Drop Menu Website Template
Image
image
image


Hello There, Guest! Register

Post Reply 
Question about Pure
07-06-2015, 08:32 AM
Post: #21
RE: Question about Pure
Wow I had no idea this was so complicated Smile Thank you for all this great information
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Ivy Norsk , MsMagick Resident
07-07-2015, 08:03 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2015 08:05 AM by Devilness Chant.)
Post: #22
RE: Question about Pure
(07-06-2015 08:32 AM)LiquidLatex Resident Wrote:  Wow I had no idea this was so complicated Smile Thank you for all this great information

All the info here is amazing. For me, I'm blond and got an anurism reading them. lol They're dead on and very informative, but I'm more of a keep it simple and use visuals.

I hope that MarrisaCloud doesn't mind my using her post to show a visual version of what every one is saying, but she did a wonderful job moving onyx eyes and rec traits to a beautiful pandie plat fur.

Her post is here in showroom.... http://kittycats.biz/forum/showthread.php?tid=22624

You can see by the ages of the parents it takes time. And a lot of patience, but when it comes together it's worthwhile.

Devine Kitty Stuff MarketPlace
Devine Kitties at The Kat Shack
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: MsMagick Resident
07-08-2015, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 01:06 PM by LibGwen Resident.)
Post: #23
RE: Question about Pure
The only way to know a KittyCat has a pure trait is for it to have been born of parents who were both known to hide it.

For example,

- I had a female with Caramel eye color showing that I had discovered hid Gerbera Pink when she produced a Gerbera Pink offspring by mating with a cat who had a shown eye color recessive to Gerbera Pink.

- I also had a male with Odyssey Carnival eye color showing that I had discovered hid Gerbera Pink when he produced a Gerbera Pink offspring by mating with a cat who had a shown eye color recessive to Gerbera Pink.

When I mated the female and male and got an offspring with Gerbera Pink eye color showing, I knew its eye color had to be pure because Caramel and Odyssey Carnival cannot hide under Gerbera Pink and the parents had no more to offer than those three colors.

*

You have to keep careful notes. And don't forget to explain to yourself *why* you know something. There is nothing more annoying than wondering why you "know" something that seems bizarre now.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-13-2018, 06:39 AM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2018 07:04 AM by Ivy Norsk.)
Post: #24
RE: Question about Pure
I'm bumping this thread because it is time.

I'm seeing a lot of people at auctions and submitting pedigrees who think that if a pedigree shows one fur (or other trait) consistently then it is "solid." I also notice that while people are shy of using the term "pure" - and that's probably a good thing - they feel more secure just saying "solid" and having that being one step down from "Pure". But a pedigree showing only one fur, or one eye, can still have hiddens lurking underneath from generations further back than one can see. This is why, when we are doing proof-testing we NEVER accept such pedigrees as proof. We insist on running a recessives test and pulling the hidden out from under the shown. Pedigrees only show the showns and, if you know how to infer, you can sometimes guess at what the hiddens are.

Part of this also is the difference between prooftesting and auctions. In prooftesting we want it all iron-clad. A thing has to be absolutely true and provable. I know that when an auctioneer is standing in front of a bunch of people and presented with a pedigree that shows, for instance, tonk blue mink, all the way, there's not much else that can be said about it, and "solid" kind of covers that as long as there's that caveat that things really can lurk. Also, historically speaking, there are some traits that are much more likely to be, in fact, pure. Russian blacks have been mated with russian blacks going back for generations. But as soon as a new eye is added to the line, that new eye probably came on a different fur, and it can run under the line for generations undetected. The breeder wants the russian black, russian black is dominant to a bunch of furs, and the black can just ice skate on top and merrily cover the hidden from both sides in 3 out of 4 situations - that is except when a double-recessive is thrown from both partners that have it. (And if one of the russian blacks is pure and the other partner isn't, even the double-recessive throw will show russian black, and the hidden fur will still lurk.)

Historically speaking also, furs that have the distinction of being most-recessive for awhile, like the burmilla chocolate silver shaded, get bred and bred and bred, and are more likely, on a statistical basis to be pure. But we can't KNOW that the fur on any given cat is pure unless we test and pull for the hidden.


So please people: read this thread from the beginning.

The Pawsable Traits Reference manager and a Chart keeper.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Songdog Woolley , Arwen Swordthain
01-13-2018, 09:22 AM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2018 09:40 AM by Maxwell Grantly.)
Post: #25
RE: Question about Pure
Three years ago, I put pen to paper and tried to calculate the mathematical probability of any given cat having 'pure' genes (AA), given that the only information you had on the background of the cat was what you could see from the pedigree page: that is, the only information you had was the appearance of all the parents and grandparents. I had pondered upon this question, after seeing a pedigree chart of one cat, having the same characteristics as all the parents and the grandparents.

I knew that the grandparents could possibly have a hidden recessive gene beneath the visible characteristics that were displayed (Aa). So I wondered, what was the mathematical probability that a given trait was pure (AA), if you were to witness the pedigree page of that cat and could only see the same trait in all the parents and grandparents.

Before I completed the mathematics, my instinct was that the chance of the trait being pure was 'quite high.' However, when I did the maths, I was shocked to see that the chance of a trait being pure (that is, the cat was AA homogenous) was only a mere 50%.

If you want to see the scrap paper containing my calculations, here it is:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4672]

Explanation for above scribbles:

Each of the four grandparents are heterogeneous (Aa) and so there is a one in three chance that their offspring are homogenous. (We can discount the "aa" offspring from the maths for we know that the recessive fur is not showing.) When combining these three different combinations for the two parents, 16 homogenous offspring are produced. Again, we can again discount the four "aa" results because we can see from the pedigree page that no cat has a recessive fur type. This means that there are (9*4)-4 different combinations.

I was surprised to see that, despite having a whole page of identical traits, the final cat only has mathematically a 50-50 chance of being pure in the given trait.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

Magical stories from an independent author
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Songdog Woolley , Ivy Norsk
01-13-2018, 05:22 PM
Post: #26
RE: Question about Pure
This is the worst-case calculation. The best-case calculation is that all four grand-parents are homogeneous (AA) and the offspring has a 1:1 chance of being so, as well.

The full answer, when asked the odds of a given cat being homogeneous, when all we know is all parents and grandparents exhibit the trait value, is: "We don't know, but it's somewhere from 1:2 (50%) to 1:1 (100%)."

We can even work out all possible charts (there are 16, in all) and determine odds for each of the remaining 14. But, since we don't know the odds of one chart or another appearing, we can't work out the full odds and are still left with the statement "from 1:2 to 1:1" as the best we can do.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Maxwell Grantly , Songdog Woolley
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)