33% het 66% het

[marula]

guys...i can't be able to found the treat with the explanation about that..
i know 66% is het x het...and i know het x normal = 50%
so..33% = 50% het x normal?

 

[eyelids]

so..33% = 50% het x normal?

I think so, but I don't think it would be correct. I'd still call them 50% hets because if the original 50% het gecko proved out the 33% het babies would be 50% hets. Please tell me I'm wrong...

 

[marula]

this is a really good point michael! ...if the 50% het produce het is a 100% het hahahahaah...

 

[cjreptiles]

guys...i can't be able to found the treat with the explanation about that..
i know 66% is het x het...and i know het x normal = 50%
so..33% = 50% het x normal?

50% het x normal would give 25% hets surely? And if the 50% het was not yet proven out, then you could call them 25% hets until it was proven to be het or not (and then obviously they would either be 50% hets or non-hets).

 

[nwheat]

I'm not sure that I've seen a reference to 33% het. In my opinion, I don't think it is appropriate to place a % on a cross with a possible het - it should be indicated what the cross was (50% possible het x normal for example).

In a regular het x het cross (Aa x Aa for example), you can see the actual albinos while the other 3 look normal. Two of those three (66%) will actually be hets - one of those three (33%) will not be a het. Perhaps useful info if you are looking for a homozygous dominant individual.

 

[giantkeeper]

I think so, but I don't think it would be correct. I'd still call them 50% hets because if the original 50% het gecko proved out the 33% het babies would be 50% hets. Please tell me I'm wrong...

This is correct...

*Edit...That is about the point where people stop calling them hets...and they are just normals people sometimes get lucky with.

 

[okapi]

IMO, it should stop at 50% het. And the breeder should just tell the buyer that "<insert number here> many generations ago there was a <insert recessive gene name here> so this gecko has a very small chance of carrying the gene. However since it is highly unlikely, this will not effect the price."

There was a discussion on this a few months back.

 

[eyelids]

IMO, it should stop at 50% het. And the breeder should just tell the buyer that "<insert number here> many generations ago there was a <insert recessive gene name here> so this gecko has a very small chance of carrying the gene. However since it is highly unlikely, this will not effect the price."

I agree with that 100%.

 

[marula]

i agree too...was just a curiosity