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.