# Bumblebees and Killerbees



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

Was doing punnet squares lastnight and when got to doing the bumble and killer bees I got stuck

Pastel (NP) x Spider (NS) = Bumbleebee (PS) I understand that bit fine
Pastel (NP) x Pastel (NP) = Super Pastel (PP) I understand that bit fine

Super Pastel (PP) x Spider (NS) = Killerbee (PPS) is that right? coz no matter how I tried it in the punnet square the best i could get to match up in the little boxes was (PS) which is a bumblebee but I know that a super pastel x spider = killerbee. So what am I doing wrong or what am I not understanding fully?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

What you need to think of is that:

Super Pastel is *PP ss *(two copies of codominant Pastel, NO copies of Spider.)
Killerbee is* PP Ss* (two copies of codominant pastel, one copy of Spider)
Bumblebee is *Pp Ss *(one copy of pastel, one copy of not-pastel / one copy of spider)

They're two different gene pairs and need to be treated separately.

Super Pastel X Spider would actually make:

Pastels Pp ss
Bumblebees Pp Ss 

It doesn't make killerbees - you've got to inherit one copy of pastel from EACH side of the family to make a Killerbee.


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

So would crossing a bumblebee with a pastel give a killerbee?

Could you show me what the punnet square would look for the combo?

As I can only get my head round four squares and think this combo requires more squares. 

Bumblebee (PS) x Pastel (NP) = Super Pastel (PP), Pastel (NP), Spider (NS), Bumble(PS)


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

mojorising said:


> So would crossing a bumblebee with a pastel give a killerbee?
> 
> Could you show me what the punnet square would look for the combo?
> 
> ...


Crossing a bumblebee with a pastel gives killerbee plus other morphs.

As Ssthisto wrote, there are TWO gene pairs, not one.

P = pastel
p = normal

S = spider
s = normal

Bumblebee (Pp Ss) has a pastel mutant gene paired with a p normal gene and a spider mutant gene paired with an s normal gene. Pastel (Pp ss) has a pastel mutant gene paired with a p normal gene and a pair of s normal genes. (By the way, the s normal gene is not the same as the p normal gene.) First step is to figure out what types of sperm and eggs can be produced. Each egg and sperm contains ONE gene from EACH of the parent's gene pairs.

The pastel can produce two possible types of sperm (or eggs) -- P s and p s. You can put them on the top of the Punnett square.

The bumblebee can produce four possible types of eggs (or sperm) -- P S, P s, p S, and p s. These can go down the side of the Punnett square. 

The Punnett square contains 2x 4 boxes. Each box in this Punnett square MUST contain two gene pairs.

The square would look like this:
PP Ss, Pp Ss
PP ss, Pp ss
Pp Ss, pp Ss
Pp ss, pp ss

Add the like genotypes produces
1/8 PP Ss = super pastel spider = killerbee
1/8 PP ss = super pastel
2/8 Pp Ss = pastel spider = bumblebee
2/8 Pp ss = pastel
1/8 pp Ss = spider
1/8 pp ss = normal


----------



## Deano (Oct 26, 2006)

mojorising said:


> So would crossing a bumblebee with a pastel give a killerbee?
> 
> Could you show me what the punnet square would look for the combo?
> 
> ...


Yes, Bumblebee x Pastel will make Killer Bees

Bumblebee (PpSs) x Pastel (Ppss) = Super Pastel (PPss), Pastel (Ppss), Spider (ppSs), Bumblebee (PpSs) and Killer (PPSs), Normal (ppss)

You need to look at the Pastal (P) and Spider (S) seperatly, you are still putting the together. Normal genes are being refered to in lower case.

Your Punnet square need 4 rows for a double gene. 
A bumblebee has a pair of genes are the 'Spider' locus - S (Spider) and s (Normal).
And a seperate pair at the 'Pastel' locus - P (Pastel) and p (Normal).
It will pass on ONE gene for EACH locus.

So the rows combinations the bumblebee can pass on are: PS, Ps, pS, ps

The Pastel has no Spider genes, so is Ppss, it can pass on: Ps or ps.

So you have 2 columns for your Pastel, 4 rows for your bee, add these together to get 8 possible combos.


----------



## Deano (Oct 26, 2006)

ha ha toooo slooooow!!


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

paulh said:


> As Ssthisto wrote, there are TWO gene pairs, not one.
> 
> The Punnett square contains 2x 4 boxes. Each box in this Punnett square MUST contain two gene pairs.


That kinda makes more sense now. Cheers Paul and Deano. Firstly I was using a capital N to signify the normal gene which I think was confusing matters and I never realised that there must be TWO gene pairs.

