Does x < y mean that x is recessive to y?

[Kayla Woodrunner]

I have a quick question. Mostly Saga's list is a list but the genesis furs are listed as a sentence using < or > for dominance. Does fur X < Fur Y mean that Fur X is recessive to Fur Y?

For example:
* Proof on Genesis IV Furs:
Smokey IV < Flame IV < Diamond IV < Domino IV < Coco IV

to me less than means recessive because I see recessive as under but maybe it means dominant to other folks. My logic is not always the same as other people.

Does that mean Smokey IV is recessive to Flame IV is recessive to Diamond IV ... etc?

[Barbara Collazo]

That's how I read it, Kayla. And the latest Gen IV proof was stated as Coco > ... --I read that as Coco IV is dominant to all the rest. I hope that is what was intended!

[anna Acanthus]

Yes : x < y means that x is recessive to y.

[Kayla Woodrunner]

thanks Anna. Someone asked me and I wasn't sure. So I'll pass along your answer.

[anna Acanthus]

To better fix "<" in the mind it's better to think of it as "under" rather than the "less than" as used in math.
Under as in hidden, which recessives are in your pedigrees, and also as in the charts, the recessives are listed under the dominants.

And of course for the ">" (more than) just reverse.

[Kayla Woodrunner]

I like that. That is a great way to remember it. Thank you. (of course, having made the mistake of mating gen fur to gen fur once six months ago, I hope never to do it ever again, lol, so hope I don't need to remember)