GliderCENTRAL

The WF Dominance Theory **

Posted By: Anonymous

The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/04/05 01:47 AM

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 certanty that the WFB gene(s) is(are) infact dominate. That being said if you have a glider that is out of a WFB that does show the trait then it does not carry any part of the gene to make WFB and therefore it cannot be considered a het. It is true that the WFB gene may be infact 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) dominat.
Posted By: Dancing

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 01:54 AM

What about the two WFB hets that produce WFB joeys?????? Or even the WFB het and a normal grey producing a WFB joey?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 02:06 AM

But if a WFB and a grey produce a grey isn't it the same to say that they grey overuled the WFB trait that time? I dont know. And then you can get what Dancing was saying before...right??
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 02:32 AM

Really...? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Ushuaia, please do share your analysis of the geneologies, and your reasoning for such conclusions.

This could get interesting! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 02:40 AM

Actually I don't recall anyone producing wfjoeys with two hets . Has anyone?
Posted By: Dancing

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 02:49 AM

Krystal, that would be the question wouldn't it! IF a WFB joey has been produced from two "hets" (or one het and one normal), then there are wf hets.
Posted By: agilitygliders

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 03:03 AM

Yes I do recall Sheila mentioning in one of my post that yes there has been a pair of wfb hets thats had a wfb baby. I think we need more info before we can rule out the possible wfb het.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 04:36 AM

Okay, here's my understanding, not being a breeder, but having had some genetics education.

If a WFB were produced from a WFB "het" and a normal grey, I think that would have to mean that both were actually hets. If the WFB gene were dominant, the supposed het would have shown the WFB characteristic. If it were not dominant, the supposed normal grey would have had to contribute a WFB gene in order for the joey to show the WFB characteristic, right?

If two apparent normal greys produce a WFB, I think that would have to mean that they were both hets and the WFB characteristic is recessive.

All of this could be out the window if multiple genes are involved.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 04:41 AM

I think it was Flying Fur Ranch who had the wfb from 2 het parents. I've only heard this from a lot of people.

So Ushaia even from 2 wfb parents the joey wouldn't be concidered a het? From what I have heard the FFR hets were 100% meaning both of the grand parents were wfbs. Again I have only heard this so I don't know for sure!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/04/05 07:09 AM

I will demonstrate with an example from the WFB line. Mother of Noel is a Cinnamon Father of Noel is a Normal. There is no indications that Noel carries the WFB gene because no other relatives have shown it. That means that noel is a normal possibly a cinnamon het. Cereal (WFB) is bred to Hera (Normal) and has Frodo (WFB) Noel and Frodo have two WFB joeys Boogie and Bailey. Now for this to be a recessive gene Noel would have had to of carried the WFB gene. The odds that he could have it deminish the further from the homozygote ancestor. Since there are no WFB's in his immediate line it is very unlikly that he carries the gene. He is just a cinnamon het normal as they come, nothing to indicate that he or any of his ancestors carry the WFB gene. I can give a lot of other examples of this. I have purchased a WFB. I will be breeding it to a glider that absolutly does not have any distant ancestors that showed the WFB trait. When WFB joeys are produced that will further validate my conclusion. Now that I have established that the WFB gene(s) is(are) dominat basic high school genetics will tell you that only those that show the phenotype carry the gene. Inessence they are Heterozygote if they show the trait, so I guess I was wrong about that because a heterozygote references a genetic sequence not a trait; however I am nearly certian that there are no indications of this gene being recessive and as such those that are selling gliders as hets that do not show the coloration are infact selling normal gliders that do not carry any part of the gene(s) necessary to make the WFB.

There has never been any proof that such a glider has ever been produced and if it has or even if it was possible there have been too few such reports to give any validity to that one. WFB has been bred as long as leucistics have and we are already seeing a lot of hets producing hets for leucistic. If it were possible to produce WFB from two "normal looking hets" then there would have been a lot more produced and we would be seeing more ads on GC or other boards. The fact that there are only two or three cases that have not and can not be validated only serves to suggest that there was never any WFB produced and that what is more likly is that a breeder has mistaken his gliders, was lied to about the origins of the parents, or is lying or confused about the origins of the WFB.

Also in terms of the percentages that the joeys of WFB X normals are being produced suggests a single gene dominat, not that it cannot be multiple genes.

From what breeders have told me:

WFB X WFB will produce a WFB about 70%
WFB X Normal will prodcue a WFB about 50%

If it is a single dominat gene then WFB X WFB = WFB ~ 3/4 or 75% and WFB x Normal = WFB ~ 2/4 or 50%. What is needed is a series of lines that list all offspring out of a pair. It would be best to have pairs that have had 10 or more joeys. Then we can seperate the pairs into two classes, the WFB X WFB class and the WFB X Normal class. We then total the cumulative anount of WFB that each class has produced and divide it by the cumulative amount of normals the class has produced. Then compare the ratios of the two classes. This will give a more accurate representation of what has been produced. I have talked with Judie Hausmann and have gotten this information from her. One of her WFB X WFB has had a total of 11 joeys of which 2 were normal. This makes the WFB percent 81.8% to date for the pair. This information should be combined with lines of similar sizes to give a more accurate overall percentage. Whereas a Normal X WFB of her line is 5:2 and 5:3 (WFB:Normal) which works out to about 60% and 40% WFB joeys. The geneology is important, but what is more important is getting every glider born out of a pair rather than listing only the WFB joeys, as this will tell you nothing about the overall liklihood for the pair to produce WFB joeys.

Sorry about the two deleted posts I wanted to consolodate my replies into one post.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DELETED* - 09/04/05 07:16 AM

Post deleted by Ushuaia
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/04/05 11:15 PM

I think the WF line has a lot of surprises in it for us to discover still. It's just going to take many breeders working together to find out all that it has to offer!

Looking forward to reading more about this.
Posted By: SweetGliders

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 01:11 AM

Ushuaia,
I have 2 normal colored parents who neither one have the white tip tail. But have together produced a white tip tail joey. (I have that joey) So wouldn't that mean they are het's for white tip and they would pass that gene onto their offspring(s)? I would say these parents are het for WTT.

Or

I also have 2 white tip tail parents who both have white tips on their tails and they produced a normal colored joey, is this baby a het for WT or a normal? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nixweiss.gif" alt="" />


Anita <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/heartpump.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 01:24 AM

I don't know about this. If wfb was Dominant then a Wfb x wfb would equal 100% wfb offspring. Because it doesn't there are more than one gene affecting the wfb trait. If more than one gene is affecting the coloration, that means there is a possiblity that some of the genes are dominant and will show up more while others could be recessive and show up less. But, all the genes have to affect each other in a certain way to create the wfb color, so a het is just a wfb that doesn't have all the proper genes, but has some to most of them so that if two hets were together and had the gene combination that would allow for the offspring to have all the correct genes to produce the wf color, then two hets could produce a wfb joey. This is rare though because we cannot see what hets have what genes so that we can pair them up correctly.

I think I garbled this explanation but my thoughts is that some of the wf genes are dominant but others needed to create the wf are not and so make two wfb parents not have a 100% chance of producing wfb joeys. Which also means not all hets are normal greys, even though some may be. They just have to be paired with the perfect het to produce the wf gene.
Posted By: CD_Hanratty

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 01:56 AM

This is my view of looking at it

Brown hair is dominant in humans over blonde. Lets say a brown-headed man marries a blonde woman... If they have a child, (and the man had say.. a blonde mother) then there's a 50% chance that the kid will be blonde. If the kid is blonde.. it has NO gene for brown hair, because it required the blonde trait and the blonde trait.

Now lets compare this to sugar gliders

A WFB and a Grey mate. You're saying that WFB is dominant. If the WFB has a grey in it's family anywhere along the line, theres a 50% chance the joey will be grey. If it is grey, it has NO het what-so-ever for WFB.

I've drawn something up to show you better.


The ones circled in red are the ones we were just talking about.

The ones circled in blue are the ones that will show the trait.


H stands for brown
h stands for blonde

H stands for WFB
h stands for grey

we know that the grey has no gene for WFB, because WFB is dominant.

Attached File
450899-geneticschart.bmp  (45 downloads)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 05:27 AM

Well I would like to say that I think your getting Dominant and Co-Dominant a little confused.

Dominant when bred to wild type would produce all WFB

Co-Dominant when bred to Wild type would produce WFB and Wild Types (AKA het for nothing)

As I have been assembling the ancestry that is exactly what I was realizing. Which is why now when I see the 66% reference because it was bred to a luecistic made no sense when i replied to you before.

I have just contact a fellow friend that works with genetics and I'm going to donate a glider to get the actual pheno profile as well as markers.

M
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 06:51 AM

If two gliders that are bred together that are normal looking produce a phenotype that is not of the wild type then yes it is recessive, that says nothing for how many genes are needed, nor if it sex related, ect...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
If wfb was Dominant then a Wfb x wfb would equal 100% wfb offspring. Because it doesn't there are more than one gene affecting the wfb trait.

