Galaxy Burst Eyes Recessiveness

[Arwen Swordthain]

(09-02-2016 04:47 AM)Kayla Woodrunner Wrote:  I don't know Arwen. If Saga is assuming it's not proven Galaxy Star is not most recessive until Galaxy Burst gets a definitive 2nd proof -- doesn't this proof rest on the assumption Galaxy Star is most recessive? WE know that's true but ti would still need to be "shown". Meaning in this case, the Mom would have to be proven pure Galaxy Star which should be hard to prove since Galaxy Star is the most recessive. If you see what I mean.

Yes what we really need to see is 2 Galaxy Burst cats producing a Galaxy Star baby. Its the best way to have definitive proof. Since it would require Galaxy Star to pull it from under Galaxy Burst if indeed Burst is dominant to star a Burst/Star Baby pair producing Star isn't proof. Needs to be 2 Burst producing a Star or 2 Stars producing a burst. Failing that proven pure parents Star/Burst would provide a more complicated proof.

If anyone needs proven pure Galaxy Star I can guarantee mine are as they all came from the same starter and I don't have Burst in my cattery so I'm willing to lend cats for testing. If anyone has any pure Bursts they would like to breed to one give me a shout, If we can prove purity of parents that might help.

[Kayla Woodrunner]

yes! you said it much better than I did.

[Arwen Swordthain]

(09-02-2016 09:25 AM)Kayla Woodrunner Wrote:  yes! you said it much better than I did.

I just acquired a pure Galaxy Burst and its parents, both hiders from the same starter.
I'll pop it to one of my proven pure Galaxy Stars when its old enough and see about getting that second proof for Saga unless someone else gets one in the meantime, and since I also have the parents as well as Galaxy Star hiders and provable pure galaxy stars I'll see if I can't get proof that way so Saga get their 2nd
We know where it goes thanks to Inias proof now its about that second for Saga to agree with us

[Kayla Woodrunner]

that would be so awesome

[Kayla Woodrunner]

Here is another proof that proves Galaxy Burst is dominant to Galaxy Star. This is a chart from Morgan. She gave me permission to post it.



Thinking about all this made me realize since we proved Inia's charts were pure, we are just reconfirming Galaxy Burst is dominant to Galaxy Star. I know a couple people who said people are arguing with them that Galaxy Burst is recessive to Galaxy Star -- I wish thsoe people would come on the forum -- I bet their charts will show Galaxy Star was used to pull the Galaxy Burst. The initial charts are pretty irrefutable.

[Arwen Swordthain]

(09-10-2016 05:38 PM)Kayla Woodrunner Wrote:  Here is another proof that proves Galaxy Burst is dominant to Galaxy Star. This is a chart from Morgan. She gave me permission to post it.



Thinking about all this made me realize since we proved Inia's charts were pure, we are just reconfirming Galaxy Burst is dominant to Galaxy Star. I know a couple people who said people are arguing with them that Galaxy Burst is recessive to Galaxy Star -- I wish thsoe people would come on the forum -- I bet their charts will show Galaxy Star was used to pull the Galaxy Burst. The initial charts are pretty irrefutable.

Another great proof that coupled with Inias clearly shows Star as recessive to Burst, however as always we would need to see the proof both Galaxy Star parents hid it in an uncontaminated line before those that insist burst is recessive will believe it. Personally seeing the breeders involved theres no doubt in my mind that Morgans Star is pure.
Only way to prove to them Burst is dominant to star is to pull star from 2 Bursts. If anyone stumbles across a chart like that please do share
As Kayla said we are only confirming a irrefutable proof at this point so the whole arguement is kinda frustrating for those of us that can see it.