Lethal Genes- bring on the experts!

[Vyxxin]

Mish- good point, not saying it's anything more than a conspiracy theory and honestly, I'm not promoting conspiracy theory...though there'd be more reason to hide a homo black than a homo beige (especially back then) I DO NOT truly believe this is the case...I believe it just hasn't been thoroughly investigated or if it has...the "evidence" that I'd like to study (not critique) is long gone...I really would LOVE to see the records and stats...not to dispute...I loved seeing the studies Kline did and published in her book...it's enlightening

Tab- thanks for clarifying, honestly thought you were trying to be snide and I'm following the answers pretty well...which is why I brougth the subject up...figured someone on here could help!

Spoof- on the comment about propaganda causing less people to breed, that was a present tense thing...propaganda of the past causing less today...which is why we have less current info on the matter and I WAS asking, this is the point of this thread...not to dispute as everyone seems to think I'm trying overly hard at...I'm exhausting options indeed but am listening as well and hoping to gain info out of it...OH, and who would you recommend I ask outside of the forum? I LOVE calling people up to discuss this kind of thing...have in several instances called up ranchers from across the country (and out of the country) to discuss stuff such as AI and anything else that there isn't a LOT of recent record on

 

[KissThis]

One comment for clarification, it is much easier to disprove that an animal is homozygous for a color gene than it is to prove that it is. Ie it is easier to prove that an animal is heterozygous that it is to prove that it is homozygous. For example, as soon as a BV animal produces a grey kit, you know that the parent only has 1 copy of the BV gene and so is heterozygous. It is also possible, though unlikely, for a BV animal to produce 49 offspring that are BV but then have the 50th one be grey. In which case it is still a heterozygous animal.

I am willing to chat genetics or science with anyone that is interested. All I require is some curiosity and an open mind. Genetics and inheritance patterns are pretty well establish across species, it makes no sense to think that just because a species hasn't been as rigorously studies as others that is may display an entirely different inheritance pattern.

 

[arf2184]

This is just a theory, but on the issue of BV being homozygous...since BV in an accumulative mutation, can we theorize that there are many genes involved in creating the mutation? If so, wouldn't we then need several if not all of those genes to be homozygous in order to have a "homo BV"?

ETA: I don't know as much about genetics as I'd like, but this makes sense to me. Curious to hear other peoples thoughts.

 

[mishalaa]

The black mutation is not accumulative, it is a simple dominant. It is homozygous lethal. The black mutation IS a modifier of veiling - the appearance of the chin depends on both the presence of the black gene and the veiling genes it has. Veiling is a polygenic, cumulative trait.

 

[RDZCRanch]

What Mish said, TOV is not an accumulative gene. The accumulative genes are the genes that enhance the veiling to bring it from the grotzen down the sides of the animal and all the way across the face.