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

No; You are not taking into account the structure of DNA. DNA is dipliod. It contains two copies of every allel. One from one parent one from another. Because of this only one parent needs to pass on the allel for WFB while the other parent can pass on an allel for wild type this would still produce a WFB. Therefore a WFB glider can have the genetic sequence of Ww or WW where W is the gene for WFB. A Ww can then pass either the W or the w. If the W is passed it will be a WFB joey. If the w is passed it will be a normal wild type joey. Therefore a Ww WFB glider can have normal or WFB joeys.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 02:48 PM

Chris, I would go along with this except for 2 things. When you pair 2 WFB's, some times you get hets and a WFB has been produced from 2 hets (contact SugarGliderExress for details)...
Posted By: Sheila

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 02:56 PM

Cindy Bartholomew with Sugar Glider Express has produced a wfb female this last spring from two hets. These two hets had blonde grandparents and greatgrandparents on both sides. Cindy is in the New Orleans Area and I don't know when she will be avaiable for questions. I did see a picture of the joey. I would also like to pose the question if a glider can have a c0-dominate trait with a recessive gene. An example of another color would be a ringtail that is 100% het for Leucistic.
Posted By: melovesgliders

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 04:24 PM

What Ushuaia is saying sounds correct genetically, but now I do not know since there has been a wfb joey from two normal looking "hets." It might be more complicated than we think. Before we rule out the dominance or recessiveness of this gene, we probably need to hear from the person who has the wfb joey from two normal "hets." Also, with a trait that is codominant, both traits show up at the same time, with one that is incompletely dominant it is a mixture of the two (ex: white x red flowered plant gives pink flowered plants). I am not sure it is safe to say just yet that this trait is either codominant or incompletely dominant until we have further information from breeders on which gliders produce wfb joeys. I am very interested in hearing more about this!!
Posted By: agilitygliders

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 04:41 PM

I think we have some years ahead of us before we can rule out WFB hets. Here is what I am thinking. Since we all love WFBs there are more WFBs being bred than there are WFB hets being bred to other hets. There is a higher demand for the WFB. What we need to research now are breeders that are breeding het to het, or start out a program that only is dominated by wfb hets. If we don't do this we really can't rule out the possibility thats these guys have the gene. This is just what I am seeing. I have a pair of wfb possible hets together and I am sure a lot of other breeders do also. WE just have to keep close documentation on this and see what we come up with over time. Numbers, i agree can tell us a lot. But we are dealing with mother nature here and there is never anything normal about that, Stuff happens and we can make predictions but we are never certain. I hope this kinda made just a little sense.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 06:25 PM

I sure wish that someone who has produced a wf out of two hets would come forward with some proof! I know Cindy is going through a really rough time right now(:hug2 's to her!)so she probably won't be able to answer this question, but I know others claim to have produced a wf out of two hets... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Another question I have is, how did the wf trait orginally come about? Who bred the wf originally? Did the lines that exist now develop separately? Or did they start from the same line and then get bred out?

I think Mikey explained it well in his theory of what is happening genetically with wf breedings in this post HERE!
Scroll down and you'll see the post by him <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: SkyBlueGliders

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 06:41 PM

I have a WFB Het x Wfb Het Pairing!.....The Male has 1 WFB parent and the Female has 2 Wfb parents. They have produced 2 standard Gray joeys earlier this year.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 08:45 PM

Skyblue, are you saying the female of this pair is normal grey color, but both of her parents are WFB's? That would seem to indicate that the WFB gene is dominant.

I'm going to write this out as I recall genetics 101 explaining it using the following abbreviations:
W= dominant WF gene
w= recessive WF gene
G= Dominant normal grey gene
g= recessive normal grey gene

Ignoring what the pair you are talking about has, and just looking at the female you have from two WF parents, I think this is the only way she could have turned out normal grey if both her parents are WFB's:

Scenario 1: Wg (her mom) + Wg (her dad) = gg (your female, not a het).
or
Scenario 2: ww (her mom) + Wg (her dad) = wG (this is really messed up, though because it assumes one type of WF gene which is dominant (dad's) and another type which is recessive (mom's), but the g from her dad becomes a G when paired with the w from her mom by assuming dad's g is dominant over the recessive (mom's) form of the WF gene. I know there's not much chance of anyone following that. I think the first scenario is more likely.

In the first scenario, there was a 75% chance of them having WF babies because the possible combinations would have been:
Wg (WF glider, het for WF and grey), WW (WF glider homogenous for WF), gg (Normal grey, homogenous for grey), gW (same as the first one, WF glider het for WF and grey)

The above is showing the WF gene as being dominant, with both parents as hets, with the grey gene being recessive compared to the WF gene.


Okay, separate scenario: If the WF gene were recessive and you bred a WF to a WF, they would both have to be homogenous for the recessive WF gene and would therefore have 100% WF babies:

ww + ww = ww

If you assume the WF gene is recessive, you would get a WF joey (shows WF characteristic) from two WF hets (normal grey color) 25% of the time:

wG + wG = ww (WF joey), wG (grey het), Gw (grey het), and GG (grey homogenous).

This is all assuming a simple "genetics 101" inheritance pattern, with only one set of genes controlling the characteristic. That is not necessarily the case. It could take several combinations to produce the characteristic. I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who has never dabbled in any glider breeding. As far as gliders go, I only know what I've read on this board. Just my 2 cents. Hope it helps.

P.S. SBG, there may be some recessive WF genes and some dominant ones. Your female coming from 2 WF parents but being grey seems to indicate a dominant WF gene, which she must have missed out on getting. But if your male is a het, he would have to have a recessive WF gene if he's normal grey in color.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 09:18 PM

Oh man! This thread... LOL!

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: SkyBlueGliders

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 09:33 PM

correct, the pair i own are both standard grey in color but thier parents were white faced Blonde.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/05/05 09:59 PM

I have 2 wfb hets that I paired awhile back. Both have one parent wfb and one parent normal gray. The female wfb het now has 2 in the pouch. I have yet to see what the joeys are. I will post as soon as I know.

KicksNJ
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 02:48 AM

This is not the proper way to show this using a punnance square.

First:

W = Dominant
w = Recessive

This is totally incorrect. You do not represent an allel's dominance as both recessive and dominate. It is either or not both.

Second:

To say that a glider carries the gene for Wild Type is incorrect for a Dominate gene the wild type is ww where W is the dominate gene, it is understood by default it is not a sepreate allel. There is no one allel sequence for wild type.

Now to answer the question about the rumored cross. There is no proof that this was ever done. The only way to prove that such a breeding did occur would be to have paternity tests done on the joeys in reference to the parents. If this is done and the parents are proved then this issue can be closed. But I cannot rely on the word of a breeder, no matter how reputable she is, to disprove a hypothesis. That is not the way science works.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 02:52 AM

All right, dumb question . . . trying to sort out all these posts lol
What is het? What is WFB?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 03:38 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
This is not the proper way to show this using a punnance square.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Hey.....I thought we had this sorted out awhile back? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nixweiss.gif" alt="" />
It's a PUNNETT square my friend <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Not trying to be a nitpicker, it's just that if someone goes to do a web search on punnance, they're not likely to find much.


Here is a LINK that will shed some light on the origin of the Punnett square.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

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.

Het = heterozygous, it's a genetics term that refers to an animal that has inherited both the dominant and recessive allele for a certain trait. The dominant trait is the trait that will be expressed preferentially over the recessive one.

It has been said and commonly thought amongst glider breeders that the offspring of WFB gliders that did NOT show the color WFB still inherit one allele for the trait WFB, hence, they were called hets because they'd technically be heterozygous.

If you're not big into genetics or breeding theory, most of this stuff will just give you a headache and leave you confused(as it still does to me!). Also, most of this is simply theory.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Dancing

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 03:47 AM

Het means heterozygos for a genetic trait
WFB means White Face Blonde, a color variation of gliders.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 03:59 AM

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
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 04:42 AM

</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="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 06:03 AM

</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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 06:23 AM

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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 08:58 AM

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="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 02:17 PM

</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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 04:01 PM

</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="" />
Posted By: Lynsie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 06:22 PM

I pass, too confussing for me, lol.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 07:00 PM

</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?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 07:07 PM

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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 07:53 PM

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

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/06/05 09:25 PM

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

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/06/05 11:34 PM

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

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/07/05 12:01 AM

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> Is there such thing as a blonde glider? Not a WFB, just a blonde..?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 12:16 AM

</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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 12:44 AM

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?
Posted By: CD_Hanratty

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 01:09 AM

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
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 01:10 AM

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

What about grey gliders born to two WF parents? Are they not hets?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 02:25 AM

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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 03:12 AM

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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 05:55 AM

</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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 08:14 AM

</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="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/07/05 08:42 AM

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!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominant. *DEL - 09/07/05 02:15 PM

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="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominant. *DEL - 09/08/05 01:22 AM

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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominant. *DEL - 09/08/05 05:10 PM

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="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/08/05 08:04 PM

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
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 05:55 AM

</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.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 05:56 AM

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="" />
Posted By: Dancing

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 06:03 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
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.

