Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 2,112

3 members and 2,109 guests
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,156
Threads: 248,597
Posts: 2,569,134
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Lucasthesurf
  • 10-21-2007, 04:20 PM
    littleindiangirl
    Standard genes for punnet squares?
    Does anyone have a list of standardized lettering used for all the different morphs in punnet squares?
  • 10-21-2007, 05:01 PM
    lord jackel
    Re: Standard genes for punnet squares?
    I am not sure there is an official list per say. In that I mean I don't think it has been studied scientically for someone to say this is how they must be written.

    Here are some of the common ways I have seen it written - but if this is for your use then you could use whatever "codes" you wanted to.

    NN = Normal wild type
    aa = Albino (so Na = Het albino)
    CCgg = Orange Ghost
    ccGG = Carmel
    Np* = Pastel (*= codom)
    Nm* = mojave

    The below I haven't seen anyone really use but they would make sense to me based on the above ones.

    Nl* = lesser
    Nc* = cinny

    Hope this helps,
    Sean
  • 10-21-2007, 11:18 PM
    jhall1468
    Re: Standard genes for punnet squares?
    There is no standard for each morph, although that isn't true of every field of study. Sometimes you'll see a plus sign indicate wild type alleles. So aa is an Albino a+a is a het Albino and a+a+ is a wild-type (normal).

    BP's tend to use the standard notation, which is "use whatever you feel like it, as long as you describe what it means". Outside of Bp's I've never seen the use of the asterisk to indicate codominance. I'm not all that fond of it (because the results are going to be the same whether it's codominant or recessive). But as long as your method doesn't cause confusion, do it how you like it ;).
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1