Sugar Glider Community Calendar

Please click here to see larger view
Articles
More coming soon!!
Today's Birthdays
HeatherK329, Philbert12321
Member Spotlight
Feather
Feather
Wisconsin
Posts: 13,979
Joined: January 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Last 10 Posts
Gliders of the Round Table 10
by Ladymagyver. 03/28/24 09:57 PM
Logging in Problem
by Feather. 03/26/24 06:07 PM
Cloaca swollen?
by Hutch. 03/16/24 11:51 PM
Wheels, Toys, Toy supplies, pouches and more.
by Ladymagyver. 03/07/24 11:16 PM
Gliders of the Round Table 9
by Hutch. 03/07/24 10:52 PM
Stewie:" It's MY Mouse!"
by Hutch. 03/04/24 12:12 AM
2024 Sugar Glider Calendar and Cafe Press Store
by theresaw. 02/29/24 08:55 PM
Google+

Facebook
Join Us On Facebook
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56655
09/05/05 11:47 PM
09/05/05 11:47 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,749
80 acres of paradise in KS
Dancing Offline
Glideritis Anonymous
Dancing  Offline
Glideritis Anonymous

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,749
80 acres of paradise in KS
Het means heterozygos for a genetic trait
WFB means White Face Blonde, a color variation of gliders.


620-704-9109
Judge not until you have walked in their shoes and lived their lives. What you see online is only part of the story.

I could have missed the pain
But I'd of had to miss the dance


The soul would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears.
Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56656
09/05/05 11:59 PM
09/05/05 11:59 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Who cares lol...I think all of the gliders, even my funky looking Shrek...heehee...esp. the babies are BEAUTIFUL...I would like to see a Leu. in person though...that'd make my day :-D

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56657
09/06/05 12:42 AM
09/06/05 12:42 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
This is totally incorrect.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Ouch!

Ushuaia I know the W or w can't both be correct at the same time in the same individual.

I just showed all my abreviations for both scenarios at the same time. I think you used the small w where I used a small g.

I was trying to show two different scenarios, one where the WF trait was inherited as a dominant gene and the other where it is inherited as a recessive gene, and sort out whether you could come out with a grey het from two WF parents in either or both cases.

I think I only succeeded in confusing myself. In the most confusing scenario, I was trying to imagine whether you could get a WF baby in two different ways, one through recessive inheritance pattern and one through a completely separate dominant inheritance pattern. Then I was trying to imagine what would happen if you bred those two gliders.

I know there are certain diseases that have been shown to be passed down in either a dom or rec pattern.

Sorry if I caused more confusion. It's been a long time since college. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/upset.gif" alt="" />

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56658
09/06/05 02:03 AM
09/06/05 02:03 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Het means heterozygos for a genetic trait


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Het refers to a genetic sequence. We use term het losly to refer to a phenotype but this is an incorrect useage. When we say a glider is het for leucistic what we are refering to is the fact that the glider has one copy of the recessive form of the gene needed to make leucistic. Now if we use the same terminology to refer to a dominat allel as is suggested that WFB is, then a het for WFB would have to show the phenotype. A het for WFB would not look like a wild type.

I ment no disrespect, I was pointing out that you do not need to list normal as an allel, that is what capitals and lower case represent and it makes the punnance square incorrect. If you are trying to show what the percentages are for a WFB recessive assuming two genes I have worked out that in this post.

Doubly Dominat WFB Gene Theory

Since then I have determined through analysis of the pedigree that the evidence suggests the gene(s) are dominat.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56659
09/06/05 02:23 AM
09/06/05 02:23 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



wait.

If you say that a wf is dominant than 100% of their joeys would be wf unless it just so happens that you pair a Ww wf with a Ww...or rather using your examples.

You say that if a parent was Ww, which means the dominant gene W makes the glider a wf even though not both genes are a full dominant gene, and paired with another Ww than 66% of joeys would be wf? I get 50%. If you had one Ww with a WW then 100% would he wf because you would have a WW, Ww, WW, Ww. So now 50% have a recessive wf gene but still have the color, so then you pair those Ww together and get 50% wf and 50% normal. There is no 66%. It also means that 50% of the first pairing would be WW and paired together would produce 100% wfs that would be WW and produce 100% in the future.