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

Although it seems to be rare, to say that there are no WFBs being born from two hets is false.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Cindy Bartholomew with Sugar Glider Express has produced a wfb female this last spring from two hets. These two hets had blonde grandparents and greatgrandparents on both sides. Cindy is in the New Orleans Area and I don't know when she will be avaiable for questions. I did see a picture of the joey. I would also like to pose the question if a glider can have a c0-dominate trait with a recessive gene. An example of another color would be a ringtail that is 100% het for Leucistic.


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

Perhaps in a few days when Cindi has a chance to catch her breath, she will be able to help on this question.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 06:19 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Although it seems to be rare, to say that there are no WFBs being born from two hets is false.


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

Well, there you go. Thank you, Dancing. See, how can a phenotype as predominant as WF while also being quite deviant from the primary dominant phenotype, i.e. standard grey, not have WF hets in our captive glider pool somewhere? It just doesn't seem rational to me.

Having said that, think about it for a moment:

If WF was indeed truly dominant (and it only required one WF parent to produce WF gliders 100% of the time) as is proposed here, then we would eventually by means of genetic drift lose all our grey gliders and more and more WF gliders would be born until the GREY GLIDER phenotype would be exterminated from the gene pool, leaving us with a growing population of WF gliders in however many thousands of years that it would take, and should any escape into the wild, then it too would exterminate the grey glider phenotype in time. It's what is referred to in the world of genetics as genetic stochasticity, but I highly doubt such a minor mutation in the facial coat colour of the gliders (i.e. WF) could really be so efficacious, especially when the only factor governing the genetic drift is an internal one (i.e. not involving something like natural selection, for instance, but rather involving the nature of the DNA alone). Very unlikely... Infact, I'm having trouble pinning an example where something like that has occured naturally elsewhere in any species. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The fact is, the only phenotype we know for sure to be truly dominant is STANDARD GREY. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/littleglider.gif" alt="" />

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 11:55 AM

So are breeders now going to eliminate the "HET for WFB" glider and call it a grey, taking this guys word for it? I have a supposed "HET" and now I'm not sure as to how to advertise/call him.
Posted By: Dancing

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 02:09 PM

Jessica, Perhaps like with the Leu and albino "hets" they should be called "possible" Hets until they have "proven" by throwing wf offspring? Having a Het of any color is does not necessarily mean that when the het breeds it will throw the color. So, aren't all hets "possible" hets until they become "proven"? Until a het is proven to BE a het (by throwing the color) they are just greys to me.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 02:13 PM

I follow what Dancing just suggested... for the past month and from now on.. any gliders not showing the actual coloring are called possible hets. I think this is a wonderful practice.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/09/05 04:43 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Cinnamon, Buttercream, champagne, ringtail, mosaics, sunkissed and other color variations have not been as black and white as the ones listed above.

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

Actually, I would hypothesize otherwise; I'd bet that ringtail and even cinnamon would likely be much simpler in terms of the genetics in comparison to the WF trait, because both of these phenotypes are quite predominant among wild colonies, which can signify something efficacious and comparatively basic working in the genes in the absence of selective breeding.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/10/05 09:09 AM

I agree with Ern - I don't understand what WisconsinGliders post is trying to say. Co-Dominant doesn't seem to fit. How can a glider be phenotypically a standard gray and a WFB at the same time? Where are the numbers that could help us understand those percentages and conclusions about recessives? The Leucistic info also confused me as to what was trying to be said.

Mikey is right on, too. Ushuaia's original theory, that WFB is dominant to standard gray, doesn't seem to fit the very well documented cases when a WFB bred with a standard gray will create a phenotypically standard gray appearing glider. These were being sold as hets for WFB. If WFB were dominant, they would be WFB, not grays.

How about it breeders. Can anybody list other examples of "WFB hets" that produced WFB gliders?

I still suspect that there are at least 2 genes controlling color, as a straightforward single gene model doesn't seem to fit. I will research. I would love to see some breeders pedigree charts. Judie, Sandman, Sheila, anybody have them several generations back?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. *DEL - 09/11/05 04:12 AM

WFB? HET? can someone please send me a link where i can find out about all of these things i feel so left out.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/11/05 05:21 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
If WF was indeed truly dominant (and it only required one WF parent to produce WF gliders 100% of the time) as is proposed here, then we would eventually by means of genetic drift lose all our gray gliders and more and more WF gliders would be born until the GREY GLIDER phenotype would be exterminated from the gene pool,

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Just because one gene is dominant to another, there is no reason to assume the recessive gene will be removed from the gene pool or experience a drop in frequency of its existence. 2 things will cause it to drop in percentage within the gene pool. The first is, as Mikey mentioned, natural selection. If a color trait were to carry an increased risk of predator attack, less receptive mating, more cancer or some problem leading to death before reproduction, then that gene will drop in frequency. Another reason for a drop is man. If we think WFB is cuter, we will cause selective breeding and see more WFB. But man is fickle, and if WFB increased and gray decreased, many would want grays.

But dominance and recessiveness does not alter the relative frequency of a gene's existence within the pool.
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/11/05 05:47 AM

I gave Chris some of my lineages so he can post them if he wants to take the time to cut and paste them to this thread as to the percentages. If I remember correctly... my pairs that are set up WF Blonde to Standard Color produce White Faces about 50% of the time. WF Blondes x WF Blondes produce 75% WF Blonde Offspring on average.

The best line for reproducing the all White Face Blonde seems to be the Cereal line from Sandridge. Perhaps that is due to the close inbreedings that Sandridge did with his gliders.

Breeding for Leucistic's seems to follow the Pundent Square since it appears to be a simple recessive gene. So this is one set of genes... One does not need to be a "Pea" to follow Mendel's theory.

As to the WF Blonde... I have thought of it as a co- dominant dilute gene. Standard Coloration being Dominant and the glider with the White Face is the Het to the Standard Color. Sort of backwards to what we usually refer as to a Het. Reason being.... it only takes one parent with the White Face to reproduce the all White Face... I do not think the gene is Recessive. If it were Recessive... both parents would need to be carriers of that variation... and we all know it only takes one glider who has the all White Face to reproduce it in it's offspring.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/11/05 07:44 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The best line for reproducing the all White Face Blonde seems to be the Cereal line from Sandridge. Perhaps that is due to the close inbreedings that Sandridge did with his gliders.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I might be wrong, but wouldn't this support the theory that the wf trait is caused by multiple allele combinations? If inbreeding caused the trait to be reproduced more, wouldn't that mean that the inbreeding increased the frequency of inheritance of the alleles that combine to express wf? Maybe the resulting gliders became more "saturated" with the correct genes to produce more wf's?

If it were a simple two allele per parent situation, inbreeding wouldn't have much of an effect on the precentages would it? Or am I way off here? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/11/05 06:08 PM

I think most people are able to recognize the differences in coloration between the white-faces. It doesn't take hawk-eyes.

Anyway, the white-faced mutation is Co-dominant, without a doubt.
A Co-dominant trait is one that is fully expressed in the heterozygous condition. Co-dominant alleles are two alleles (heterozygous) that result in intermediate phenotype. Perhaps there is a geneticists or even a licensed teacher within this 'community' that could validate this and explain it better than I.
- Jason
Jason Thurber's Captive Bred Exotics

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.
This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat."
- Eric Hoffer
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/11/05 06:45 PM

Ok, I will be the first to admit that I do not understand a whole lot about genetics and therefore do not usually jump in on these posts. However, a high percentage of my breeding program consists of wf gliders and I have had some interesting results. I do not believe that wf breeding is as cut and dry as some people would like to make it sound. I have a 2nd generation wf male that is paired with a cinnamon female. So far, out of 8 joeys, all of them have been wf resulting in a wf x normal breeding 100% wf. Granted, 8 joeys is not a large amount to go on, but it is a higher percentage than a first generation wf pair that just had 2 joeys...one was normal and one was wf making their % only 50%. This leads me to wonder if the theory that breeding higher generation wf gliders will result in a greater % of wf joeys. Also, can normal color be completely bred out?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/11/05 07:21 PM

Ok all I'm trying to say is that if we look at the data infront of us WFB/WF are co-dominant.

Until that is disproven why should we say that their is such a thing as a WF Het. Hey as I said I have 4 WFB Hets that I bought and you know what, I'm not sour about it I believe when they were sold the breeder believed them to be hets.

But I what I'm saying is that the belief of there being WFB hets is false until it is proven. I'm not talking about from one person but from More than one person.

What judie said seems to have some validaty, in the snakes not all ghost are compatable maybe that is what is happening in the WFB/WF gene.

But as of now if I were to produce any gliders from a WFB that are not WFB I will sell them as normals because thats what I believe them to be, Until it is proven otherwise.

I dont want to start an arguement but why should we believe something that is theory rather than what has been proven over and over again by people breeding their hets.

Ern as far as codominance explanation I think you have been reffering to plant genes where to take a white flower and a red and it produces a pink one. then on the f2 it would crate both red and white and pink. All I can say that in snakes some genes do not mix as they do in plants which is why it maybe a little confusing.

I'm going to pull one of my human textbooks out and reply otherwise I'll just ask my buddy and have him reply as he is a geneticist that works with rats and mice creating animals that will have disease, i.e. diabetes, highblood pressure and such.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinkerg.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/11/05 07:57 PM

I also sell my normal colored joeys with a wf parent the same price as a classic gray. I do call them possible hets, but do not charge more. With the price of wf gliders coming down and the predictability of getting wf joeys with only one wf parent, I don't really see the point of pairing up possible wf hets trying to get a wf joey. It seems like a waste of time.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/11/05 08:31 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Anyway, the white-faced mutation is Co-dominant, without a doubt.
A Co-dominant trait is one that is fully expressed in the heterozygous condition. Co-dominant alleles are two alleles (heterozygous) that result in intermediate phenotype.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> ok, that is the correct definition of codominant. How does that make sense of the wf trait? I'm sorry, but I do not completely agree that wf is codominant.

WisconsinGlider, the definition I posted of codominance on this thread is from a zoology textbook, no plant reference.

How is a wf glider an expression of an intermediate phenotype? Either there are bars or there aren't. The color differences are independent of the whitefaced trait(lack of sidebars). The color differences in my opinion do not account for an intermediate phenotype as far as the wf trait is concerned. If someone could explain this theory of codominant wf, I'd be willing to listen, but all I hear is people just stating what they think and not providing any clear info.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/11/05 09:38 PM

Woah nelly, this thread! *bangs head against the wall*

Also, yes, Schlep, you are correct about that statement on my crazy statement! I don't know what I was thinking that night with regards to the hypothetical extermination of the standard grey. My noggin had the flu in that hour of the night! LOL.

I also don't think the wf phenotype is co-dominant. I think there may be a discrepancy in understanding of terms, perhaps. How does the WF trait relate to incomplete dominance?

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 03:16 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Perhaps there is a geneticists or even a licensed teacher within this 'community' that could validate this and explain it better than I.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Ok, here's a quote from the very wise Marla aka FlyingElvis who happens to be a college level biology teacher. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" /> </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
[:"blue"]We need to make pedigree charts for all colored gliders and their families. Once we have a clear chart of the traits, we will be better equiped to deduce whether these traits are dominant, or recessive, or co-dominant. I agree that whiteface does NOT seem at all co-dominant, that is a clear +/- situation, like Ernie said, they either have the bars or they don't. Co-dominance means BOTH traits are expressed in the individual, like a red flower pollenating a white flower, and the baby flowers either pink, or "incomplete co-dominance" where they're spotted with red AND white. I don't see any such thing in WFB's. [/]

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 03:50 AM

It relates in the sense that it doesn't dominate over the standard (normal phase) phenotype anymore or any less than the standard dominates over it.
They're both (co) capable of dominating one another.

- Jason
Jason Thurber's Captive Bred Exotics

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 04:42 AM

I am going to throw a wrench into this thread and see who can explain it.

WF Blonde offspring that do not exhibit the traditional whole White Face... has anyone besides me noticed the barring under the ears being incomplete? They are different from the Standard Variation. As if they are missing part of it?
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 04:50 AM

Ern... I think you would understand co-dominance thing if you would look at the WF Blonde with the All White Face... as the Het of the Standard Variation.

The WF Blonde is the "Het" to the Standard Gray Color. Any offspring produced that are Standard Gray are the wild caught variety.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 06:01 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
It relates in the sense that it doesn't dominate over the standard (normal phase) phenotype anymore or any less than the standard dominates over it.
They're both (co) capable of dominating one another.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I suppose that this way of looking at it would make your theory of wf being codominant correct if the total genotype responsible for a gliders entire color consisted of two alleles and was as simple as possible. Wf could possibly be interpreted as an intermediate phenotype. However, I don't think that's the case. What determines the phenotype of a glider is probably much more complex than that.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
WF Blonde offspring that do not exhibit the traditional whole White Face... has anyone besides me noticed the barring under the ears being incomplete? They are different from the Standard Variation. As if they are missing part of it?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Are you referring to the "standard" colored offspring of a wf glider? I've seen that the offspring of wf gliders that are standard sometimes have lighter body color. I would say that I do not see any intermediate barring being expressed.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Ern... I think you would understand co-dominance thing if you would look at the WF Blonde with the All White Face... as the Het of the Standard Variation.

The WF Blonde is the "Het" to the Standard Gray Color. Any offspring produced that are Standard Gray are the wild caught variety.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I suppose I understand why you guys are thinking this and I still think you're incorrect in believing wf to be codominant.

Here's a little photo collage I made.
The first two on the left are both two different wf hets
The second two in the middle are two different wf gliders
The last tww on the right are a wf het on the top and a wf joey on the botton. Sorry it's bigger than the rules permit, but I compressed it so it's a small file size 25kb. []http://www.theglidernest.com/hetwfearmarkings.jpg[/]
Either there are ear markings or there aren't.
There is no intermediate phenotype in relation to ear markings. It's as if the color was turned off under the ears and behind the eye. The only part that produces colored markings on the eye is on the top part going up.
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 06:19 AM

OK... now, compare the photos of the ear markings of only the Standard Colored offspring of the WF Blonde to a Reg Standard glider who does not have any WF Blonde lineage.

I meant "simi" incomplete... not incomplete. Incomplete would be a no barring at all and that then would be a WF Blonde. Shame on me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/12/05 06:45 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mikey is right on, too. Ushuaia's original theory, that WFB is dominant to standard gray, doesn't seem to fit the very well documented cases when a WFB bred with a standard gray will create a phenotypically standard gray appearing glider. These were being sold as hets for WFB. If WFB were dominant, they would be WFB, not grays.


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

I need to explain how a dominant gene works again because you have not understood what I was saying.

Lets assume there is a simple one gene controlled phenotype lets say Blue coat color.

If the Phenotype is recessive then the parents can either be bb (Blue), BB (Wild Type), or Bb (Wild Type); where b is the allele containing which produces the blue phenotype. Remember that two alleles must come together to produce a gene. So if you have a homozygous blue (bb) and a homozygous wild type (BB) you will always produce a heterozygote that is a wild type phenotype (bB). If you breed two heterozygotes together you will get the following possible allele combinations:

bb Blue Homozygous
bB Wild Type Heterozygous
Bb Wild Type Heterozygous
BB Wild Type Homozygous

Now lets consider if the gene is dominant.

If the gene for blue is dominant then having a single copy of the allele B will be enough to show the phenotype blue. So the three possible allele combinations are: BB (Blue Homozygous), Bb (Blue Heterozygous), and bb (Wild Type Homozygous). Now lets breed two Blue heterozygous together and examine the expected ratio according to a Punnett square.

BB Blue Homozygous
Bb Blue Heterozygous
bB Blue Heterozygous
bb Wild Type Homozygous

There for if WFB is dominate like the Blue example I gave here was then the expected ratio of 1:2:1 blue homo.: blue hetero: wild type homo. would make it possible for a WFB X WFB mating to produce wild type one out of every four joeys on average. Therefore my theory is still valid. Also WFB is an all or none phenotype. It is very simple, you either have it or you do not, there is not middle ground, there are no partially WFB gliders. If the gene were codominant or if it had more than one gene involved it would suggest that there would be intermediates. The reason Mendel’s experiment worked so well was (besides the ability to self fertilize) because that all the phenotypes were very simple all or none genes. There were no intermediates, which for all but one phenotype combination all proved to be single genes located on separate chromosomes. I believe everyone is making this a lot more complicated than it really is. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Yes there are WFBlondes, WFCinnamons, WFWild Types, ect... however these are coat colors that can be found separately thought other lines. WF is not needed to make a blonde nor is blonde needed to make a White Face therefore WF should be looked at separately and not collectively as WFBlonde, WFCinn, WFWildType.

As for Cindy pairing hets to hets to produce a WF this can only be proved through a paternity test, no other explanation is capable of disproving this theory. I am not caller her a liar but scientifically the word of another breeder cannot be used to disprove a theory without first justifying what is said as true, especially since she is the only person to have claimed to do so.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/12/05 07:25 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Therefore my theory is still valid

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Chris, I suppose your theory is "valid"
However, I don't think it's anything to purport as certain truth since it is still a theory, and claiming that there are no such things as wf hets is premature in my opinion.

All in all, I suppose I'd accept that wf is dominant way before I'd accept that it is codominant.

One thing no one has answered yet is...... how did the wf variation come about? There are separate lines, but are they all originating from the same line? This is important.

