Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 101

Thread: Genus vs. Specie

  1. #41
    Moderator GrifTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Nationality
    [United States]
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    9,697
    Picture Albums: Member Photo Albums

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Quote Originally Posted by cali View Post
    This discussion may give birth to a new postulate (for purely hypothetical debate of course)

    If "a" breeder (not going to point fingers here) came across a 2n ornate- the hybridization results with a cranwell might be interesting...
    You can breed Ornates with Cranwellies. The offspring are known as Orwells. Its been done before, but not for quite some time.


  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #42
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    They may also be called samurais or mutants........

  4. #43
    Moderator GrifTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Nationality
    [United States]
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    9,697
    Picture Albums: Member Photo Albums

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Quote Originally Posted by cali View Post
    They may also be called samurais or mutants........
    The Samurais aren't Orwells. They are Cranwellies. If they were Ornate Hybrids they would have features of Ornates like the false eye spots. Orwells are also not mutants otherwise Fantacy Frogs would also be known as mutants which they are not. They are just a Hybrid produced by mixed breeding of C. Cranwelli and C. Cornuta.


  5. #44
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    As for the "false eye"-
    Who says that an offspring would carry that trait? It would have just as much chance NOT to carry the trait (since one of it parents had it, one didn't)

    Genetics is a funny thing- in theory, the way that a genetic strand splits when creating an egg or sperm, 2 children from the same parents could have 0.00% of the same genetic makeup. Literally, 2 brothers could be absolutely, completely, 100% not related to eachother (genetically speaking). Of course the odds of this happening is beyond ludicrous, just from the shear amount of data involved in a DNA sequence. It would be like 2 people constantly flipping coins for a million years, and everytime they came up opposite. That's not gonna happen- but it's possible.

    And if we go back to skeletalfrog's paper, it's quite clear that we know less about our beloved pacmans then we think. It states multiple times that there are 2n specimens of ornates as well as 8n's. Therefore, a 2n ornate would be able to breed with a 2n cranwell, but a 2n ornate would not be able to breed with an 8n ornate.

    The term "ornate" may be simple symantics.

  6. #45
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    My points are this-

    Just because we call it an "Ornate", doesn't mean that it's genetically the same as my neighbors "Ornate"- even if they APPEAR identical.

    In crossing of an "Ornate" and a "Cranwell"- there could be 2 offspring, from the same clutch, same parents, wich share zero DNA. Thus- The term "Orwell" would become moot, since it could be used to describe 2 specimens that have 100% different DNA.

    Now of course these last 2 posts of mine are simplified, but 100% accurate and true.

  7. #46
    Moderator GrifTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Nationality
    [United States]
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    9,697
    Picture Albums: Member Photo Albums

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Quote Originally Posted by cali View Post
    As for the "false eye"-
    Who says that an offspring would carry that trait? It would have just as much chance NOT to carry the trait (since one of it parents had it, one didn't)

    Genetics is a funny thing- in theory, the way that a genetic strand splits when creating an egg or sperm, 2 children from the same parents could have 0.00% of the same genetic makeup. Literally, 2 brothers could be absolutely, completely, 100% not related to eachother (genetically speaking). Of course the odds of this happening is beyond ludicrous, just from the shear amount of data involved in a DNA sequence. It would be like 2 people constantly flipping coins for a million years, and everytime they came up opposite. That's not gonna happen- but it's possible.

    And if we go back to skeletalfrog's paper, it's quite clear that we know less about our beloved pacmans then we think. It states multiple times that there are 2n specimens of ornates as well as 8n's. Therefore, a 2n ornate would be able to breed with a 2n cranwell, but a 2n ornate would not be able to breed with an 8n ornate.

    The term "ornate" may be simple symantics.
    If that were the case then why do all Fantacy frogs have traits from both parents. They do not look like one or the other alone, but like both. While Samurai Pacman frogs look only like Cranwellies. There would still be a sign from both parents somewhere in their appearence which there is not. It would be impossible to mix breed so many and never have atleast a few Samurais that looked. Like an Ornate or that took on traits from both parents. Its not possible to have that many sucessful breedings that only turned up with only Cranwelli appearance alone. Its highly unlikely.

    I believe more fresh research needs to be done.


  8. #47
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    yes exactly. In readable terms that aren't boring and total conjecture... Samurai blues are not mixed with anything. Doesn't mean at all the something fishy wasn't done to make them blue but they are pure 100% Crans. Griff is exactly right abt the fact of it not being possible to never show traits of the other half of its genealogy.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?peqh4r

  9. #48
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Simple-

    You have 2 people trapped inside of you (one set from mom, one set from dad)
    Both of your parents had 2 people trapped inside of each of them (one from each of their parents)
    Etc etc etc....

    That means there was 4 possible traits for everything that makes you when your parents reproduced, but only 2 made it into your DNA- wich means that 2 have nothing to do with your genetic makeup and where lost (when it comes to your DNA structure). Just because one of your parents had a trait doesn't mean that you have it anywhere.

    google eye color passive/recessive for a good example.


    Selective breeding.
    Passive and Recessive genes.

    Prime example-
    ALL dog breeds that we keep as pets are descended from wolves.
    However, If I breed 2 rottweilers, the pups will be rottweilers, not poodles- even though both breeds ultimately came from the same ancestors- wich looked like neither 10,000 years ago.

    And yes it is completely possible to ditch a trait from a parent.