What I'm saying is that there are many genes affecting this color. You can see this when you look at the color of the body with the wf. You can have all different body colors with the wf, so body color is just another set of genes. Just looking at the wf genes, isn't as simple as the two gene theory of WW/ww . Yes there are two genes that come together, one from each parent, but there are more than one set of genes making the color. So a het is just a wf that doesn't have all the correct genes to make the wf, but does have enough genes to reproduce the wf in its joeys if paired with another wf het that the missing genes needed to come together when mixed in the next generation to produce the wf. This is why some breeders have 2 hets producing wfs. It isn't common though because you would need to find two hets with different sets of genes that if combined would create the wf characteristic. Since you cannot see gene coding on a glider, this is impossible. I also think that hets tend to have a disposition towards certain sets of genes so that it is hard to find the rare het with the missing pieces needed to pair another het to. Using punnett squares for this will not help because that is for two genes only. The wf gene is not only two genes, otherwise the wf characteristic would be even more produced.

I also think that het with full wf pairs will produce equal numbers of wfs because one parent has the full set of genes to split with one who has some to most of the genes and produce wfs.

Last edited by SugarGliderfun; 09/06/05 02:24 AM.
Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56660
09/06/05 04:58 AM
09/06/05 04:58 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but, a few things should probably be straightened out.

It is NOT and never will be a PUNNANCE SQUARE. In all truth, if you're getting serious about genetics, this might be a bit important. It is named after a man who's last name is PUNNETT, the poor man is likely tossing in his grave right now. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just something that I see messed up over and over again by many many people, and this is one thing that I actually do know about genetics, lol. Pay tribute where it's due, the man probably worked his rear off.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

Dominate is a verb. DOMINANT is the appropriate adjective to be using when describing the behavior of an allele/gene/trait, whatever.
Again, no offense intended...

Does wfb have to be dominant or recessive? Maybe someone who knows more about genetics than I can shed some light on this question. I think that in some cases an allele may outrightly "trump" the other and overshadow it without question, but I'd have to imagine that there are cases that are a bit more flexible and dependent on a number of circumstances and factors. I might be totally wrong here.

Is it really a simple genetic interaction(i.e., two alleles per parent)? Or is it more complex, maybe more alleles are involved? I'm leaning towards the latter.

The theory that Mikey put forth in a post that I linked earlier in this thread makes logical sense of the patterns that are evident in whitefaced breedings. I'm not saying with absolute certainty that it is 100% correct, it just makes more sense than anything I've heard so far. Sugargliderfun seems to be on a similar page. I think that hets may have some of the allele combos that are responsible for the wf trait, just not all of the necessary combos so that the phenotype is expressed. That may be why "hets", in some rare cases do produce wf joeys.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />

Last edited by big ern!; 09/06/05 05:06 AM.
Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56661
09/06/05 10:17 AM
09/06/05 10:17 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
WFB = White faced blonde, a glider that has a whiter face than a regular grey because it does not have sidebars under it's ears which causes more white to show on the lower face. These white faced gliders are typically(not always) more blonde in color as well.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Isn't the white face the lacking of the bar under the ears.... the blonde is a color.. not lacking of a bar.

Gliders with a white face can then be different colors such as gray, blonde, cinnamon, and so forth.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56662
09/06/05 12:01 PM
09/06/05 12:01 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
What I'm saying is that there are many genes affecting this color. You can see this when you look at the color of the body with the wf. You can have all different body colors with the wf, so body color is just another set of genes. Just looking at the wf genes, isn't as simple as the two gene theory of WW/ww . Yes there are two genes that come together, one from each parent, but there are more than one set of genes making the color. So a het is just a wf that doesn't have all the correct genes to make the wf, but does have enough genes to reproduce the wf in its joeys if paired with another wf het that the missing genes needed to come together when mixed in the next generation to produce the wf. This is why some breeders have 2 hets producing wfs. It isn't common though because you would need to find two hets with different sets of genes that if combined would create the wf characteristic. Since you cannot see gene coding on a glider, this is impossible. I also think that hets tend to have a disposition towards certain sets of genes so that it is hard to find the rare het with the missing pieces needed to pair another het to. Using punnett squares for this will not help because that is for two genes only. The wf gene is not only two genes, otherwise the wf characteristic would be even more produced.

I also think that het with full wf pairs will produce equal numbers of wfs because one parent has the full set of genes to split with one who has some to most of the genes and produce wfs.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Sugargliderfun seems to be on a similar page. I think that hets may have some of the allele combos that are responsible for the wf trait, just not all of the necessary combos so that the phenotype is expressed. That may be why "hets", in some rare cases do produce wf joeys.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

KUDOS! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yelclap.gif" alt="" /> I'm glad I didn't have to post it this time. I think I've been trying to stress this since I first joined GC and wandered into these breeding forums, and I still do agree with the above statements made by Ern and Sugar whole-heartedly! TMarie is correct in saying that WF and WFB are two different terms that cannot be used interchangeably. We should really specify.