If they all originated from the same line, then it is possible(as far as I know) that a dominant mutation occurred. If the separate lines came about independently, I would have to think that wf came about differently and that it wasn't a dominant mutation, rather, it took a specific genetic combination to finally express the phenotype.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 03:47 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Schlep:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mikey:
Having said that, think about it for a moment:
If WF was indeed truly dominant (and it only required one WF parent to produce WF gliders 100% of the time) as is proposed here, then we would eventually by means of genetic drift lose all our grey gliders and more and more WF gliders would be born until the GREY GLIDER phenotype would be exterminated from the gene pool, leaving us with a growing population of WF gliders in however many thousands of years that it would take, and should any escape into the wild, then it too would exterminate the grey glider phenotype in time. It's what is referred to in the world of genetics as genetic stochasticity, but I highly doubt such a minor mutation in the facial coat colour of the gliders (i.e. WF) could really be so efficacious, especially when the only factor governing the genetic drift is an internal one (i.e. not involving something like natural selection, for instance, but rather involving the nature of the DNA alone). Very unlikely... Infact, I'm having trouble pinning an example where something like that has occured naturally elsewhere in any species.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The fact is, the only phenotype we know for sure to be truly dominant is STANDARD GREY.

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

Just because one gene is dominant to another, there is no reason to assume the recessive gene will be removed from the gene pool or experience a drop in frequency of its existence. 2 things will cause it to drop in percentage within the gene pool. The first is, as Mikey mentioned, natural selection. If a color trait were to carry an increased risk of predator attack, less receptive mating, more cancer or some problem leading to death before reproduction, then that gene will drop in frequency. Another reason for a drop is man. If we think WFB is cuter, we will cause selective breeding and see more WFB. But man is fickle, and if WFB increased and gray decreased, many would want grays.

But dominance and recessiveness does not alter the relative frequency of a gene's existence within the pool.

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Mikey: Schlep, you are correct about that statement on my crazy statement! I don't know what I was thinking that night with regards to the hypothetical extermination of the standard grey. My noggin had the flu in that hour of the night! LOL.

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

Oh, Schlep! I remember now why I mentioned that if Ushuaia's theory were true, there would be a decrease in frequency of the grey glider within the genepool. I was going on the tangent that (according to the proposed theory) there were no such thing as WF hets, so to me that would mean ALL WF gliders would somehow by some mysterious genetic process all be homozygotes. In which case, yes that would theoretically impact the frequencies of the alleles slowly but surely, because if Ushuaia's theory is correct, and as Wisconsinglider mentioned earlier, "all it takes is one WF parent to have WF glider young 100% of the time", all babies resulting from the breedings would be homozygous WF gliders.

In essence, it clearly isn't logical <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shakehead.gif" alt="" /> , which was the point I initially was trying to make with that hypothetical statement on the extermination of the GREY GLIDER.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! - 09/12/05 04:06 PM

The WF Blonde went un noticed by the mega breeders until about five years ago... when Mike Sandridge purchased a few WF Blondes from a private collector. Sandridge never revealed the source as to whom the breeder was.

Mega breeders who had thousands of gliders began to notice a few WF Blondes here and there and thus they began pulling the prized gliders for future breeders.

Here is a list of a few of those mega breeders: 1) Custom Cage Works, Flying Fur Ranch, along with Mary Brown as well as Faye. Notice... these mega breeders are all in Texas.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 04:10 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
...it wasn't a dominant mutation, rather, it took a specific genetic combination to finally express the phenotype.

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

Call it a hypothesis, inference, hunch, theory, educated guess, a bet, or belief even, but that right there is my stance on the subject.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 10:12 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
If the gene for blue is dominant then having a single copy of the allele B will be enough to show the phenotype blue. So the three possible allele combinations are: BB (Blue Homozygous), Bb (Blue Heterozygous), and bb (Wild Type Homozygous). Now lets breed two Blue heterozygous together and examine the expected ratio according to a Punnett square.

BB Blue Homozygous
Bb Blue Heterozygous
bB Blue Heterozygous
bb Wild Type Homozygous

There for if WFB is dominate like the Blue example I gave here was then the expected ratio of 1:2:1 blue homo.: blue hetero: wild type homo. would make it possible for a WFB X WFB mating to produce wild type one out of every four joeys on average. Therefore my theory is still valid.

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

*scratches head* Ushuaia, your theory is not valid because your theory indicates that there are NO WF Hets; in your last post you clearly contradicted your initial theory by indicating that the ratio for WF hets is 75% (based on your assumption that a single gene in involved).

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
As for Cindy pairing hets to hets to produce a WF this can only be proved through a paternity test, no other explanation is capable of disproving this theory. I am not caller her a liar but scientifically the word of another breeder cannot be used to disprove a theory without first justifying what is said as true, especially since she is the only person to have claimed to do so.

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

LOL What in the world?! Ushuaia, I do appreciate your excessive clinical approach to the issue, but how realistic would be it for Cindy to have a laboratory paternity test done to prove her word for the sake of disproving your theory? You must remember that there are so many factors you must also consider. There are others who own WF gliders who aren't members (or atleast active ones) on here and may have produced a wf glider from a het X het pairing. Also, even a single instance where a homozygous WF glider has been produced from a hetXhet pairing cannot and must not be ignored! That right there (i.e. Cindy's claim) is valuable data and could point to the fact that the WF genes are much more complex than you're making it out to be...

...particularly with this rather unscientific generalization and statement:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I believe everyone is making this a lot more complicated than it really is. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

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

The reason why many have been attempting to point out the possible complexities that may be involved with the WF phenotype is because there is much evidence that the WF trait is quite complex, and the numbers (Cindy's het-het breeding included) indicate genetic complexity, or atleast the involvement of several genetic factors. Believe me when I say this, Ushuaia, but if I could fax you some of the papers that drove me insane semester after semester that had to write on genetic inheritence, regarding related topics like 'albinism in mammals and fish' or 'genetic epistasis', you would understand why I feel the way I do.

Though to you there may currently be no proof (assuming Cindy's claim is faulty) that you are wrong or right in this case, Ushuaia, the likelihood of your theory being correct in my honest opinion is slim. I know I've been quite adimant about all this, and the reason is because although knowledge in genetics may not directly harm the well-being of the glider, I'd hate to see incorrect information dissolve within this glider community (for the reasons I've already stated earlier, in particular for breeders and their breeding programs).

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/12/05 11:40 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Oh, Schlep! I remember now why I mentioned that if Ushuaia's theory were true, there would be a decrease in frequency of the grey glider within the gene pool. I was going on the tangent that (according to the proposed theory) there were no such thing as WF hets, so to me that would mean ALL WF gliders would somehow by some mysterious genetic process all be homozygous. In which case, yes that would theoretically impact the frequencies of the alleles slowly but surely, because if Ushuaia's theory is correct, and as Wisconsin glider mentioned earlier, "all it takes is one WF parent to have WF glider young 100% of the time", all babies resulting from the breedings would be homozygous WF gliders.


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

Please read the following webpage as it talks about how a dominant gene (melanistic) in a squirrel population did not cause a decrease in the number of wild type squirrels over time here is the web address:

How to Use Hardy-Weinberg to Find Gene Frequencies in a Wild Population

Also I did admit that I was mistaken about there being no het for wfb however I merely misspoke that, which has no impact on whether or not the gene is dominant. I would like to have a moderator change the title of the post to: White Face Dominance Theory.

A WF can be dominant and still produce hets however all the wild types are homozygous wild type and the WF can either be Heterozygous or homozygous. Please refer to my above posts explaining why this is true.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 01:36 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The WF Blonde went un noticed by the mega breeders until about five years ago... when Mike Sandridge purchased a few WF Blondes from a private collector. Sandridge never revealed the source as to whom the breeder was.

Mega breeders who had thousands of gliders began to notice a few WF Blondes here and there and thus they began pulling the prized gliders for future breeders.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Thanks Judie <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Reading this, it seems to me that the wf trait was popping up sort of unplanned. It leads me to believe that as the gene pool closed within the populations of the mega breeders, the wf trait started to pop up more often. Here and there means to me that the gliders weren't popping up predictably at all. They were probably coming out of grey pairs who carried some of the necessary genes to combine with others to express the phenotype wf. At some point, whether anyone wants to believe it or not, a wf had to come from a grey pair.
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 02:10 AM

The mega breeders were only getting a few out of two thousand gray gliders a year...so that is why the wf blonde went un noticed.

