Join Us On Facebook
|
|
|
66% het or ?
#226274
02/28/07 04:27 PM
02/28/07 04:27 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I've been into genetics for years, and have always felt confident in using Punnett's Squares for my calculations. In the glider community I'm seeing some variation to the calculations though. I'll be looking at a page and see the babies listed as 66% hets, but when I look at the parents I'll find that only one parent is actually a 100% het and the other is normal. How is that an accurate statement if the gene is not Dominant? I'm actually seeing two different ways that people are using the 66% het claim. The first way, and the one that makes the most sense to me, is that both parents were 100% hets, but that the baby is normal in appearance. That makes sense, I can see how if you do a Punnett's square that would be a believable statement. The second way, and one that I see even reputable breeders using is claiming that 66% het as having one 100% het parent and one normal. That makes no sense to me, because in my head that would give the baby a much lower chance of getting that chance for the het gene from that one parent. Can anyone explain this to me? Is there something that I'm missing? Maybe my head is just all mixed up or something, lol, I certainly am NOT perfect and have been easily confused over little things like this before.
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226277
02/28/07 04:33 PM
02/28/07 04:33 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
It's weird, but basically, if you have a 66% het, you have a 66% chance that they are ACTUALLY 100%. This is where proving out comes in. This isn't the same as the punnett square stuff in this aspect...I thought there had more to do with dominant vs. recessive--eh, it's been FOREVER since I've actually had a genetics class!
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226280
02/28/07 04:37 PM
02/28/07 04:37 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Could it somehow matter if it's not just simply dominant or recessive? I used to be a biology major, and I'm not recalling the specifics I want right now! but if it's a sex-linked, x-linked, whichever, I know there are tons of other possible combinations for traits. Like, instead of just Aa, AA, or aa, it's actually AaBb or AaBbCC? I remember crossing traits that were like that I just can't recall the specifics. Sorry...this post was probably no help!
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226283
02/28/07 04:45 PM
02/28/07 04:45 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
This will explain leu breeding FAR better than I could: Leucistic Breeding
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226296
02/28/07 05:12 PM
02/28/07 05:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 582 Nashville, TN
jkaradeema
Glider Lover
|
Glider Lover
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 582
Nashville, TN
|
Yes, a 100% het + 100% het = 66%
100% het + normal = 50%
Jason and Kristin Karadeema
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226337
02/28/07 06:49 PM
02/28/07 06:49 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
It's weird, but basically, if you have a 66% het, you have a 66% chance that they are ACTUALLY 100%. This is where proving out comes in. This isn't the same as the punnett square stuff in this aspect...I thought there had more to do with dominant vs. recessive--eh, it's been FOREVER since I've actually had a genetics class! I had some squares posted up for chinchillas awhile ago. I just went back looking for them and they're still up, they should work for sugar gliders too. (They're located here). I think the thing that really confuses me when I'm looking at posts or at websites is that the sugar glider community uses percentages of chance rather than just stating "potential carrier" "carrier" or "non-carrier". It's a new "language" that I have to get used to, but it's harder when everyone isn't using it the same way. I'm guessing it's a little bit of a buyer beware kind of thing? Where everyone should make sure to ask questions about the parents or proven offspring before shilling out the big money? Especially because it's a gamble on the chances anyway? I only have the one breeding pair of gliders, so it doesn't affect me so much. But I can imagine how disappointed I would be if I spent the bigger money for a 66% chance at getting a carrier from two 100% hets and then found out that it was listed innappropriately and was actually from only one het parent which most breeders sell for less than the 66% hets. Meh, maybe it doesn't really matter though. I paid WAY too much for my gliders (and they're mostly normals) just because I HAD to have just that adorable face. Maybe it's all about the love and if you pay more you'll just appreciate them that much more.
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226392
02/28/07 08:24 PM
02/28/07 08:24 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
If some one is selling a 66% het that comes from one leu and a normal, then they are not being honest or they don't really know.
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: Lynsie]
#226473
02/28/07 10:24 PM
02/28/07 10:24 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
LOL, Lynsie! My brain is already doing the mental Twister! I saw something like that today actually! The baby was listed as a 50-66%, but the parents were a 100% het and a 50% het. Sooooo confusing! I don't know how you guys can keep it all straight! I saw another baby listed as a 33%, what is that? Does anyone know?
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226484
02/28/07 10:39 PM
02/28/07 10:39 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
A 33% is a possible 66% het bred to a normal or any other glider that isn't a carrier. :-)
The percentage is basically the probability that the glider IS a carrier of a specific gene. IF the baby is from a het pairing, and isn't white.. then it kinda breaks down like this...
100x100 = 66% 100xleu=100% 100x50= 50-66% 50x50=25-33% 50xnormal=25% 66xnormal=33% 100xnormal=50%
100% hets must have a white parent or have had white joeys in the past. Anything less thatn 100% hets just has the possibility of carrying the gene until they prove out by having a white baby. Help any?
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: Lynsie]
#226572
03/01/07 01:13 AM
03/01/07 01:13 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Now,iam getting a WFB and 33% het for leucistic... If i were to pair her up with a wf and/or 100% leucistic, what would be the percentages of their joeys, if any? Would i have a good chance of getting a leucistic? I just recently started to think about breeding for colors, but i am still unsure of all these percentages!
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: Lynsie]
#226586
03/01/07 02:00 AM
03/01/07 02:00 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
thank you!
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#226590
03/01/07 02:06 AM
03/01/07 02:06 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
wow! I had asked a while back about this stuff, wow this is great.. makes your head spin but it's all worth it. Thanks for bringing this up. and thanks for that site up there too... all those numbers.... ahhhhh... I'm getting dizzzzzzzy
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: Lynsie]
#226593
03/01/07 02:19 AM
03/01/07 02:19 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Sorry Tanya, you missed some, lol.
Leu x 100= 100% Leu x 66= 100% Leu x 55= 100% Leu x normal= 100% 100 x 100 = 66% 100 x 66= 50-66% 100 x 50= 50-66% 100 x normal= 50% 66 x 66= 33% 50 x 66= 25-33% 50 x 50= 25% 66 x normal= 33% 50 x normal= 25%
Aaahh! Hahah, I'm going to have to add this thread to my favorites so I can refer back to it when I'm browsing websites! I did some searching online and found an old genetics calculator, but it doesn't come anywhere close to this much information!
|
|
|
Re: 66% het or ?
[Re: ]
#227099
03/02/07 03:21 AM
03/02/07 03:21 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Haha! Lynsie.. yeah, I was just putting out the basics. :-P
Question tho.. wouldn't two 50% crossed give you more than a 25%? Like somewhere between 25 and 33? A 50 x normal would give you 25..
|
|
|
|
Please click above to see how you can help!!
|
|
0 registered members (),
481
guests, and 95
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
Owner,
Admin
|
|
Forums132
Topics10,374
Posts159,161
posts in the last 24hrs0
Members7,324
|
Most Online2,693 Jan 2nd, 2020
|
|
This site was tested and is best
viewed in Google Chrome & Mozilla FireFox
Download your copy today!!!
|
|
|