Ushuaia, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yelclap.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinkerg.gif" alt="" /> your proposals on genetics have always been intrigueing to read <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />, and your work and dedication towards your theoretical ventures are always so admirable <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/multi.gif" alt="" /> (it's always great to see folks that care just as much about the genetics). I just feel the WF or WFB phenotype may be slightly more complex than being merely a dominant trait. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept the presented data as sufficient evidence proving the WFB is truly dominant. Also, I think it would be impossible in my eyes and understanding of genetics to say at this point that there would be no such thing as a WFB het, when there is much evidence and theory that supports the existence of WF or WFB hets.

This is just my 2 cents...

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56663
09/06/05 02:22 PM
09/06/05 02:22 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,366
Quincy, IL 62305
Lynsie Offline
Serious Glideritis
Lynsie  Offline
Serious Glideritis

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,366
Quincy, IL 62305
I pass, too confussing for me, lol.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56664
09/06/05 03:00 PM
09/06/05 03:00 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
WFB = White faced blonde, a glider that has a whiter face than a regular grey because it does not have sidebars under it's ears which causes more white to show on the lower face. These white faced gliders are typically(not always) more blonde in color as well.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Isn't the white face the lacking of the bar under the ears.... the blonde is a color.. not lacking of a bar.

Gliders with a white face can then be different colors such as gray, blonde, cinnamon, and so forth.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Yes of course..... WF gliders can come in a number of colors and the blonde is certainly independent of the WF trait to a certain degree.
The poster posed the question "what is WFB?". The correct answer to that would be : white faced BLONDE, no?

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56665
09/06/05 03:07 PM
09/06/05 03:07 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



my point is that everyone calls every wf a wfb... no one distinguishes the difference ... well aside from me and a small group of others from what i've seen.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56666
09/06/05 03:53 PM
09/06/05 03:53 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



yes, very true.
Not all whitefaced gliders are blonde and often gliders that are whitefaced and not blonde are still called wfb.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56667
09/06/05 05:25 PM
09/06/05 05:25 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



i am so confused.... so there is no such thing as a het for a wfb?

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. [Re: ] #56668
09/06/05 07:34 PM
09/06/05 07:34 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Does this mean if I get a WFB, that any joey will be a WFB? I really do not understand all this het stuff.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. [Re: ] #56669
09/06/05 08:01 PM
09/06/05 08:01 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,874
St. Charles, IL
CD_Hanratty Offline
Glider Slave
CD_Hanratty  Offline
Glider Slave

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,874
St. Charles, IL
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> Is there such thing as a blonde glider? Not a WFB, just a blonde..?


Connor
Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56670
09/06/05 08:16 PM
09/06/05 08:16 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
If you say that a wf is dominant than 100% of their joeys would be wf unless it just so happens that you pair a Ww wf with a Ww...or rather using your examples.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No; Just because I say that the WF or WFB Gene(s) is(are) dominat that does not mean that it is homozygous WW. A WFB if it were a simple one gene trait could then be WW or Ww. I would say that most of the WFB gliders are the Ww if it is a simple one gene trait. It is breeding like a one gene dominat trait. Because if a WFB is placed with a normal then there is 50% chance it will be a WFB. This is not possible by any other genetic mechanism other than through the actions of a dominate gene. The probaility increases when tow WFB are placed together. the probabilities are then about 70% or better. If a glider is homozygous WFB then it can be bred to any glider with genes that are recessive to WFB and produce a WFB 100% of the time. That would mean the WFB glider would be WW.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
What I'm saying is that there are many genes affecting this color. You can see this when you look at the color of the body with the wf. You can have all different body colors with the wf, so body color is just another set of genes. Just looking at the wf genes, isn't as simple as the two gene theory of WW/ww . Yes there are two genes that come together, one from each parent, but there are more than one set of genes making the color.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

WF commonly refered to as a WFB is not a color variation it is a pattern variation. It is the lacking of a part of the pattern beneath the ear. It could be a localized type of leucistic in that just as a leucistic lacks all color except for the eyes WFB or WF gliders lack all of the color where the bar of the ear is. I want to make this clear that the genes that control leucistic and WFB are very different and WFB is NOT the precursor to leucistic. I am using leucistic as an example. Therefore to say it is a WF blone or a WF cinnamon or a WF grey is mute. They are all WF and the important gene that controls the lack of the bar beneath the ear is independant of the color of the glider. The fact that the WFB is an all or none gene also suggests that it is a simple one gene dominat.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
This is why some breeders have 2 hets producing wfs.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Only one breeder that I know of has ever claimed to have produced a WFB from two hets and this is far too few given the numbers of breeders breeding for this to do so for me to believe that this has ever occured. It would take a paternity test to confirm it.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56671
09/06/05 08:44 PM
09/06/05 08:44 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



I don't understand how a glider produced from a WFB x GREY pairing CANNOT have the gene for WFB in it, and therefore be a het. One parent had that gene. Can someone explain this?