Without selective breeding for the White Face trait.... most of us would not have White Face Blondes.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 02:24 AM

Well, there ya go, it's clearly not a one gene dominant trait <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 05:27 AM

The mere coincidence that the WF started small and became more and more prevalent only suggests that this was a beginning and that there were few to begin with. The reasons why it was so infrequent can be realized if these mega breeders were getting stock from overseas. If this is the case then it is likely that this trait was selected against in the wild because it made them more visible to predation. Now it could also be that this was a new mutation and the resulting occurrences in the mega breeders are very rare because there were only one glider that had this mutation to begin with and it took time to permeate throughout the gene pool. It seems reasonable that these mega breeders were exchanging joeys that showed this trait and attempted to breed it out through inbreeding. Just because a color variation has a small frequency in the beginning does not mean it is not dominant. Yes the first of any variation was out of a mutation that became permeated in the gene pool. Mutations change alleles, even in adults. The genetic sequence you are born with is not the same sequence you die with. Your cells accumulate mutations and if they are not corrected they will begin to spread throughout the body. These mutations introduce another layer of complexity to the possible alleles that gametes can contain and thus be passed on to an offspring.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 05:33 AM

For a breeder to selectively breed for a trait, one would have to believe that the trait was recessive. Then by breeding heterozygotes with the unexpressed recessive trait to other heterozygotes also carrying the recessive trait, homozygotes for the trait and thus expressing the trait would appear. The practice of breeding to relatives increases the likelihood of finding another trait carrier.

But if one believes the trait to be dominant, there is no need to do any selective breeding. Offspring will express the trait no matter who they are bred with, and offspring with the trait are not hard to come by.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 05:53 AM

Mega breeders will often import wild gliders, especially that many years ago when there were so few other breeders. So it is resonable to assume that the WF poping up in their stock could have been in shipments overseas. It seems strange to me that they could so easily breed these variations out if it was recessive, especially given the difficulty of breeding two WF hets together.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 06:31 AM

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nixweiss.gif" alt="" />
Ushuaia, Judie said that the wf gliders were popping up amongst the population of grey gliders......
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 12:26 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
It seems strange to me that they could so easily breed these variations out if it was recessive, especially given the difficulty of breeding two WF hets together.

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

Ushuaia, who said anything about easy? Judie even clearly indicated that it was very hard work!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Judie: I have worked too hard to keep them sound by selective "line breeding".

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

...and I don't doubt that the other main breeders share the same sentiments. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/13/05 12:39 PM

Reminiscent of this:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
As for Cindy pairing hets to hets to produce a WF this can only be proved through a paternity test, no other explanation is capable of disproving this theory. I am not caller her a liar but scientifically the word of another breeder cannot be used to disprove a theory without first justifying what is said as true, especially since she is the only person to have claimed to do so.

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



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mega breeders will often import wild gliders, especially that many years ago when there were so few other breeders. So it is resonable to assume that the WF poping up in their stock could have been in shipments overseas. It seems strange to me that they could so easily breed these variations out if it was recessive, especially given the difficulty of breeding two WF hets together.

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

Also, I hate to be smart about this, but if we're going to be truly clinical and scientific here, we cannot possibly pass this as scientific truth until we see these imported gliders' immigration papers or have fecal tests done to determine if these WF pioneers indeed were wild-caught, and that task, Ushuaia, is up to you to validate your theory! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Scientifically, an assumption cannot be used to prove a theory without first justifying what is said as true, especially since you, Ushuaia are the only person who claims this.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 03:58 AM

I am the only person who will publicly state this; there is a difference. I have given you the information needed to reach your own conclusions. If you do not see things the way I see them, then that is fine. However be aware that for all intents and purposes WF breeds like a single gene dominant trait, if you doubt this, look at the genealogy. You can make it as complex as you want but the truth is breeders are using the dominant theory to breed in that they place normal gliders with no history of WF with WF and are getting WF ~50% of the time and when placed WF to WF they get the ratios of ~75% of the time. If you are still confused about how this is possible then contact me privately by pm and I will explain how dominance heredity works to be able to produce animals with a dominant phenotype 75% and not 100% of the time when two heterozygous dominant hets are paired.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 04:49 AM

I see some of what you're saying, yeah it obvously breeds to some degree like a simple one gene dominant trait, but given the history of the variation, it just doesn't quite add up to make what you're saying entirely true without a shadow of a doubt.

Are you telling me that a random single gene dominant mutation was occurring amongst a population of gliders in unrelated individuals?

If there were no standard phenotype wf hets, then the lineage would have be easily traceable to the one specific individual that experienced the wf dominant mutation since the individual would have been obviously having wf offspring and his standard offspring would not have been. This does not match up with the info that Judie presented about the wf gliders popping up here and there. Maybe they had so many gliders in a cage that they didn't know who was coming from what. Maybe contact Sandridge and ask him, or go down the line and see what you can find.
Most wf lineages don't go past Cereal. If it was obviously dominant at that point, I don't think that Sandridge would have done any inbreeding.

Please account for how this dominant single gene mutation originated? I would find it pretty strange that many individuals would experience the same dominant mutation simultaneously.

The only way that a wf could be dominant is if it resulted from a glider that experienced a dominant gene mutation.
How else does a dominant mutation pop up?
Is this your theory or not?
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 06:37 AM

The White Face babies that poped up amongst several thousand gliders... the parents I do not know if they were WF or Grays.

One has to remember... these breeders did not pay attention to the White Faces. Babies were pulled and put in large groups and then in holding bins till weaned and then shipped. Mass production so to speak.

I will take time tomorrow and call one mega breeder and ask if the parents were inported to them and wither or not the babies had wf parents.

As to Mike Sandridge... at the time he was a very large breeder but certainly not what one would call a mega. His White Face Blondes he purchased as breeding adults.

Cereal the male... and then Pricess and Pearl of which were sisters, both wf blondes themselves....and Cereal was their father who then were bred back to him. So, you see... these gliders were being line bred befor he purchased them from another breeder and Mike continued the breeding program.

Most of us who purchased from Mike... did not continue breeding so tightly. We chose to breed them to normals or search for something that was a generation or so removed, or if "Lucky"... locate a baby with the all White Face and unrelated.

Remember... WF Blondes about four years ago were a rarity among us smaller breeders.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 07:03 AM

That's what I'm wondering.
Maybe they had so many gliders that they had no idea who was coming from what. They probably had colonies? The pouch or whatever they used might have had a number of gliders and they possibly couldn't identify the mother or father.

One thing though, if it was a spontaneous dominant mutation, wouldn't the mutation be only occurring in the genes of the offspring? If it occurred in the genes of the parent, then the parent would show the wf trait. They would have to notice that there was a wf glider in a breeding colony. I don't care how many gliders one has, any breeder is gonna see that and see $$$. I would imagine that it'd be highly unlikely that offspring from the same pair are going to also experience the same random dominant gene mutation?

Judie, you mentioned being lucky to find unrelated wf gliders. What do you mean by that? Wf gliders that were bred out enough to be considered unrelated, or were there other wf lines that appeared separately? Where did the Pele line come from?
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 01:08 PM

Flying Fur Ranch... has a few WF Gliders that were pulled from their own Standard Gliders.

Custom Cage Works has their own line which was established the same way. Because Mike and Steve are friends... it would seem that eventually they would have traded a few offspring between themselves.

The Pele line came from Glider Tree. Glider Tree does rescues... and someone brought them a pair of gliders of which one was a WF Blonde with lineage unknown. Pele then was bred to several females and the offspring were kept and repaired to other standard grays.

Then there is Mary Brown and Flo. My guess is they obtained their lines much the same way as the above.
Posted By: Dancing

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 01:56 PM

I don't know if this is has anything to do with the WFB/HET/Gray debate but what about the gliders that LOOK BEW but are also WFB? (The WFB is there but not seen because of the Leu. coloring masking the face markings). Now wouldn't these WFB/BEW gliders throw either WFB or BEW 100% of the time or would they also throw Greys(hets)? Can the WFB gene be supressed by the Leu. genes or can they truly both be expressed? And are the grey offspring HET for BEW and also Het for WFB?, one or the other, or are they wild type?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/14/05 03:03 PM

Sure, why not? Good point, Dancing. (In terms of the WFB HET statement, Ushuaia has already admitted that his theory regarding "THERE ARE NO WFB HETS" was a mistake.)

To put it simply, specific genetic info dictates what goes on in the cells of an organism. There are specific genes/alleles that indicate for the ribosomes to produce a lot of melanin bringing about black, those that cause the production of not so much melanin bringing about the colour brown, and those that send out no message resulting in no melanin being produced bringing about no colour or the colour white (or in the case of the eyes RED due to blood seen at the surface of the iris). In addition, there are also different types of pigment and melanin itself can exist in various forms, patterns, distributions, bringing about the vast array of colours. What colour appears in a shaft of hair depends on the combination of genes, because each gene dictates that a different amount, form, distribution, and pattern of melanin is to be produced in the hair cell. On top of that, there are genes responisble for the melanin production in different body parts, like those colour genes responsible for colour of the eyes, those genes responsible for the colour of the skin, those responsible for the colour of the tail hair, etc. Thus, in light of this fact, in the gliders it's more than highly likely that the different colour phases incorporate some of the same genes into the genotype as other phases, only they have it in a different combination thus bringing about the different colour phase. For instance, black eyed white gliders share similar eye colour DNA with standard greys (both colours have the black eyes), but also could possibly share the "no-colour-in-the-hair" DNA with albinos, for instance. Now, I don't know if that's the case but it's only one of a multitude of possibilities. Thus, the different colours do infact share colour-influencing genes.