Think I've got it, was getting a bit confused when I saw the ss in the Ppss as that is for a pastel but why would a pastel have an s in it. In my head the s stood for spider but it actually stands for normal but guessing s is being used because a bumblebee is in the equation which has PpSs and therefore must use the same letters other wise it's going to confuse matters more.


If you'll bare with me.....
So just to see if I've got this genetic thing.....

Firefly (FfPp) x Black E.L (FfFf) = 

FFFf, Black E.L
FFPp, Pastel Black E.L
FFFP, Black E.L
FFPf, Pastel Black E.L
FFFp, Black E.L
FfFf, Black E.L
FfPp, Firefly
FfFP, Black E.L
FfPf, Firefly
FfFp Black E.L

Probably out of my depth with that combo but think I understood the bumblebee (PpSs) x pastel (Ppss) combo well enough that I could get the firefly (FfPp) x black e.l (FfFf) combo correct. Think I got the genetics part right but maybe the naming wrong

Please feel free to correct


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Right, BlkEL in your scenario above would be FF - homozygous Fire F. 

If you're crossing it to a Pastel carrier, you'd add pp to show that your homozygous Fire is not carrying Pastel (a separate gene pair.) Remember that like letters denoting one gene pair stay together - Ff is "heterozygous fire", ff is "homozygous not-fire" and FF is "homozygous fire".

So:

Black-Eyed Leucistic NOT Pastel:

*FF *(two copies of Fire) *pp *(two copies of "not pastel").

Firefly:

*Ff *(One copy fire, one copy not-fire) *Pp *(one copy pastel, one copy not-pastel).

Your possible results are:

F from BlkEL + either F or f from Firefly
p from BlkEL + either P or p from Firefly

Therefore, I use a percentage based way of getting the answers:

50% chance of Fire
- Each fire has a 50% chance of being pastel (25% chance per egg Firefly)
- Each fire has a 50% chance of not being pastel (25% chance per egg Fire)
50% chance of BlkEL
- Each BlkEL has a 50% chance of being pastel (25% chance per egg Pastel BlkEL)
- Each BlkEL has a 50% chance of being not-pastel (25% chance per egg BlkEL)


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

Ssthisto said:


> Right, BlkEL in your scenario above would be FF - homozygous Fire F.
> 
> If you're crossing it to a Pastel carrier, you'd add pp to show that your homozygous Fire is not carrying Pastel (a separate gene pair.) Remember that like letters denoting one gene pair stay together - Ff is "heterozygous fire", ff is "homozygous not-fire" and FF is "homozygous fire".


Shit I really thought I had it there but can see where I went wrong. Blkel should have started off as FFpp and shouldn't have had f&p together in the gene pair. 



Ssthisto said:


> ff is "homozygous not-fire"


So that's a normal then?!?!

Think I'm starting to get the hang of this. Will sit down tonight with pen and paper and get back to basics then work my way up

So Pastel is PpNn coz it holds one dominant normal gene and one co-dom pastel gene. Pastel (PpNn) x Pastel (PpNn) = 
Super pastel (PPpp), 
Pastel (PpNn) 
Normal (NNnn)


If thats right and bloody hope it is. Then think knowing the there is supposed to be to pairs (i.e PpNn) helps tenfold. And if i nail this then won't have to post any more questions asking about it unless I get really stuck


----------



## alan1 (Nov 11, 2008)

i do mine the least confusing way (so much easier to read), and get the same result...

pastel x fire =

... N .. P
N. NN NP
F. NF FP

another example...
bumblebee het pied = N P S SP Np Pp Sp SPp

i only use relevant lettering...
its straightforward, and works for me

soo, thru my eyes... bumblebee x pastel is...

... N.. P.. S.. SP
N. NN NP NS NSP
P. NP PP SP SPP

there's your killerbee


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

alan1 said:


> i do mine the least confusing way (so much easier to read), and get the same result...
> 
> pastel x fire =
> 
> ...


The top punnet square was how I was originally doing it, which seems fine for something basic like pastel x pastel, normal x pastel, normal x spider, fire x fire, etc

What i got into trouble with was when trying to work out the doublegene carrying snake like bumblebees, etc I thought by using the simply version I used to do (like in your 4 square punnet) that a bumblebee = (PS) made sense originally but now I have seen the light and it is actual (PpSs) so when crossed to another pastel (Ppss) = killerbees (PPSs)

*and I did all that without having to look back at what others have posted in this thread......so think it's sinking in lads.....BY JOVE I THINK HE'S GOT...almost


----------



## alan1 (Nov 11, 2008)

mojorising said:


> Super Pastel (PP) x Spider (NS)


my way is...

...N.. S
P NP SP
P NP SP....which is 50% pastel, 50% bee

to get a killerbee, you need the pastel gene from *each* parent + the spider gene from 1 parent


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

alan1 said:


> my way is...
> 
> ...N.. S
> P NP SP
> ...