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56672
09/06/05 09:09 PM
09/06/05 09:09 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,874
St. Charles, IL
CD_Hanratty Offline
Glider Slave
CD_Hanratty  Offline
Glider Slave

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,874
St. Charles, IL
i believe its because (if WF is dominant) it requires the grey gene from the mother and father to be grey, and therefor has no WF in it at all


Connor
Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56673
09/06/05 09:10 PM
09/06/05 09:10 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



But the mother or father also has WF in it... ?

What about grey gliders born to two WF parents? Are they not hets?

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56674
09/06/05 10:25 PM
09/06/05 10:25 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



You need to remember that a WF glider bred to a normal if the WFB gene is dominat only need to posses one copy of that gene to exhibit the color so that the parent could be either Ww or WW. More than likly the glider is a Ww. Now if the W is passed the joey will be WF but if the w is passed it will be wild type.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56675
09/06/05 11:12 PM
09/06/05 11:12 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



So, wild type is recessive to wf?
Is that what you're saying?

I just don't think it's as simple as you think it is.
I really think it's just not a purely dominant trait.

Can you or someone else answer this question for me?
Does a trait necessarily have to be assigned the title of either recessive or dominANT, or can it be neither? I'd imagine that most traits, whether they are phenotypically simple or not are probably governed by a few allele combinations. If not, evolution would be a far more rapid process, no?

Also, if it were as simple as you're stating, wouldn't a wf x standard breeding yield on average 50% wf offspring?
Why is this not consistent with the figures put forth by some breeders? I have heard from a number of breeders largely varying figures. Some have a wf x "het" breeding yielding almost 100% wf offspring. Others have a wf x "het" breeding yielding far less. With breedings of leucistics and leucistic hets we are seeing figures that are consistent with punnett squares which brings credibility and sureness to the fact that it is a simple recessive trait. This variation in the offspring as far as I know can only be accounted for by assuming that wf is controlled by a number of allele combinations.

If wf were a purely dominant trait, I'd have to think that it would have never been supposed at any point that wf was codominant by any of the breeders who have been breeding wf for years. I don't think that the nature of the genes causing the wf trait would have ever been speculated upon if it were a purely dominant trait caused by a simple 2 allele per parent genetic interaction. It would have been fairly obvious some time ago, don't you think? I understand your logic, but it just isn't covering all the bases and answering all the questions.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56676
09/07/05 01:55 AM
09/07/05 01:55 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The fact that the WFB is an all or none gene also suggests that it is a simple one gene dominat.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

There are genes that allow people to curl their tongue too. Some people can and some people can't, but there are numerous amounts of genes that determine this. This is why you can't assume that just because the pattern isn't showing doesn't mean there is only two genes coming together to control the outcome. Is there such things as leu hets? The leu gene is dominant or so I've heard, so does that mean that if a leu is not a leu that the joey is normal, or wild type which ever term you wish to use? No. There is such things as leu hets, which carry some to most of the leu genes that if combined with another leu het with opposing genes will create a leu. That has been proven. Just as a wf het and wf het creating a wf. I think that the wf being a pattern instead of a color is a bit more complicated, though and has more genes and possibilities to take into account which is why there are so few proofs of hets making a wf. And in science if something happens once, then it disproves a theory. Therefore, since it has happened once, hets do exist. I does not take millions of examples.

You cannot use the Punnett square on the wf trait because their are more than one gene affecting the pattern. If the genes are in the right sequence then you have the pattern showing, if some to most of the genes are in the sequence but some not causing the wf gene sequence to be incomplete, then the pattern will not show, BUT the joey will still have some to most of the genes that are in the sequence and can pass those genes to their offspring. If the genes this joey missing is present in a different het who is missing genes that the first joey has, then there is a possibility that both hets can produce the needed sequence. Why there are so few het x het combos making wfs is because I think there is a propensity for a certain broken gene sequence so that it is hard to find two hets with opposing genes. And how can you know you've found them anyway since you cannot see genes, only the lack of all of them when the wf is not showing. I believe that a wf het does have some to most of the necessary genes to throw a wf if paired with the perfect mate, therefore, I believe there is such things as wf hets.