So in effect, yes, I'd imagine that it could be possible and/or likely that some (if not all) the genes/alleles governing the WF trait are also involved/expressed in the leucistic glider. I could see that happening.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 02:40 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I don't know if this is has anything to do with the WFB/HET/Gray debate but what about the gliders that LOOK BEW but are also WFB? (The WFB is there but not seen because of the Leu. coloring masking the face markings). Now wouldn't these WFB/BEW gliders throw either WFB or BEW 100% of the time or would they also throw Greys(hets)?

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

If the genes involved are dominant then NO THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! It is possible for a white face to have one copy of the dominant allele and still produce WFB and this is what is called a het even though it shows the color. Now if two Hets are placed together then they will throw WFB gliders 75% of the time. I do not know any other simpler way to explain this since this is the 3rd or 4th time I have tried to explain this in this thread. If you still do not understand this then PM me and we will talk in depth about this over the phone.

I only knew of one breeder to produce gliders this way. If these reports are this numerous than it could be true that the gene is dominant but it has some kind of penetrance. Here is a website that gives a lot of very useful information of Mendelian genetics:

Mendillian Genetics

Please read further to understand what is meant by penetrance, there is also a lot of great information there. I am not sure as to whether or not penetrance must exhibit variation in the expression or if it just causes a reduction in the number of those organisms that have a dominant trait that express it. With penetrance an organism can carry a dominant gene as a het and not express it, pass it to its offspring and then the gene could be expressed in the offspring as though the gene were recessive. Since only one copy is needed to show the phenotype it is still considered to be dominant. Polydactylity in humans is an example of this.

Given this it is looking more and more likely that the gene could be dominant with some high degree of expressivity.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 02:55 AM

Why'd you wait 'til now to bring up this point of penetrance?
It's actually a fairly decent point.
Click on the link on the left to go right to the section on Penetrance.
This sort of answers a question I posed earlier.
Does a gene have to be dominant or recessive. Obviously there is some degree of flexibility on how a dominant gene is expressed. Why though, do they still decide to call it a dominant gene? Only because if it were recessive an individual would need to be homozygous to express the phenotype?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 03:05 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Why'd you wait 'til now to bring up this point of penetrance?

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

I had trouble finding a site that could adaquately explain it. Also I did not know that so many het to het gliders were out there that had produced WF until Judie's post.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Why though, do they still decide to call it a dominant gene? Only because if it were recessive an individual would need to be homozygous to express the phenotype?

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

Yes; exactly
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 03:11 AM

Now I think we should try to determine that if it is a dominant penetrant gene, as the evidence suggests, then what is the penetrance ratio.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 05:51 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Why'd you wait 'til now to bring up this point of penetrance?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
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">

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

It was brought it up at least once on 9/7. The thread went other directions.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 06:23 AM

lol, YOU brought it up I see Schlep <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
I had no idea what variable penetrance was when you brought it up.
I just figured it out when Ushuaia posted the link.
I'm still learning this stuff, teeny tiny baby steps <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 06:36 AM

Among the 3 options below, consider these, making an assumption of a single gene controlling WF:

1 - WF is dominant to wild type

2 - WF is recessive to wild type

3 - Some other pattern of inheritance more complicated, but harder to deduce the pattern because of low numbers of progeny. Since this one is difficult to nail down given low numbers, put it aside for a minute, and look at possibilities 1 & 2.

Possibility 1 - WF is dominant. Chris has an interesting theory. He has an advantage of having some pedigrees or breeders progeny percentages. If WF dominant were true, it could well have been a spontaneous mutation. It just showed up. No selective breeding would be required. Whether it came from a megabreeder of 2000 wouldn't matter. One would get 50% WF by breeding a WF with wild type IF the WF parent was heterozygous for WF, and 100% WF if homozygous for WF. This possibility 1 option could explain WF joeys and wild type joeys born to WF parents. Two wild types should never lead to a WF without another freak mutation given the assumptions made. A homozygous WF parent would always have 100% WF joeys. Breeding WF to WF phenotypes would increase the likelihood of getting a homozygous WF genotype glider, and this breeding glider will get all WF joeys. Two grey gliders mating and producing a WF joey should disprove possibility 1.

Possibility 2 - WF is recessive. If recessive were correct, this gene could circulate throughout the population for a long time undetected. A chance mating of another heterozygous for WF should create a WF phenotype about 25% of the time, and would yield a wild type looking glider about 75% of the time. About a third of those wild types would be homozygous for wild type, and about two thirds of the grey progeny would be heterozygous for WF, but both of these groups looking like the standard grey glider. If this recessive theory were the situation, two WF gliders should not be able to make a standard grey glider joey, and all of their joeys should be WF. Selective breeding could increase the likelihood of WF joeys. A mating of two WF gliders getting a grey, wild type glider would disprove possibility 2

Possibility 2 is what was considered true for so long. Breeders selling "hets" for WF made one think it was true, and that they knew WF was recessive by what they were seeing in progeny results. There were posts to that effect, and I think a lecture at a SGGA. We read it so often, it was considered true. Unless somebody's glider got out, hopped the fence or a glider was accidentally put in the wrong cage, the disprovers above should help sort them out. If examples exist disproving both theories 1 & 2, then a more complicated pattern as noted in 3 might exist.

So how about it breeders? Anybody have examples of the two disproving statements in bolded italics above?

I would love a pedigree to study, if any breeder would send one.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 06:37 AM

Okay so have we decided that there is such things as hets? And that the wf characteristic is much more complex than we have realized? At least we are all in agreement and now working towards the same goal in figuring out this puzzle. The back and forth was making my head spin. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> I'm thinking it will take a lot of research and gathering data to figure out just what is going on and how the wf gene is passed down and expressed. Until then we can only speculate. Isn't there someone gathering this info. from wf breeders? I thought I read it somewhere.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 06:59 AM

I'm not sure there are no hets. One can't really speculate until pattern of inheritance is determined. That can't happen without a WF breeder coughing up results of mating for the analysis. I always read info here that was predicated on a WF recessive theory. Let's get the goods first. The data will lead to obvious conclusions about whether hets exist or not. Anybody able to post results?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 07:55 AM

I think there's some self-cultivated confusion on the part of some of the folks here in regards to the true definition of co-dominance and how it works.
Then again, maybe there's just too much here and I didn't read it right. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
There are no hets though............
Co-Dominance could be defined as a recessive allele which is passed along in typical fashion, and may have an 'intermediate' appearance when present alongside a normal allele, and yet another appearance when present alongside another recessive allele. In some cases, a co-dominant trait may or may not express itself visually when paired with a dominant allele.
How can this be? Well, think of it as two genetic traits fighting it out for dominance in an evolutionary sense.

- Jason
Jason Thurber's Captive Bred Exotics

" I'm a star. I'm a star, I'm a star, I'm a star. I'm a big, bright shining star".
- Dirk Diggler
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 07:59 AM

Leucistic x Leucistic will produce Leucistic 100% of the time.

However, a Double Het which is a Leucistic Het/WF Blonde Het when bred to a Leucistic, possibilities of coloration would be:

1) Leucistic

2) WF Blonde Het/Leucistic Het which is a Double Het but traditional coloration of a WF Blonde.

3) WF Het/Leucistic Het that would be very diluted in coat color or broken pattern as to the traditional WF Blonde Het.

3) Leucistic/Possible WF Het or WF Blonde Het This variation would have to be proven first in order to be called a Double Het

4) possibility of a 100% Leucistic Het because WF Blonde Het still carries the dominant gene for normal gray.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 08:18 AM

No,............... a double het is an animal that is heterozygous for two different 'recessive' traits.
An example of a double-het would be the normal looking offspring produced by breeding a leucistic with an albino (two simple recessive traits).
Judie, like I told you, me and the 'snake guys' have been doing this for a long time. The information I shared with you regarding the genetics behind the leucistic trait, when nobody else was too sure, held true, didn't it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thanx.gif" alt="" />

- Jason
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 08:40 AM

Yes, I thought of that after I posted it about the double het thing. Should have corrected it but I could not think of a way to discribe the animal with both genes present. I guesss I should have left it as Leucistic/WF Blonde and nothing else.

And yes, the recessive trait works just like you said. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thanx.gif" alt="" /> This has been a real learning process for me since I never had genetics in school.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 08:58 AM

To tell the truth, it took a personal interest in keeping and breeding snakes for me.
The biology class never had anything to offer in my school either. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nixweiss.gif" alt="" />

- Jason Jason Thurber's Captive Bred Exotics
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 09:10 AM

Well, now that I am rethinking this...

Leucistic Het/WF Blonde is a Double Het. That is how I should have written it.
Posted By: Judie

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/15/05 09:20 AM

Ok... I need to learn how to write the above correctily. I went back and editied my mistakes. Let me know if correct now.

Thanks
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/15/05 04:11 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Judie, like I told you, me and the 'snake guys' have been doing this for a long time.