  10. #49
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    Ya Rotts were wolves just as poodles were ,correct. this was 1,000s and 1,000's of years ago. blue pacmans were produced TEN YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! your dog theory does not apply here. not even close. they are not crossed w Ornates or any other type. The blue seafoam color was maintained through HEREDITARY FIXATION. Yusuke is easy going and easy to find. ask him all abt it. He may not be willing to give up the secret that made them and I don't blame him. but he's not lying abt them being Cranwellis.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?cb2osh

  11. #50
    Moderator GrifTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Nationality
    [United States]
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    9,697
    Picture Albums: Member Photo Albums

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Quote Originally Posted by cali View Post
    Simple-

    You have 2 people trapped inside of you (one set from mom, one set from dad)
    Both of your parents had 2 people trapped inside of each of them (one from each of their parents)
    Etc etc etc....

    That means there was 4 possible traits for everything that makes you when your parents reproduced, but only 2 made it into your DNA- wich means that 2 have nothing to do with your genetic makeup and where lost (when it comes to your DNA structure). Just because one of your parents had a trait doesn't mean that you have it anywhere.

    google eye color passive/recessive for a good example.


    Selective breeding.
    Passive and Recessive genes.

    Prime example-
    ALL dog breeds that we keep as pets are descended from wolves.
    However, If I breed 2 rottweilers, the pups will be rottweilers, not poodles- even though both breeds ultimately came from the same ancestors- wich looked like neither 10,000 years ago.

    And yes it is completely possible to ditch a trait from a parent.
    What about the people heterochromatia. Where one eye is blue and the other brown? Also the traits in the DNA would not be lost they would still be there otherwise grandchildren would not take on the appearance of the grandparents or relatives further back. Eventually both sides would appear and even those thaught lost would eventually show back up. DNA just doesn't disappear through breeding. Plus I don't think Samurai Japan has been doing it long enough for those traits to be gone since it would literally take several hundred years to become so recessive tthat it doesn't show through.


  12. #51
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    exactly Griff. I'm sorry I was laughing so hard at the idea that someone actually tried to convince someone else that traits can just vanish. they will never leave. plain and simple. A Tiger Muskie is a fish. a hybrid between a Northern Pike and a Muskie. the offspring carry lots of traits by both parents every single time. pointless for me to bring up since Griff already stated that there is no such thing as Fantasy that only looks like the Cramwelli or the Cornuta. never happens never will.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?psisxz

  13. #52
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    OMG really?!?!
    WOW.

    This is biology 101

    My father has brown eyes.
    My mother has blue eyes.
    I have blue eyes.

    Ergo- I DO NOT CARRY A VIABLE GENE FOR BROWN EYES. PERIOD.

    Ditched my fathers trait after 1 (one) generation.

    This is not conjecture.
    This is not theory.

    This is simple genetics.

  14. #53
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    no you did not ditch that trait. that's funny.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?haclwe

  15. #54
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    frog one IS albino, frog 2 is brown. all babies are brown because albino is recessive. ERGO all babies are heterozygous for albino. they do not display this trait but they 100% carry it. pretty simple. so if they breed to a brown frog who also carries albinism some babies will be albino. it's exactly he same with my brother and his wife both have brown eyes BOTH of their children have BLUE.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?sregvy

  16. #55
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Thats because your brother has a brown eye gene (Dominant) and either a blue or green gene (Both recessive) OR brown and a damaged (Any color)
    Your brother's wife has a brown eye gene (Dominant) and either a blue or green gene (Both recessive) OR Brown and a damaged (Any color)

    Both children have one of the following- either Blue x Blue, OR Blue x Green (Blue is dominant over green) OR Blue x damaged brown (where the recessive gene takes precedence over a normally dominant damaged gene)

    NEITHER OF THOSE CHILDREN CAN PRODUCE A BROWN EYED CHILD. PERIOD.

  17. #56
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Just as 2 albinos can NEVER produce a normal phase. They only carry recessive genes.

  18. #57
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    ya exactly, they STILL CARRY THE TRAIT


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tbpcgq

  19. #58
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    none of which matters because your orig point was that blue sams are a cross that never show the other parental traits. that never happens Cali.


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?bgqyjx

  20. #59
    pyxieBob
    Guest

    Default

    the blue eye and albino thing is also not relative. We aren't just talking abt color with these frogs. u said every single trait of one of the parents can vanish. nose shape eye shape hight ect. that is not true. I'm done responding to your posts or even reading your none sense


    ---
    I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?rjpagk

  21. #60
    cali
    Guest

    Default Re: Genus vs. Specie

    Quote Originally Posted by pyxieBob View Post
    ya exactly, they STILL CARRY THE TRAIT
    No, They don't.



    I'm normally a level headed person, but this is like talking to a brick wall. I honestly don't know if you're this dense or just playing at this point.

    If your posts are serious, then you obviously don't understand the mechanics of genetics. Either way, I give up on this thread until someone else participates.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pacific chorus frog sub specie ya or na
    By ibbigpapa in forum Introductions Area
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 7th, 2011, 07:01 PM
  2. Can anyone identify this specie/sex?
    By ArchGrammarian in forum Pacman Frogs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 02:56 PM
  3. Wich specie can i keep in this terraium (pic)
    By Tiosha in forum Vivarium, Terrarium & Enclosure Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 20th, 2010, 06:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •