• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Clearing up a question

E.Crassus

E.Crassus

Note, its only a hobby
A question was posted recently on a UK forum: Is the lava gene co-dom with the amel gene? like with Ultra.
Up to now I was sure it wasnt but apparently this person got this info from here so was wondering if Dean or Serp or Rich or even Joe Pierce can clear this up, not just for my benefit but so I can report back my findings.
cheers
 
E.Crassus said:
A question was posted recently on a UK forum: Is the lava gene co-dom with the amel gene? like with Ultra.
Up to now I was sure it wasnt but apparently this person got this info from here so was wondering if Dean or Serp or Rich or even Joe Pierce can clear this up, not just for my benefit but so I can report back my findings.
cheers
Click to expand...
No, lava is not co-dominant with amel at the amel locus. :)
 
Roy Munson said:
No, lava is not co-dominant with amel at the amel locus. :)
Click to expand...
Ok thanks Dean, will report back the news lol.
Bit disappointed in a way, got my adult pair of lavamels and an adult female butter, 2 lots of lavamels would of been nice. :grin01:
 
From what I've heard, it is NOT co-dominant. What may have started that theory is that you can see the influence of lava when it is homozygous in amels (lavamel), which is not the case with regular hypo A. And it is totally different than what is happening with the ultramels. Ultra and amel are located at the same locus so they can be "combined". In other words, breed a homozygous ultra (uu) to a homozygous amel (aa), the offspring will be a combination of both (ua). Do the same with lava and amel (ll X aa) and you will get (LlAa), a normal that is het for lava and amel. For the Punnett square, you really need to write the parents as llAA for the lava and LLaa for the amel, as 2 sets of genes are at work.
 
E.Crassus said:
Ok thanks Dean, will report back the news lol.
Bit disappointed in a way, got my adult pair of lavamels and an adult female butter, 2 lots of lavamels would of been nice. :grin01:
Click to expand...
Now that I see you use the word "lavamel", I can see where the confusion could have originated. I've seen that word used for corns that are homozygous for lava and amel. An ultramel is homozygous for neither ultra or amel.
 
sorry guys, it was me! I must have been drunk or tired (or both!) when i read it first time!
cheers for clearing it up, and thanks oli for chasing it up for me! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top