a little help with my het aptors

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Hey, Joe...I see you down their looking at this post...Why doesn't the "Grand Bubble Buster" bring to the board his input.

 

[groovygeckos]

Well Im sorry, I do not try to argue with anyone, only discuss. When one part of something I type is misinterpreted, and quoted, and pasted, to the point that it sounds different than what I meant by the whole post. It gets a little annoying trying to defend my words, when you seem to have ignored all but that one part. example: your post above.

Giants: I allready explained it has got to be really hard to tell the difference between co-dom, and recessive only looking at something like size. Ron thought it was recessive, and anyone could have made that mistake. There really werent any co-dom Leo traits, who can really tell the difference, and who really is expecting one to pop up. He bred his 'het' Giants before he could see how big they would have grown, supposedly. It proved out with the same results as a recessive (same as any codom or recessive), and there wasnt really any noticable difference So what would you call it? Maybe you didnt see the point in my posting this:

So lets say you breed: Co-dom X codom = 25%
Recessive X Recessive HETS =25%
Poly X Poly =25%

I was talking about Hets obviously.And the point is you cannot find much difference in the breeding outcomes of co-dom or recessive HET X HET. Or "Het" X "Het" in the case of patterning traits.

You find nothing wrong with him saying everything is recessive? You're willing to jump on the RT bandwagon and regardless of whether he's right or wrong, it's ok?

So you don't care about the ethics behind guaranteeing genetics that aren't there? You think it's ok that he's done it once, and could very well have possibly done it again?

No, Im sorry you misunderstand. I mean if Ron wants to hurt his own reputation that is up to him.

I dont buy from Ron because he says this or that anymore, I buy first ,because I like the line, then so I can figure it out on my own, and find out exactly what is going on SO I CAN GUARANTEE THE GENETICS. I never said I agree with it if he is wrong about something, or if he was stretching the truth, Im just not into pointing fingers before I even have a clue I simply do not care, which type of inheritance it is, as long as it is genetic. That will be figured out in time.

Yes proven by Ron, thats all I mean. I say it proves out, it means to me it is genetic, regardless of the type of inheritance. He may actually think it is recessive, how the heck do I know. But he has the most experience with them so far, right. Maybe it is recessive, or maybe it works as a recessive But again how do you tell the difference given the same breeding results?

Like I said everyone believes Stripes and Jungles are recessive, and this IS a patterning gene also. I dont think it sounds like Kelli is 100% sure stripes are recessive either, because she says 'or acts like a recessive'. If it acts as a recessive, how are you going to say one way or the other with certainty? I dont think anyone but God can say that.

As for the 'patternless', and every other pattern. I have seen alot of proof, and heard/ seen enough from others, to say that patternsprobably are not simple recessive. But thats not to say a 'stripe het'/gene carrier will not produce stripes in the same way as if it were recessive.

How can you tell without a doubt which it is?
Ide like to hear an explanation of EXACTLY how someone will tell the difference between something that is recessive, and something that 'acts recessive'. Im not holding my breath for an answer on that either.

Anyways that has been my point all along. You are reading into my post a little too much, Im not that serious, and really am not 'beating around the bush'. My apologies.

 

[groovygeckos]

I am so happy I made the decision to get some Raptors, because however the traits are passed, they are certainly genetic in some form or fashion, which means I will have baby Raptors of my own soon! (Thank you RT)

Ditto except we bought APTORs, and will have our own baby RAPTORs a second time. LOL

Thanks Kelli, thats what I meant. No problem Stephanie.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Ok, simply put...You and I can't agree...

I DO read into what people say/type a lot more then most. I admit it and my fiance points it out to me almost every day. I can't help it. I want to understand, make things clear and want to ensure I'm not misinterpreting anything. It may appear as if I'm misinterpreting you when I ask direct questions like I have, but I'm really looking for a yes or no answer to make things clear.

My point...

1) Any mutation should be proven out prior to claiming it recessive/codom/whatever. A better option to this is saying (for example) "from RAPTOR lines."

2) RT is not infallible (obviously), he could be wrong about this mutation and in turn that make others look like a$$'s for putting money into nothing (more so in reference to the Giant "hets")

3) Recessive is not the same as "acts recessive" and should not be considered the same. I've bred two Jungles together and produced Jungles and Aberrants, it's pretty obvious the mutation is not recessive. As to the common Stripes (not red stripe or bold stripe lines), I will be providing proof on that shortly (hopefully - probably just jinxed myself).

4) Genetics terms need used properly if they're going to be used at all...As an example, and Albino can not be het for Blazing Blizzard...It already expresses half of the mutation to produce the BB...Thus, correct terminology would be Albino het Blizzard.

5) Using the word "het" implies that the mutation is recessive.

I will ask Charles on his opinion about telling the difference between true recessive and "acts recessive."