This is how the thread started coz that's how I use to work it out but now with that logic the bumblebee is (SP) put that to the super pastel (PP) and it = PS, PS, PP, PP

but it supposed to make killers but PS is bumblebee according to the simplified punnet, so this made it bloody misleading


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

alan1 said:


> soo, thru my eyes... bumblebee x pastel is...
> 
> ... N.. P.. S.. SP
> N. NN NP NS NSP
> ...


That's a lot easier on the brain

Still a lot to take in for one evening

Thanks to everyone for their help and time trying to explain this :2thumb:


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

mojorising said:


> So Pastel is PpNn coz it holds one dominant normal gene and one co-dom pastel gene. Pastel (PpNn) x Pastel (PpNn) =
> Super pastel (PPpp),
> Pastel (PpNn)
> Normal (NNnn)


No, two letters represent BOTH halves of the gene pair. 

*PP* is Super Pastel (two copies of the gene *P*, one from each parent, for "pastel gene" - N or n is not required, because N would be a different gene pair)
*Pp *is Pastel (one copy of *P* for "pastel gene" and one copy of *p* for "not-pastel gene" - N not required)
*pp* is Normal not-pastel (two copies of the gene *p*, one from each parent, for "not-pastel" - N not required)

*PP* is a pair - *PPpp* (or *PPnn*) is two pairs of two separate genes.

Is it easier if I show it as *P/P*, *P/p* and *p/p *to show that each single letter is half of a pair of letters?

The killerbee thing can be done as:

Bumblebee *S/s P/p*
Pastel *s/s P/p*

There is a 50% chance per egg of a Spider (*S/s*).
- Each Spider has a 25% chance of inheriting two copies of *p* (*S/s p/p* - Spider, 12.5% possibility)
- Each Spider has a 50% chance of inheriting a copy of *P* from one parent and a copy of *p* from the other (*S/s P/p* - Bumblebee - 25% possibility)
- Each Spider has a 25% chance of inheriting a copy of *P* from both parents (*S/s P/P* - Killerbee - 12.5% possibility)

There is a 50% chance per egg of a Not-Spider (*s/s*).
- Each Not-Spider has a 25% chance of inheriting two copies of *p* (*s/s p/p* - Normal, 12.5% possibility)
- Each Not-Spider has a 50% chance of inheriting a copy of *P* from one parent and a copy of *p* from the other (*s/s P/p* - Pastel - 25% possibility)
- Each Not-Spider has a 25% chance of inheriting a copy of *P* from both parents (*s/s P/P* - SuperPastel - 12.5% possibility)


----------



## paulh (Sep 19, 2007)

In my opinion, alan1's Punnett square style works for an experienced person but is confusing for a newbie. We had the same disagreement in another thread earlier this week. Writing out both genes in a gene pair may be a bit more time consuming, but I think a newbie is more likely to get the right answer that way.

It also helps the readers of these threads if the posters write out what a gene symbol stands for.


----------



## kingball (Jun 21, 2009)

tell me about it them squares do my nut in :lol2:


----------



## Deano (Oct 26, 2006)

paulh said:


> In my opinion, alan1's Punnett square style works for an experienced person but is confusing for a newbie. We had the same disagreement in another thread earlier this week. Writing out both genes in a gene pair may be a bit more time consuming, but I think a newbie is more likely to get the right answer that way.
> 
> It also helps the readers of these threads if the posters write out what a gene symbol stands for.


I agree with this, Alan1's method works as well, but just as the OP had just about got the PPSs thing, maybe it wasn't a good time to introduce!!

You only need to display 2 gene pairs if you are working with 2 seperate genes. If you are refering to a Pastel alone, Pp is enough, no need to refer to the 2 normal genel at the 'spider gene' pair (ss) unless the gene is present in the individual, or the breeding pair.

If you are crossing the Pastel with a Spider (Ss), then you refer to both genes when writing down the Pastel - Ppss - and the Spider (ppSp) as you want to see the results in the offspring (Ppss, ppSs, PpSs, ppss).


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

Deano said:


> I agree with this, Alan1's method works as well, but just as the OP had just about got the PPSs thing, maybe it wasn't a good time to introduce!!
> 
> You only need to display 2 gene pairs if you are working with 2 seperate genes. If you are refering to a Pastel alone, Pp is enough, no need to refer to the 2 normal genel at the 'spider gene' pair (ss) unless the gene is present in the individual, or the breeding pair.
> 
> If you are crossing the Pastel with a Spider (Ss), then you refer to both genes when writing down the Pastel - Ppss - and the Spider (ppSp) as you want to see the results in the offspring (Ppss, ppSs, PpSs, ppss).


That makes perfect sense now!!! Thanks for everyones help on this. Think I've almost nailed it to a T. but if i come a cropper I know who to ask


----------