On a side note; big ern I think you are focusing on small things bringing up the Punnett square, dominate/dominant thing. No offence but I think they are more typing errors than anything. If I make a typing error sorry. I type fast and this topic can excite the unknown waunderer into a fit of crazy typing. I do agree that terms are important, but lets not judge an argument on punctuation.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56677
09/07/05 04:14 AM
09/07/05 04:14 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
On a side note; big ern I think you are focusing on small things bringing up the Punnett square, dominate/dominant thing. No offence but I think they are more typing errors than anything. If I make a typing error sorry. I type fast and this topic can excite the unknown waunderer into a fit of crazy typing. I do agree that terms are important, but lets not judge an argument on punctuation.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I'm not referring to you Sugargliderfun?

Punctuation isn't a big deal to me, but if someone does not correctly use terms, then it causes me to doubt the credibility of the person using the terms. For instance, when someone refers to a Punnett square on a consistent basis as a Punnance square, or when they refer to a gene as being dominat/dominate rather than dominant it makes me wonder if I should really be taking in what they are saying as truth. This also leads me to believe that it is not a typo that is the result of being excited. Genetics is far more complicated than spelling and grammar. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you needed me to clarify. I also wonder why people aren't taking the info in that others provide to improve their use of terms? The way that I use terms is a dead give away that I'm a total genetics novice. If someone told me that the way I was using terms was incorrect, I'd be all ears, I really barely know what I'm talking about!

In actuality I'm in agreement with most of the stuff you're saying Sugargliderfun. You're one of the few people that's on the same page. So you know, leucistic is a recessive trait, not dominant <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL [Re: ] #56678
09/07/05 04:42 AM
09/07/05 04:42 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



As noted by many above - Genetics can be confusing. Mendel had the advantage of using peas that yielded many hundreds of progeny in a short period of time that could be counted. He was lucky to have studied two traits that each follow simple Mendelian inheritance. This allows one to determine nice percentages that are validated with big numbers. Those percentages can help make conclusions about patterns of inheritance. Unfortunately, we don't have the power of big numbers in glider color Genetics. There are also other problems. Some thoughts about issues in this thread:

1 - Everything I have read here assumes simple Mendelian inheritance, and mostly directed at a single gene. Not all genes sort or are expressed in that fashion. Multiple gene inheritance was suggested as an alternative theory. In addition, there can be X-linked genes, Co-dominant genes, other gene linkages, multiple alleles of the one gene expressing a common phenotype such that they do not do as expected (perhaps not all WFB phenotypes are the same genotype), variable penetrance of genotypes, multi-factorial inheritance, etc. There are many possibilities to explain some of what is being seen, and with low numbers it will be difficult to prove or disprove many of them.

2 - There has been some assumptions of genotype based on phenotype. That's dangerous. One can't make theories of patterns of inheritance and draw conclusions assuming the answer to unknown information. </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I have looked at part of the WFB geneology, it is commonly known that a WFB can be bred to a totally normal glider that is known not to have relatives up the line that are WFB and produce WFB gliders, it therefore can be concluded with a very high degree of certainty that the WFB gene(s) is(are) in fact dominate. It is true that the WFB gene may be in fact more than one genes working in cohort to produce the variation but examining the family trees of this variation makes it clear that this(these) gene(s) is(are) dominant.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Not at all clear, or even a logical conclusion. In particular we can't assume that wild type gliders do not carry a recessive WFB gene. Just because we haven't seen the expression of WFB in several generations of wild type gliders doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact, it is strong circumstantial evidence of WFB being a recessive gene in low frequency in the gene pool. A good example is cystic fibrosis in humans. Many families have no known affected individuals for many, many generations. If the WFB gene was recessive and very rare, especially if breeders were good at selecting unrelated mates, one might go a long time before a big surprise WFB showed up by the chance mating of two WFB hets not known to be WFB hets but assumed homozygous gray gliders like most other wild types. The WFB's we have in the USA had to come from somewhere. Ushuaia's comment that WFB might have been around and gone unrecognized is interesting to consider.

3 - In a general sense, the wild type phenotype tends to be expressing dominant genes. What do most of the gliders look like? What you see mostly tends to be the dominant gene getting expressed if there is a recessive gene out there in the pool.

4 - If entertaining a recessive single gene theory for WFB, the observation that a WFB X WFB mating yielded a wild type phenotype should negate that theory if parentage is certain absent a spontaneous gene mutation. One case might be explained by a mutation. A few would make mutation extremely unlikely and lead to a new theory.

