# royal combination morphs



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

hi, just a few royal combination morph questions. Dont need the whole outcome just the names of the combination morphs you'd create with these pairs if lesser platty is codom or dom. However, if it is recessive then please state.

Lesser platty x Spider 
Lesser platty x Pinstripe
Lesser platty x Pastel
Lesser platty x mojave

Thanks very much 
Brad


----------



## ladybird (Sep 9, 2006)

lesser spider, kingpin, pastel lesser, BEL


----------



## tricky (Sep 29, 2007)

lesserbee
kingpin
lesser pastel
bel

:2thumb:


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

So would lesser x mojave be

25% normal
25% mojave
25% lesser
25% bel?

And lesser x lesser =

50% lesser 
50% bel 

???


----------



## ladybird (Sep 9, 2006)

repkid said:


> So would lesser x mojave be
> 
> 25% normal
> 25% mojave
> ...


yes mojave x lesser is correct

lesser x lesser is
25% normal
50% lesser
25% BEL


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

thanks 

Just one more question - Do two hets make 100% visuals?


----------



## cannotstopbuyingballs (Dec 29, 2007)

Yep 1 in 4 per egg


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

I mean like. Normal 100% het albino x normal 100% het albino.

Would it make 100% albino or
50% normal het albino and 50% albino?


----------



## kirsten (Jan 13, 2008)

no as said above, only 1 in 4 so 25% chance of creating visual from two hets, i don't know much about royals but i know about genetics.


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

Oh ok, i thought it was at leaset 50%. 

Thanks


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

Should be last question LOL.

What percentage het are the normal offspring for pied?


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

From what pairing?


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

100% het pied x 100% het pied rp?


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

25% Normal
25% Pied
50% Het Pied

So the 'normal' offspring have a 66(or 67)% chance of being het Pied.


----------



## tricky (Sep 29, 2007)

Blackecho said:


> 25% Normal
> 25% Pied
> 50% Het Pied
> 
> So the 'normal' offspring have a 66(or 67)% chance of being het Pied.


so ud be lucky if u could charge anything more than a normal for them although they MAY be 100% , its just that u cant tell


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

Blackecho said:


> 25% Normal
> 25% Pied
> 50% Het Pied
> 
> So the 'normal' offspring have a 66(or 67)% chance of being het Pied.


So 50% will be 100% and 25% will be 66% but you wont be able to tell the difference?


----------



## kirsten (Jan 13, 2008)

repkid said:


> So 50% will be 100% and 25% will be 66% but you wont be able to tell the difference?


1 our of 4 will be visual, leaves 3 out of 4 normal. of those 3 normals 2 will be het, so.... 2 3rds het which translates to a 66% chance of the normals being het, becuase you can't tell which is which so you have to call all normals 66% het.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

repkid said:


> So 50% will be 100% and 25% will be 66% but you wont be able to tell the difference?


No, 50% will be het, and 25% will NOT be het - but because you cannot tell the difference between het-pied and not-het-pied, you call them 66% possible hets because you've got a 2-in-3 chance of any given normal-looking animal being a het.

There's no such thing as a "partial het" pied. It either *is* or it *isn't* - it's just working out which is which.


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

Unless your lucky enough to get het markers?


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

You can get normals with "het markers" too.

The only way to guarantee any given animal from a 66% chance possible het pied clutch is actually a het pied is by producing visual pied offspring from it.

Now, that said, if I had a clutch of 66% possible het pieds I might well pick and keep the females with the "het markers" just in case... but I wouldn't be surprised or upset if they didn't prove out, because the markers are a hint but they don't always prove out.


----------



## tricky (Sep 29, 2007)

but even witht the markers ud be lucky to charge any more than a normal i believe
ur really best off with ( i know its HUGELY more expensive) a visual pied male
then u can breed to a few normal or het pied girls
if bred to normal girls the babies will be 100% het pied so u can sell as that if youve got a good rep or r a good salesman lol
or breed to het girl then half visuals and half 100% hets


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

Why do we call them 66% when really its 67%?

If I get any like that I'm going to sell them as 67%, might get more for that extra 1%


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

What, you don't want to call them 66.66(bar-repeating)% instead?

I'd rather, personally, just call them "Possible het pied" and leave it at that, with no percentage - if someone asks I can say "both parents were hets, which means each normal-looking baby had a two out of three chance of being a het also."


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

Nope, I'll call them 67%s and clean up :lol2:


----------



## GazEmm (Jul 11, 2006)

Blackecho said:


> Nope, I'll call them 67%s and clean up :lol2:


Isn't 67% just as wrong as 66% though? I rememebr being taught to round things up in my maths lessons is school but if you want to be picky you are false advertising by saying 67% :whistling2:


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

67 is closer than 66, and correct to 2 significant figures


----------



## GazEmm (Jul 11, 2006)

Blackecho said:


> 67 is closer than 66, and correct to 2 significant figures


At the end of the day they are both wrong...if anything i'd say 66% is better to use mind as you will be stating something has a higher chance than it really does by using 67%, but this is if i was being extremely picky!!

Of course, we are quibling over next to nothing here mind :lol2:


----------



## repkid (Nov 30, 2007)

Is this a maths forum of something? :lol2:


----------



## Donz (Jan 8, 2009)

This may seem like a stupid question but with the percentages and stuff, I am reading this as though you are saying babies resulting from pairing will end up being 
25% normal
25% pied
50% het pied

This is percentage chance per egg isn't it?

As in there could (in theory) be a full clutch which hatch as visual pied?

I did genetics in A level biology about 12yrs ago, just trying to remember it all!


----------



## James King (Jan 2, 2009)

Yeah its possible just like they could all be normal looking its the chance per egg


----------



## tricky (Sep 29, 2007)

Donz n Si said:


> This may seem like a stupid question but with the percentages and stuff, I am reading this as though you are saying babies resulting from pairing will end up being
> 25% normal
> 25% pied
> 50% het pied
> ...


 
correct
or you could get none
not sure what you claim the hets to be then, that might be 50%


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

tricky said:


> correct
> or you could get none
> not sure what you claim the hets to be then, that might be 50%


The normal-looking offspring from a pair of known 100% het pied parents are "66% possible het pied".

This is because there are three possible normal-looking combinations from those parents:

1. Mum passes "not pied" to the offspring, Dad passes "not pied" to the offspring (Normal not het pied)
2. Mum passes "pied" to the offspring, Dad passes "not pied" to the offspring (Het Pied)
3. Mum passes "not pied" to the offspring, Dad passes "pied" to the offspring (Het Pied)

As you can see, two of those three possible combinations result in a het pied baby - so any normal looking baby has a two-in-three chance (or 66%) of being a carrier of the trait.

Oh yeah - BTW, Repkid:

When you're calculating genetic outcomes it really IS maths you're looking at to get the correct answers (statistical probabilities and percentages) - so yeah, this is indeed a maths forum


----------



## Donz (Jan 8, 2009)

Thehornycorny said:


> Yeah its possible just like they could all be normal looking its the chance per egg


That's what I thought, it's been a while since I did this stuff!:blush:


----------

