is calico the same as marbled bristlenose

[intern1]

Just wanted some more info on calico bristlenose. Are they a cross of albino common and orange spot or just albino and common and is a marbled bristlenose the same as calico?

[chorrylan]

calico and marbled are the same thing.

An autosomal recessive mutation (ie not a "cross " of anything)

[intern1]

calico and marbled are the same thing.

An autosomal recessive mutation (ie not a "cross " of anything)

so its not like a co dominance occurance of calico that a cross of albino and common will have a co dominant form therefore being similar to recessive long fin or cystic fibrosis in humans

[chorrylan]

so its not like a co dominance occurance of calico that a cross of albino and common will have a co dominant form therefore being similar to recessive long fin or cystic fibrosis in humans

err I can't decipher that sentence well enough to decide if you're being serious.

It's a mutation in it's own right, not a cross of anything.

It's recessive not dominant or co-dominant (on the other hand I was browsing some mardi-gras photos the other night and there were some leather-wearin' whip-weildin' types in there that looked a teeny bit bristlenose-like so maybe....).

The autosomal bit means it's plain ordinary/normal inheritance; one gene from each parent and you have to inherit a calico gene from both to display calico patterning.

Bristlenose albinism is epistatic to calico (and presumably other mutations that impact pigmentation) in the sense that if you have the genes for both albino and calico you're only going to show the albino.

Bristlenose longfins isn't receessive. Unless there's more than one bristlenose longfin gene and I don't believe this is so yet, the common longfin gene is dominant.

[intern1]

so its not like a co dominance occurance of calico that a cross of albino and common will have a co dominant form therefore being similar to recessive long fin or cystic fibrosis in humans

err I can't decipher that sentence well enough to decide if you're being serious.

It's a mutation in it's own right, not a cross of anything.

It's recessive not dominant or co-dominant (on the other hand I was browsing some mardi-gras photos the other night and there were some leather-wearin' whip-weildin' types in there that looked a teeny bit bristlenose-like so maybe....).

The autosomal bit means it's plain ordinary/normal inheritance; one gene from each parent and you have to inherit a calico gene from both to display calico patterning.

Bristlenose albinism is epistatic to calico (and presumably other mutations that impact pigmentation) in the sense that if you have the genes for both albino and calico you're only going to show the albino.

Bristlenose longfins isn't receessive. Unless there's more than one bristlenose longfin gene and I don't believe this is so yet, the common longfin gene is dominant.

Does Epistasis take place in common pigmentation also.

So a scenario of long fin common cross short fin albino will just have 75% approx long fin and no calico due to the genotype of common and albino taking preference in the phenotype of the pigementation e.g comon and albino offspring.

So to get calico offspring its just through naturally selecting calico like pigementations until you final get to the calico pigementation.

i also read on a website forgot were that 1 1000 or so bristlenose offspring have some form of matuation have you found this to be true

John

[chorrylan]

Does Epistasis take place in common pigmentation also.

err no that's not meaningful because "common" means the absence of any identified mutation so there's nothing for the albinism to have an epistatic relation to.

If you're albino and calico you're just gonna look albino because bristlenose albinism has an epistatic relation to the calico mutation.

So a scenario of long fin common cross short fin albino will just have 75% approx long fin and no calico due to the genotype of common and albino taking preference in the phenotype of the pigementation e.g comon and albino offspring.

Depends :-)

If your longfin common has two longfin genes and your shortfin albino and neither have the genes for any other mutation then yes I'd expect approx 75% longfins (all with a single longfin gene) ; all to "look" like commons and 50% to be carrying a single albino gene.

but that's as long as you actually know the genetics of your parents...

Remember the longfin gene is dominant so that longfin parent could have either one or two longfin genes. If it only has one then only 50% of the progeny would be longfinned.

If you then get tricky that shortfin albino parent could be carrying either one or two calico genes (and still not show it) and the longfin common parent could carry a single calico gene without showing it giving all sorts of posisble combinations including some which are visualyl calico.

All of which goes to show how important it is to keep tabs on what genes you're mixing up otherwise it all becomes totally unpredictable.

So to get calico offspring its just through naturally selecting calico like pigementations until you final get to the calico pigementation.

err no. "calico" is an identifiable mutation with a predictable inheritance pattern not just any old common bristlenose that happens to have calico-like pigmentation.

i also read on a website forgot were that 1 1000 or so bristlenose offspring have some form of matuation have you found this to be true

I'd say that every single bristlenose offspring has *some* kind of mutation. It's only a tiny proportion (way, way, way less than 1 in 1000) that are visually identifiable, get noticed by the breeder, look even slightly interesting/attractive, survive and actually manage to get stabilised as a recognised mutation.