairs on it
If black and white are incomplete dominant, you could have any of the following:
· a gray mouse
· a very dark gray, nearly black mouse
· a slightly off white mouse
What about a mouse that has black and white hairs but they are so closely intermingled that from 3 feet away it looks gray, and when you look closer you can see individual black and white hairs? Is that incomplete dominant or codominant? Does it matter?
The question is, if someone were to tell you that black were incomplete dominant to white, does it really give you any useful information that is so far above and beyond saying "black and white are codominant?" Not really. Does it tell you what a heterozygous black/white mouse is going to look like? Nope. My question is, "what is to be gained by drawing this distinction?"
Worrying about this is like saying "it isn't really pi unless you've calculated it to 100 digits" even though 3.14 is more than close enough to get the job done. Sure, pi to 100 digits may be "more accurate" but who really cares? IMO it has no practical value.
Linear Mode