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

I hate to do this but it seems I keep having to mention this, the nature of the genes can and likely vary cross-species. I cannot stress this enough. What may apply to the reptiles may not apply to the gliders genetically. It's dangerous to assume that breeding principles consistent in another animal would apply. The nature of the genes responsible for giving gliders that WHITE FACE may be completely different from the genes responsible for giving a BOXER a WHITE FACE! Why would we consider the leucistic phenotype to be any different... or any phenotype for that matter? It's a genetics err to assume genetic trends apply cross-species.

Eg. Albinism is considered sex-linked in many parakeet species, but not in rats (and this is one of literally millions of examples)!

Eg #2. Light curly hair is a dominant trait in sheep but rather recessive in humans.

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

Posted By: Dancing

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/15/05 04:24 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Possibility 1 - WF is dominant. Chris has an interesting theory. He has an advantage of having some pedigrees or breeders progeny percentages. If WF dominant were true, it could well have been a spontaneous mutation. It just showed up. No selective breeding would be required. Whether it came from a megabreeder of 2000 wouldn't matter. One would get 50% WF by breeding a WF with wild type IF the WF parent was heterozygous for WF, and 100% WF if homozygous for WF. This possibility 1 option could explain WF joeys and wild type joeys born to WF parents. Two wild types should never lead to a WF without another freak mutation given the assumptions made. A homozygous WF parent would always have 100% WF joeys. Breeding WF to WF phenotypes would increase the likelihood of getting a homozygous WF genotype glider, and this breeding glider will get all WF joeys. Two grey gliders mating and producing a WF joey should disprove possibility 1.

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


This was disproved by </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Cindy Bartholomew with Sugar Glider Express has produced a wfb female this last spring from two hets. These two hets had blonde grandparents and greatgrandparents on both sides.

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


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Possibility 2 - WF is recessive. If recessive were correct, this gene could circulate throughout the population for a long time undetected. A chance mating of another heterozygous for WF should create a WF phenotype about 25% of the time, and would yield a wild type looking glider about 75% of the time. About a third of those wild types would be homozygous for wild type, and about two thirds of the grey progeny would be heterozygous for WF, but both of these groups looking like the standard grey glider. If this recessive theory were the situation, two WF gliders should not be able to make a standard grey glider joey, and all of their joeys should be WF. Selective breeding could increase the likelihood of WF joeys. A mating of two WF gliders getting a grey, wild type glider would disprove possibility 2

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

This has been disproven then as Sheila has two wfb parents that produced a wfb male and a "het" female (twins) just recently.


So it seems to me that we are looking at possibility 3. Which is not going to be simply figured out with standard thinking. Now it will really get complicated!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/15/05 08:31 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Now it will really get complicated!

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

Mhm... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/16/05 12:18 AM

with penirance the gene controling the phenotype is dominat in that it only takes one copy to show the phenotype however not all the normal looking joeys are homozygous wild type. It is possible for them to carry the dominat gene but are not expressing it for some unknown reason. The penitrance of a dominat gene is a percent average that the offspring will not carry the gene when the phenotype is not expressed. So in humans polydactylity has a 90% penitrance and therefore only 10% of heterozygoes which carry the gene will not expres it. I believe it is very likly that this is happining with the WF trait. The percentages and the pedigree all strongly suggest the trait is dominat. The few wildtype pairing that produced a WF then suggest tht the trait is penatrant to some extent. The dominace theory is hardly disproved.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: There are no WFB hets!!! WFB is dominate. - 09/16/05 12:58 AM

Judie, according to my "multi gene punnet square" you would end up with, on average, 9 normal looking gliders (poss.hets), 3 leucistics, and 3 w/f per every 1 animal that exhibited both traits (which you wouldn't be able to see due to the fact that leucistics are, with the exception of the eyes, white).
This would only hold true though if the w/f was a simple recessive gene, which I, without a doubt, believe it not to be.

- Jason
www.jasonthurber.com

"Keep in mind that the true measure of an individual is how he treats a person who can do him absolutely no good."
-Ann Landers
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/16/05 02:47 AM



This has been disproven then as Sheila has two wfb parents that produced a wfb male and a "het" female (twins) just recently.


I have the female..and she is paired with another "WFB het"
So I will let everyone know if we end up with any WFB joeys!
Becky
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/16/05 04:01 AM

Thanks Dancing. I thought there were multiple posted examples of progeny disproving both possibilities 1 & 2. Multiple genes or a less straight-forward inheritance pattern is undoubtedly at work.

Several people have written that the answer is present and right in front of us, but it looks clearly not to be a single gene recessive/dominant inheritance pattern like brown and blue eyes. I'm still reading about "hets" that clearly have not had the inheritance pattern cleared up to the point one can assuredly know its a het. If WF isn't a straight-forward recessive gene, then the conclusions as to a joey's "het" status appear to be in doubt. A WF bred to a wild-type gray that produced a gray can only be assumed to be a het if WF is known to be recessive. (ww X W? -> Ww)

Would someone be willing to share family trees or breeding results?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/16/05 07:47 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
If WF isn't a straight-forward recessive gene, then the conclusions as to a joey's "het" status appear to be in doubt. A WF bred to a wild-type gray that produced a gray can only be assumed to be a het if WF is known to be recessive. (ww X W? -> Ww)


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

The reason that I had pulled the original title of this post is because by strict definition a dominant gene can exhibit heterozygosity. Remember that a zygosity refers to a genetic sequence and not to a phenotype. Please email me so that I can fully explain this to you as you do not understand this concept and are making assumptions based upon incorrect information.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I thought there were multiple posted examples of progeny disproving both possibilities 1 & 2. Multiple genes or a less straight-forward inheritance pattern is undoubtedly at work.

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

Please read my posts about penetrance. Penetrance explains away most if not all of the discrepancies. If you do not understand this or have questions about this please pm me.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/16/05 03:45 PM

I want to cast a vote to restart this thread. There has been a lot said here and it is getting a little confusing as there was and is some misinformation posted originally. I will reopen a new thread and we can start fresh looking at the Single Dominant Penetrant Gene WF Theory. We can reopen the discussion there and hopefully I can fully explain all the evidence and the differences between a dominant gene punnent square and a recessive punnent square.
Posted By: KarenE

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/16/05 04:46 PM

[:"blue"]Closing thread for you. Chris you might want to post the link to this thread when you open the new thread so people can refer to it. [/]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The WF Dominance Theory ** - 09/17/05 06:35 PM

Chris,
You inferred that I must be misunderstanding homozygosity and heterozygosity, and that I should email you for clarification. Not needed. I can assure you I understand them very well.

My post prompting your response was in relation to someone else who first stated as fact that WF is recessive. Some breeders are selling "hets" that have WF a parent but look phenotypically like a wild type glider. If they assume that WF is recessive, and they see a wild-type joey from a WF parent, then they assume that the wild-type (a phenotype) is heterozygous for WF, carrying a WF gene and a gray gene (the genotype being one copy of each allele). But I was trying to point out that one can only assume "het" in certain situations if the inheritance pattern is known.

If the trait is not inherited in the pattern assumed, the conclusions might be in error. For example, two brown-eyed humans have a blue-eyed child, I can conclude that both brown-eyed (a phenotype) parents are heterozygous for eye color, with a brown gene and a blue gene (thus their genotype) is deduced. The child is homozygous blue for eye color. We can make these conclusions because we know the pattern of inheritance. Likewise, if two other brown-eyed parents have a brown-eyed child, I can't tell you the child or the parents' genotypes without more information. All three people have the brown-eyed phenotype, and each has at least one brown gene. But I can't tell you with assurance what their genotype is. One doesn't necessarily know the other, unexpressed gene, and thus the complete genotype. One can only state as fact the phenotype seen. And until the pattern of inheritance is KNOWN for fact, one shouldn't be assuming a het. If the inheritance pattern for eye color were dominant, (it is not), then the conclusions that could be drawn from the above situation would be different. This is in full agreement with your theory. I know you understand this, but I'm trying to clarify for others that may not have understood it.

You're right that when one sees the phenotype of a dominant gene expressed, that individual might be either homozygous or heterozygous for that trait. But until the pattern of inheritance is known, the assumptions made about "het status" for recessive traits are different that those made for dominant traits. I continue to see people posting conclusions about the "het" status of a joey that was concluded from a recessive pattern of inheritance thinking when that might not be true.

Whether incomplete penetrance turns out to be the case, the jury is out. There are many other possibilities that could explain WF. Variable Penetrance situations usually don't follow 75%, 50% progeny percentages that make it easy to deduce what is occurring. Time will tell. The unfortunate thing about Variable Penetrance is that it can have percentages of progeny that are different than expected from Mendelian inheritance, and it hides the actual gene distribution results of progeny from being obvious to conclude. I will post this in the new thread also.

I would love to see the data Judie sent you. Would you or Judie be willing to share?
© 2024 GliderCENTRAL