5 - Conversely, a WFB joey appearing to wild type parents of regular breeding (not looking for WFB and no WFB in the known pedigree) does not rule out the possibility of a single recessive WFB gene. See # 2 above.

6 - Several of the breeders who have WFB gliders also have Leucistics, often mixed in. Color inheritance can be multi-factorial in other species. The possibility of another gene being inherited in WFB and WFB hets that have leucistic blood in their ancestry that affects color expression cannot be overlooked.

It's late, but this is an interesting puzzle. In signing off, anybody know how to tell a female chromosome from a male chromosome? Pull their genes down!

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominant. *DEL [Re: ] #56679
09/07/05 10:15 AM
09/07/05 10:15 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Oh man. I think this thread has caused more confusion than anything. *sigh* I have to be honest.

I'm just going to say that I've read through this thread and Ushuaia I must say that much of your definitive conclusions are not backed up by solid facts, i.e. consistent breeding data (look at all the folks who have pointed out glider breedings that contradict your theory), and are assumptions based on evidence that isn't the strongest, or atleast isn't very consistent.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
1 - Everything I have read here assumes simple Mendelian inheritance, and mostly directed at a single gene. Not all genes sort or are expressed in that fashion. Multiple gene inheritance was suggested as an alternative theory. In addition, there can be X-linked genes, Co-dominant genes, other gene linkages, multiple alleles of the one gene expressing a common phenotype such that they do not do as expected (perhaps not all WFB phenotypes are the same genotype), variable penetrance of genotypes, multi-factorial inheritance, etc. There are many possibilities to explain some of what is being seen, and with low numbers it will be difficult to prove or disprove many of them.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, at least I didn't say it this time! Gliders are not pea plants!!!

Ushuaia, a valiant attempt at drawing a genetics conclusion of sorts but the various errs in your scientific analysis can be dangerous.

For one thing, (the disadvantage of the promotion of false principles aside) should your conclusions be incorrect, propogating the fact that WFB (and No there is no evidence that the bar missing on the white face and body colour is monitored by a gene at a single locus, so you cannot say with certainty that the glider's face and body are controlled by the same gene, as evidence in the breedings show that head pattern and body pattern act independently of eachother with no particular pattern in phenotypic ratios in breedings to say that they are linked, so WF is indeed a different term from WFB and WFG etc, and if you like I can explain that to you further in PM, as well) may have a negative impact on various things like breeder's choices in breeding pairings (losing what could be potential successful WF breeding projects), pricing of actual HET gliders as normal greys, and others.

I've held back from participating in this thread because I don't want to it to turn sour, but I can tell you Ushuaia that there are several elements in your reasoning that are incorrect. If you like I can PM you and show you where you err. It is why many on here have now become more confused in their undertsanding of the glider genetics in light of what they've seen in breedings of "blah" with "blah".

I have already expressed in the past that if you're going to delve into the complex world of colour genes and more specifically genes dealing with pigment, that you're likely going to end up with a HUGE complex battallion of problems that may not be readily solvable without actually looking into the genes at the electron microscopic level. Yes, there are simple instances where colour inheritance is fairly straight forward and "by the basics", but there are much more instances where colour genes get complicated, and incase you haven't noticed yet, gliders definitely fall under that category (with regards to the WF phenotype, anyway).

It's why geneticists spend years and years of schooling, study, and lab work. The scientific field is one that is both complex and highly involved and it's why I feel, and always have felt, that if the mysteries of these glider genes are to be cracked without actually bringing the genes to the lab, then the next best thing is to simply gather as much breeding data as possible (i.e. participate in Big_Ern's registry) and we can use deductive reasoning to attempt as guessing what is going on genetically. Even then we aren't guaranteed to find any answers. It's like shaking a contraption and attempting at guessing what's inside and how it works.

(Ushuaia, don't think for one second that I don't believe you're apt or qualified enough to be drawing genetics conclusions on your own, as it's obvious you have a thorough knowledge of general genetics principles; I'm only pointing out that the reason things may be getting sticky in this case, is because the genetics of WF are likely even more complex that you've currently deemed it)

