trabots wrote:
Madas, "we" are those who use pure genetics code, ie: professional geneticists. We breeders don't need to use that code when we have names for these mutations which are far easier to understand. It angers me when parrot gurus use this code when 99% of breeders don't understand it. I don't know the code nor ever want to, but bl*tq is the heteroallele is it not? Wouldn't the homozygous Turquoise be tq*tq? It is just semantics justifying "base allele" for Blue because this code puts it first. The code would work equally well with tq*bl. What is the code for Indigo? for Deep? The code will always lag reality with regards to bird breeding so why ever use it in our context, that of breeding mutations?
I don't agree here. Using genetic code resp. symbols does not cause any confusion as it is with "written" names. The gen code is clearly (100% correct) defining the bird makeup. So most People speeking on turquoise ringneck are refering in real to a turquoiseBlue. And you have always ask them "Do you mean homozygous or heterozyguos?". That's annoying too. But then using the gen code instead you are 100% sure what you speak about.
Your usage of the gen symbols isn't correct at all. bl*tq is a gen Symbol for only one allele. To represent the whole gen you need to alleles. Here are some examples for the blue locus (D is added due to the linkage between dark and the blue locus; there no offical gen Symbol for Indigo so i have used "in").
green: D+_bl+/D+_bl+
green /blue: D+_bl+/D+_bl
green /turquoise: D+_bl+/D+_bl*tq
blue: D+_bl/D+_bl
turquoiseBlue: D+_bl/D+_bl*tq
turquoise: D+_bl*tq/D+_bl*tq
aquaBlue: D+_bl/D+_bl*aq
turquoiseAqua: D+_bl*aq/D+_bl*tq
indigoBlue: D+_bl/D+_bl*in
indigoAqua: D+_bl*aq/D+_bl*in
and so on. Easy isn't it?
trabots wrote:It angers me when parrot gurus use this code when 99% of breeders don't understand it
And it angers me that the 99% of breeder aren't willing to learn some basic genetics. Bird breeding is more then combining two nice looking birds, feeding them, setuping nextboxes and waiting for the offspring to sell for good money. Even if your are a mutation breeder. We are responsible for the birds we breed with and so it's only fair to learn some (genetics) basic (include inheritance and gen codes). Without that you can't be sure what you sell to other people resp. you don't know if you got ripped of by the seller. And this at least one reason why we have such a big mistrust among the whole breeding community.
trabots wrote:I fail to see how just treating allelic genes like every other gene for which your calculator already has the "code", is a problem. All it means is the birds which are double split for allelic mutations have a visual result. That difference is effected easily just with words. As I referred to before, what if Deep is found to be allelic to Dark? If you undertake the admirable task of creating a genetic calculator you should be willing and have the time always available to update it continually as these new mutations are discovered. This would be a piece of cake if one tick box = one gene and the other tick box = two genes. Declaring a heteroallele visual for one allele and split for another is absurd.
Adding new mutation isn't a problem because the handling for all kind of mutations is already implemented on an abstract basis. But this abstract basis is working on the assumption that you have to input the allele base as color and the other allele as split. And the whole offspring is calculated under this assumption too.
My gen-calc was made as a byproduct then dealing resp. learning the Basic genetics for ringnecks resp. parrots. The whole project was made in my free time after a 10 hours working day. And i thought it would be nice to share it with you. I always welcome new suggestions but i think it is up to me whether and when i am able to implement them. Perhaps you are a pensioner i am not. So my free time is limited. And nearly 75% of the free time is dedicated to my bird hobby. So i don't think my family is willing that it reaches 100%.
greetings.
madas
PS: So lets wait what some other people think about your suggestion and then perhaps in two or three months i will be able to refactor the source code.