(05-29-2012 11:47 AM)Liriel Garnet Wrote: If *both* parents have a curious eye hiding myst and the curious shows, it's actually a 2/3 chance for the myst to be hiding
To be accurate: the odds in this case are actually only 50%. One parent gives curious. The other gives either curious or mysterious. The fact that you don't know which parent passed the visible curious does not effect the odds for the hidden.
I can see how this mistake is made to arrive at 2-in-3 odds. But to actually get 2-in-3 odds, one parent would have to pass both the hidden and the visible allele; which is not possible.
Which leads to one of my pet peeves for claims .. odds which have either a numerator or a denominator which is not a power of 2. Such as the 2-in-3 odds claimed above.
Charm's pet peeves are people who rename the parents, get the box, then rename them to something else; whether the name given to produce the box is a claim, later changed, or whether the same name is given to all parents about to produce boxes and then changed after the box appears.
For example (I'm making this up): having several pairs of Balinese Seal Lynx. Naming all the mothers "Seal Lynx F" all the fathers "Seal Lynx M" which, if you can't see the Pedigree pages for them, seems as an attempt to hide *which* mother and *which* father produced *which* box.
Some Thoughts on Advertising Terminology
