Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make me wrong.
Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make me wrong.
g/g = gold
g/g - pb/pb = platinum
Gm/g = Gold Marble
and in the same way
Gm/g - pb/pb = platinum marble
similarly
Gm/Gm - pb/pb = platinum marble
The above is the naming convention that Ken Kennedy proposed, and most people adhere to. Apart from anything else, calling a Gm/g - pb/pb a blue gold marble would be confusing to anyone unfamiliar with angelfish genetics, since in general they're not gold, and have very little in the way of blue on them.
Gm/+ - pb/pb is a blue gold marble.
Blessed are the cheesemakers!
Sorry Dena, wrong choice of words..
What I posted for the genetics and naming was from Paul Susi's calculator....he had worked with Ken too, I believe
We're talking genotype naming here and to be definitive..the gold marble should be mentioned....aka Blue gold marble....because that is what it is,,,,
Phenotype names on the other hand have been all over the place, whatever we try to name here, but Plat marble/Plat blue marble has seemed to have stuck....but the calculators should show the genotype names....
Last edited by Mugwump; 10-03-2015 at 04:55 AM.
Jon
He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
- Douglas Adams
http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com/index.php
Jon
He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
- Douglas Adams
http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com/index.php
No actually it should show the genotype name and genotype code.....The TAS calculator has always been a 'genetic calculator'... ..however, the preferred phenotype name could be added tho.....??.
When the std committee looks at crosses from a submitted new gene , we're looking at the genetics because phenotype naming should derive from them....not using a phenotype name to justify the genetics.....
Jon
He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
- Douglas Adams
http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com/index.php
So, under the column title "Phenotype Description", are you saying that the title should be "Genotype Name", or are you saying that all the entries under the column should be listed as the individual "Genotype Name" regardless of the title being "Phenotype Description" I'm thinking that you are asking for the calculator to be changed to reflect the Genotype and not the Phenotype? If that is correct and the calculator does require changing, why not have both listed? ie;,
Column 1 = Genotype Name
Column 2 = Phenotype Name
Column 3 = Genotype Code
Column 4 = Results (percentage)
Jon
He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
- Douglas Adams
http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com/index.php
Folks, our standard definition is:
Marble = "M"arble Gene
Goldmarble = "G"old"M"arble Gene.
The phenotype's name is derived in part from the genetics (genotype). Since it was decided at the time of our founding that we would not charter phenotypic naming, commonly used names at the time were "grandfathered" in.
In the event that we found it necessary to create a phenotypic name, it has been customary to derive it from its genotypic makeup. For example, if the name Koi did not exist and we had to "invent" one for a Gm/g - S/S, it has been practical to call it a Goldmarble Blushing. In the case of a M/Gm - S/S, the more dominant expressed trait is used - therefore it would be called a Marble Blushing. That also means that if it does not have the Marble Gene, it cannot be called a "Something" Marble.
Is the standard being changed or is our usage misunderstood?
Last edited by terrapins; 10-05-2015 at 01:26 PM.
.....so long as that "preferred" phenotypic name does not compromise our naming standards. If multiple names are in existence and widely used, a solution would be to include a column or footnote stating those. That was why Damon placed a lot of effort in defining what those additional names (when existent) were in his original spreadsheet. The genetic calculator would be an ideal tool to include them. Food for thought: inconsistencies of naming usage can be deemed as a negative within and/or outside of the organization because once we begin making exceptions, erroneously or purposely, we defeat our chartered purpose and summarily lose credibility as a standards organization unless those changes are clearly amended via Standards Comm. process.
Last edited by terrapins; 10-05-2015 at 02:27 PM.
Bookmarks