I presented in the past one plausible and hypothetical model ( Here ) that attempts to illustrate what may be going on with the WF genetics with regards to breedings, however the key thing is it doesn't go into any specifics (because again, in my informed opinion we simply don't have the sufficient data as of yet to be doing so) nor draws any conclusions as definite as the two in this thread (i.e. no wfb het/ wfb is dominant); it does attempt to demystify and explain several things that I feel is likely happening on the genetic level based on what I've been observing from people's WF breedings, while still leaving the model open to the possibility of any other genetic variables (like incomplete dominance, multiple allele factor, gene linkage, several alleles functioning together, multiple genotypic identities for WF as is seen in the often similar eye shades of fruit flies that have several genotypic eye colour ID's). Whatever the case, I think the most important thing about the model is that one thing is clear - the genes aren't simplex by any means - and I can tell you one thing, the WF or WFB will not turn out to be a simple genotype in the least and I feel very strongly about that hypothesis.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominant. *DEL [Re: ] #56680
09/07/05 09:22 PM
09/07/05 09:22 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Hey Mikey_Bustos
Sorry if I touched a nerve. I didn't even know there was a debate about whether gliders were pea plants.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Again, at least I didn't say it this time! Gliders are not pea plants!!!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I only wanted to point out that many human and glider genes will behave and distribute like simple Mendelian genetics would explain. Other genes are more complicated and will not. WFB may well be one of the latter.

I love that Ushuaia is asking questions. That makes us all think and learn. It takes guts to throw it out there. It is also hard to respectfully disagree without sounding like a flamer on a board sometimes. I don't agree with his theory that WFB is dominant. I could be wrong, but lots of evidence favors that it isn't dominant.

Ushuaia, Einstein said something like theory precedes all learning or knowledge. Picking holes in a theory leads to better ideas and stimulates learning. It isn't a sadistic feeding frenzy or attack. If the theory is solid, it'll hold up. If not, it ought to crump. The reason why we don't progress faster is insufficient creativity to think up new and wild ideas to check out. I'm a limited sort. God made me a "pick-it-apart' analyzer. Can't help it. A "what's wrong wit this picture" sort. It helps me figure out sick patients, but it's hard on the family. I like the open mind displayed. Keep it up.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominant. *DEL [Re: ] #56681
09/08/05 01:10 PM
09/08/05 01:10 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



HAHAHA! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> No-no, I was agreeing with you, Schlep. I was saying gliders likely don't follow simple Mendellian inheritence principles with regards to coat colour (which I find myself repeating over and over again in these forums, so I was glad you along with Big_Ern and Sugarforfun have voiced it), like pea plant colour does. I was applauding your quote. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yelclap.gif" alt="" /> LOL!

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

There are no WFB hets!!! [Re: ] #56682
09/08/05 04:04 PM
09/08/05 04:04 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Ok I agree that they are not pea pods, That being said its not molecular biology.

The Facts are this their are currently over 200 WFB & WF out there and maybe more that people that arent on GC have. All of the 200 that have been produced being WFB or WF have all been produced by either one wfb or wf Parent and a wildtype or 2 wfb bred together.

Not one PROVEN WFB has been born from 2 hets I can tell you that there are the same amount if not more Hets (supposed hets) out there. That being said I have 4 hets that I have purchased and not a 0ne has produced a WFB. Yes I know that there have been cases of breeding a WFB to a HET and you produced WFB but once again you had a WFB parent.

All I'm saying is this if we approach this but Offsprings produced. WFB or WFG are Co-dominant plain and simple by using the facts that we know and the offsprings produced.

So if anyone were to ask me I would say that with the information that is out there, WFB Hets currently do not exsist. The whole pea pod theory is great but a marsupial isnt a pea pod, and there is genetic information out there on marsupials. Why is it that we are trying to make a marsupials genetic makeup the unsolveable puzzle. The information is right infront of us.

Luecistic Resessive

Luecistic bred normal (AKA Wildtype) = 100% Luecistics

100%het luecistic bred 100% luecistic = Luecistic and 66% Hey luecistics (PROVEN)

White Tipped Recessive

White Tipped Gliders bred WildType = 100% Het WT

100%het WT bred 100%het WT = White Tips and 66%het WT

Black Beauty Co-dominant

BB bred to wildtype = Black Beauty's and wildtype (Het for nothing)

Lion Co-dominant

Lion bred to wildtype = Lion and Wildtype (aka Het for nothing)

White Face Blonde/WF Co-Dominant

WFB bred to wildtype = wfb or wf and wildtypes (AKA het for nothing)

[:"red"]This statement is being made by the information that is infront of us and solely based on that information.[/]

Cinnamon, Buttercream, champagne, ringtail, mosaics, sunkissed and other color variations have not been as black and white as the ones listed above.

Once again if someone has other information please let the general public know.

Please keep the White face Blonde and the White Face information coming. I will be posting it soon so everyone can see what I am referring to.

