Long coat GSD - Page 4

[Swarnendu] 19.6.2016 - 18:06

● "Les, regarding your claim that "we cannot tell whetehr the SH stud is  L^ L^  or  L^ l^ ," etc
Damn! Why are you still in India? You should be in Africa, where tall aunt Ostrich and tall uncle Giraffe and broad aunt Hippopotamus and hairy uncle Baboon could spank you and SPANK you! Yeah - as I don't deem the L^ l^ StockHaars important enough to pay for a DNA test (the only DNA test I've paid for so far was for DM, in case that was the cause of symptoms Bea had when I brought her home after she'd been shown by her breeder), I overlooked that test. I similarly doubt that I'd bother DNA testing for the b^ allele for liver, the d^ allele for blue.

 

My 19 June 2016 - 14:06 bit about co-dominance should have shown you that co-dominanee is not bull-shit. It is VARIABLE dominance that I don't accept, preferring to believe that the variation is not inherent in that dominant allele - it is a product of an allele of some other gene series.


[LadyBossGSD] - I made a booboo in my "People who DELIBERATELY mate a pair of LSHs or LHs are certain that they will get NO SHs"
The LSH x LSH mating will produce about 3 in 4 SHs. An LSH x LH mating will produce 2 in 4 that are SHs. Only an LH x LH mating cannot produce any SHs. Blame Swarnendu for keeping me up so late!


[Hundmutter] 20.6.2016 - 07:06
● "Les, no I meant the specific 3 (wolves) that the article Swarnendu provided"
Sorry - I don't have time to go and re-read it. If it bothers you, write to the group with the link plus a precise quote of the bit that puzzled you, and we'll see whether Danielle or Joy or Les can sort it out for you.

● "Every opportunity I get on here, I sing the song about genetics not being a precise predictor that every animal in every litter will fit the picture posed by the science, because there are random processes at work and because nobody can see ALL litters born in the world at any one time, to confirm the ratios do work out."
I can't entirely agree - not until you insert the words "AT PRESENT" and replace "every" with "EACH". The problem at present is that although each gene can be located using microbiology techniques, there are so MANY genes/alleles that the exact functions of have not yet been determined, let alone all the interactions that we label as "epistasis" or "modifier", depending on whether the second gene's allele switches off or reduces or increases the effect of the first gene's allele.

Well that's the most scientific explanation of "crapshoot" I ever heard . T(hank) Y(ou).

@Les, I didn't say Co-dominance is bullshït, only my opinion about Co-dominance being responsible for variations in coat lengths is, that too because Danielle says so....

But, your comment:-

"The LSH x LSH mating will produce about 3 in 4 SHs. An LSH x LH mating will produce 2 in 4 that are SHs. Only an LH x LH mating cannot produce any SHs."

compels me to rethink.....

Isn't LSH = ll ?

Or both SH & LSH can be Ll?

Then why it isn't Co-dominance ?!

Can you provide a Punnett Square?

[Hundmutter]  24.6.2016 - 18:06
 
● "Well that's the most scientific explanation of "crapshoot" I ever heard"

I'm glad you liked it. Not that I shoot Craps.
Chess, Euchre and 500 were my pastimes last millennium, and Euchre was the only one of them that I would gamble on (such HUGE ante-ups - 6d aka 5¢ to be dealt a hand, 1/- aka 10¢ if one foolishly got euchred were the usual).

Have you not received the 2 e-mails I sent you last week?


[Swarnendu] 24.6.2016 - 21:06

● "@Les"

Hoo? I have NEVER been "@Les"! Isn't that a "handle" or some such for Facebook fans? I avoid going there, and certainly will NOT sign up for it.
Sorry about the delay in  answering, but I rarely go to the pdb forums.

● "But, your comment:-
"The LSH x LSH mating will produce about 3 in 4 SHs. An LSH x LH mating will produce 2 in 4 that are SHs. Only an LH x LH mating cannot produce any SHs."
compels me to rethink.....
Isn't LSH = ll ?"
Probably - IF you think that that difference is entirely due to the Coat-Length locus. But most of us consider that it is the effect of a modifier that makes the difference between an LSH (LangStockHaar) and an LH (LangHaar) - I once again curse the Germans who illogically chose to use "Long Coat" as the English translation for LangStock Haar - and I also curse the delegates at the 31.8.2009 WUSV Conference in Ulm who approved it without demanding that a less confusing mistranslation be used - maybe "Plush-coat"?.

● "Or both SH & LSH can be Ll?"
The SH certainly can be L^ l^ (please don't jam a pair of allele-codes together so that they become the allele-code for a single allele. "L^l" - which I would type as L^^l because so many people cannot use colour and superscripts, but all keyboards have the ^ key which is used in maths to signify that the next character is a superscript or "power" - would be something like the dominant allele of a gene that controls something beginning with L - maybe "liver"? So maybe an L^^l allele would be dominant for a light Liver, and l^^h would be an intermediate allele for a hard liver).  I don't believe that an LSH can be L^ l^, because the sheer number of StockHaars and relatively small number of LangHaars points out that the L^ is fully dominant (although it is possible that an allele of the modifier series could slightly lengthen or shorten the guard-hairs of even an L^ L^ from the 55mm/2" that I regard as the expectation for a StockHaar in NZ's climate). 

● "Then why it isn't Co-dominance ?!"
Because of what happens (or doesn't happen) when you mate different animals.
If the Length gene had 2 co-dominant alleles, mating an L^ L^ SH to an l^ l^ LH would result in EVERY pup being an L^ l^, and so BOTH alleles would have equal effects and the pups would be LSHs - no SHs, no LHs. And mating a pair of LSHs would result in

¼ of the litter being L^ L^ StockHaars,

½ of the litter being L^ l^ LangStockHaars.

¼ of the litter being l^ l^ LangHaars.
But that's NOT what I see happening.
Rather than letter-codes, you are best to use the example that Mendel used - a plant where the homozygous seeds produce only red flowers or only white flowers, but the heterozygous seeds produce ONLY pink flowers. But when the pink flowers are cross pollinated by pink flowers, their seeds produce 1 in 4 plants that have red flowers, 2 in 4 plants that have pink flowers, 1 in 4 plants that have white flowers - and NONE of the plants produce more than one colour of flowers.

● "Can you provide a Punnett Square?"
I've produced several (none so far based on coat-length, though). But  until someone supplies me with step-by-step, label-by-label, button-by-button instructions  I cannot get them into the pdb forums.
The CKEditor is NOT what I want, as it requires the image to be on an "open" web-site aka URL. My images are on MY computer.
DAMN - I just tried to see whether I could simply paste pics into the pdb form. Worked fine UNTIL I tried to save the message, whereupon all the formatting codes appeared but not the photo. I HATE "primitive" un-friendly software!
So I've had to start again with the formatting of this reply.

You and anyone who wants to debate genetics is better doing so in Danielle's YahooGroup or mine. Those wanting the address of either or both groups is welcome to ask me via the pdb's PM system - but I'd rather those people included their DIRECT e-address so that I can use my normal user-friendly software for the reply.