In the middle of this whole discussion, THIS made me happy:
(05-29-2012 03:46 PM)Brunabug Nightfire Wrote: We all know that there is always something more recessive behind anything that is not a genesis trait.
The fact that this is stated as an obvious truth makes me all warm and fussy
(even if genesis traits of course ALSO hides something more recessive ;-))
Why? -Well... Because I remember the feeling of banging my head into a very hard brick wall when trying to convince people that this is indeed the case. -And now, every new breeder just KNOWS this, and even the most stubborn of the old ones seem either convinced or at least silent on the matter
Sorry for going off-topic here - But really, this made my day. Thank you to everyone who just KNOWS this, no matter if you know why you know it or not
----
Back on topic: To me, "pure" means only one thing: "This cat has the same trait hidden as it has shown".
"Pure" used for anything else just speaks of the owner's lack of knowledge about shown/hidden traits - or if he/she knows, it's even worse: Then it speaks of his/her willingness to mislead less knowledgeable people.
"Hidden" means "This cat has X as a hidden trait" - and no, NOT "This cat's parent had X as a hidden/shown trait" or "This cat's grandparent's cousin once had a kitten that showed this" or "There is a possibility that....". No. You do NOT write "This can hides X" unless you know - or again, you either display a lack of knowledge or a willingness to mislead.
"In BG" on the other hand, is a VERY lose term that can cover you up in almost ANY case - as long as the trait in question IS of course actually in the background ;-) Use this if in doubt.
---------------
Aaand about the 2/3 chance that Tad is speaking against:
I know what you mean, Tad, and even though I was the one to teach everyone about the 2/3 chance in case both parents hide it in the first place, I agree more than you'd most likely think at first glance.
When I first started using percentage-chances, this particular thing was quite an issue for me. If both parents show A and hide b, and the kitten shows A, what are the chances it hides b? What should I tell people? -Or should I tell them both theories? (I quickly decided against the latter, knowing TOO well what kind of confusion and arguments any un-clear messages can be source of.)
There are two solutions: Either, you conclude that ONE parent obviously threw trait A, and then there is a 50% chance that the other threw either A or b. Hence, equal chances = 50%. This is what you say, and I understand the argument perfectly.
HOWEVER - if you look at basic genetic rules: Ab + Ab = AA, Ab, bA or bb, where AA, Ab and bA will all show trait A. So, 2/3 chance that it hides trait b.
And this:
If I mate Ab + Ab, according to your logic, the chance for the kitten to hide b is THE EXACT SAME as if I mate Ab + AA. Is that likely? In my logic, the chances of course improves if I give the kitten TWO chances to inherit b instead of just one, right?
Also:
With the 50%-theory, how do you explain the sudden shift of chances if the parents do NOT have the same shown trait, but only the same hidden, like this:
Ac + Bc = AB, Ac, Bc or cc. In this case, you have to agree that if A is dominant to B, and B to c, only 2 kittens (the AA and the Ac) will leave a doubt if they inherited c, and THEIR chance will be 50% - again, leaving the chances of hiding c between the 3 kittens who do NOT show it (AB, Ac & Bc) at 2/3.
I hope you understand why I went for the 2/3 chance here. -And no, it wasn't "just because I felt like it", it was because that once I considered every aspect of it very carefully, I more and more believed that this is closer to the truth of things - both for the above mentioned reasons, but also because I have a long experience of un-boxing those "maybe-kittens" where both parents had "it" hidden, and in most cases by far, they DO indeed hide that "it".
So yes, while I still understand that in strict rules of logic, the chances can easily be interpreted as 50%, I still claim that 2/3 is closer to the actual truth :-) I hope you understand my arguments here.
-Saga
Some Thoughts on Advertising Terminology