Also I am sending out a seperate email to the breeders that I know but for all of you that have WFB and breed them could you please send me the info as well whether or not they are WFB or they produced Normal greys

Thanks
M

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! [Re: ] #56683
09/09/05 01:55 AM
09/09/05 01:55 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Black Beauty Co-dominant

BB bred to wildtype = Black Beauty's and wildtype (Het for nothing)

Lion Co-dominant

Lion bred to wildtype = Lion and Wildtype (aka Het for nothing)

White Face Blonde/WF Co-Dominant

WFB bred to wildtype = wfb or wf and wildtypes (AKA het for nothing)

This statement is being made by the information that is infront of us and solely based on that information.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
I am totally confused as to how you arrived at these conclusions.
The definition of codominance taken from my zoology textbook :
[:"blue"] A condition in which each allele maintains its distinctive homozygous expression in the heterozygous condition, not a blending of separate homozygous phenotypes. [/]

I'm not understanding how this could be applicable in these color situations?

I'd be more inclined to think that there are gene sequences responsible for more or less color produced in different areas of a glider's body. In animals, the few phenotypes I've found in my personal research that are a sure result of codominance are animals like Roan cattle which have mottled and patchy fur color.

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! [Re: ] #56684
09/09/05 01:56 AM
09/09/05 01:56 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



WisconsinGlider,

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Ok I agree that they are not pea pods, That being said its not molecular biology.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually, if you're referring to genetics, genes and DNA are very much so molecular biology! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm sure you're aware that DNA is an acronym for deoxyribonucleic acid, and its double helix structure is secured by a series of hydrogen bonds between purines and pyrimidines, phosphodiester linkages, etc. The information in DNA is in the sequence of bases (like thymine, etc). Phosphorus and oxygen atoms comprise the helical backbones of the DNA molecular structure, which also contains nitrogen & carbon (in the bases), and hydrogen, etc. During gamete production (oogenesis and spermatogenesis, a process which differs from ordinary cellular mitosis) when DNA is "unzipped" and transcribed it involves are very complex process of enzymes and such, causing a series molecular reactions to occur. The same applies to gamete union or meiosis as it does cellular mitosis. Genetics is VERY much so molecular biology!

Infact, what we're mostly delving into here (in this thread) is genetics inheritance theory, and it's only a small portion of the broad and complex scientific field known as genetics.

However, if your point was to illustrate that genetics can be simple and straight forward, then yes I agree that it can, but I feel it's premature to state with certainty that the WF (or WFB) phenotype falls under that category of "straight forward" genetics. Considering, as you have mentioned, WisconsinGlider, that there are probably many more folks who own WF glider and aren't part of GC, how can we determine for sure that no one has produced a WF glider (i.e. WF homozygote) from two WF glider hets. What if there is someone out there who has, or even a few? That few is critical to the issue in question, because if there is someone (or a few someones) out there who has(/have) produced a WF glider from two WF hets, then the knowledge that a "WF HET+HET = WF HOMO" breeding CAN happen and that it happens RARELY would speak volumes in terms of the true nature of the WF phenotype.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Feather, KarenE, Ladymagyver 

Sugar Glider Help Page



Please click above to see how you can help!!

Moon
CURRENT MOON
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 520 guests, and 91 spiders.
Key: , , Owner, Admin
Newest Members
Mellefrl, klowvrrr, gracefulguardian, KiyokoTheDoll, Hazelneko
7324 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums132
Topics10,374
Posts159,161
posts in the last 24hrs0
Members7,324
Most Online2,693
Jan 2nd, 2020
Last 10 New Topics
Logging in Problem
by Anonymous. 03/24/24 11:43 AM
Gliders of the Round Table 10
by Hutch. 03/07/24 10:50 PM
Cloaca swollen?
by Mellefrl. 03/04/24 02:39 PM
2024 Sugar Glider Calendar and Cafe Press Store
by theresaw. 08/15/23 02:37 PM
Stewie:" It's MY Mouse!"
by Ladymagyver. 05/25/21 09:57 AM
Gliders of the Round Table 9
by Hutch. 02/12/19 11:35 PM
Popular Topics(Views)
849,658 TEXAS
679,107 OHIO
487,230 OKLAHOMA
432,232 UTAH
321,758 NORTH CAROLINA
Supported Browser
This site was tested and is best viewed in Google Chrome & Mozilla FireFox



Firefox 3

Download your copy today!!!
Home Forums Links Sitemap Vets Breeders Sounds Contact Us Names Rules & Policies

GliderCENTRAL
©1998-2024
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software
(Release build 20180918)
Page Time: 0.060s Queries: 14 (0.018s) Memory: 1.5017 MB (Peak: 1.9022 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2024-03-29 11:00:49 UTC