</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.

</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="" />

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.

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.

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.

</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="" />

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?

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

</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.

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.

</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="" />

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

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?

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="" />

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.

</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.

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="" />

</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">

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

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?

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.

</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.

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="" />

</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.

</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.

</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="" />

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.

</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="" />

</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="" />

</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.