KittyCatS! Community Forum

Canary is dominant to galaxy nebula, Marsh hides galaxy nebula
https://gyazo.com/c9610c366a367e24b3fa5197ed0dabf1

(12-30-2016 02:41 PM)dreampoetz Resident Wrote: [ -> ]Canary is dominant to galaxy nebula, Marsh hides galaxy nebula
https://gyazo.com/c9610c366a367e24b3fa5197ed0dabf1

This is awesome, Aubrey!

I don't think we have any pedigree pictures of Marsh with a Nebula kitten, but there is always a chance that I need to clean my glasses. Could you do me a favour and post one, please?

ohhh my bad, she's only had one and i thought i posted it a while back haha maybe not
https://gyazo.com/49f15fa5f98073ae54d262d160221e53

Thanks Aubrey I'll post that inline for you

(12-28-2016 09:37 AM)Reven Rosca Wrote: [ -> ]Apple shown can mean Apple with Nebula or Ody Bel hidden, and the hidden eye must be pulled to give a clear proof in all other cases than Ody bel shown.

Breeding the kitten to an eye that is known to be recessive to Nebula will reveal the hidden eye. Apple will mean that he passed his shown eye, Nebula means he hides Nebula which is then proven recessive to Apple, and anything else means that mum passed her hidden eye and Ody Bel is hidden in the kitten.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your breeding project!

Ok, I bred the Apple back to an Ody Bell. Does this mean Apple is proven recessive to Nebula?

(01-12-2017 12:44 PM)Evolving Yin Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I bred the Apple back to an Ody Bell. Does this mean Apple is proven recessive to Nebula?

From this pedigree we can see that the Apple eyed male does not hide Nebula at all. His hidden has been revealed to be either Ody Bell or a more recessive eye color. Nebula eye failed to pass to that cat, and is lost from the down line.

We know that Ody Bell is recessive to Nebula.. so at least one parent passed Ody Bell to this kitten, and the other passed Ody Bell or a more recessive. Thus it's impossible for the Apple-eyed parent to be hiding Nebula.

Lovely kitten, but unfortunately it's not a proof in this case.

(01-12-2017 12:54 PM)HappyDaize Resident Wrote: [ -> ]We know that Ody Bell is recessive to Nebula.. so at least one parent passed Ody Bell to this kitten, and the other passed Ody Bell or a more recessive. Thus it's impossible for the Apple-eyed parent to be hiding Nebula.

Lovely kitten, but unfortunately it's not a proof in this case.

Thanks for your response HappyDaize. I will copy this link here from previous post so you can see that this was an ongoing proof. I know the Nebula was lost but I was checking that based on this previous breeding that this is proof that Apple is recessive to Nebula?

Argos could be hiding Galaxy Nebula or Ody Bellini or better, So you wont know if apple is dom to Galaxy Nebula or not till you pull Argos' hidden eye.

Ok, confused.. at first glance I did think the cats had the same ID#.. is the Apple eyed cat from both pedigrees 'Argos', or are they different cats?
On the Apple eyed cat that was test bred, the hidden has been revealed, and is Ody Bell or more recessive, meaning he does not hide Nebula.

Let me try to illustrate how I am reading the pedigree, what each cat hides, and why this pedigree is not a proof of the relationship between Apple and Nebula eye colors...

[img][/img]

We start back with 'Silver' (Pewter eye shown) bred to 'Nebula' (Nebula eye Shown).
They produced an Apple-eyed offspring.
This tells us that 'Silver' must hide Apple eye, and passed Apple eye to 'Apple' (not sure if this is 'Argos', so I'll refer to him as 'Apple' for now).
We don't know at that stage if 'Nebula' passed her shown eye color (Nebula), or her hidden recessive eye color (?).

Next, 'Apple' is bred to 'Fluffy' (Ody Bellini eye shown) in hopes of pulling/revealing his hidden eye color.
We know already that Ody Bell is more recessive than both Apple and Nebula eyes... so if 'Apple' hides and passes Nebula eye color, it will be the shown eye color of the resulting kitten.

Now, to the final kitten, which shows Ody Bellini eye color.
We know that one of the parents (likely 'Fluffy') passed that kitten Ody Bellini eye.
We also know that the kitten's hidden eye color has to be Ody Bell or a more recessive (?).

Since Apple is Dominant to Ody Bellini, we can conclude that "Apple' passed his hidden eye, not his shown. Since Nebula is also Dominant to Ody Bell, we can be certain that the hidden eye color that was contributed by 'Apple' is not Nebula, but is either Ody Bell or an eye more recessive than Ody Bell.

Because 'Apple' did not inherit Nebula eye, this pedigree can not help us in proving the relationship between Apple and Nebula eye colors.

Again, lovely cats regardless. If there are other kittens from the 'Silver' x 'Nebula' pairing that show either Apple or Nebula eye colors, they are certainly worth test mating to see what they hide.

(01-12-2017 03:43 PM)HappyDaize Resident Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, confused.. at first glance I did think the cats had the same ID#.. is the Apple eyed cat from both pedigrees 'Argos', or are they different cats?
On the Apple eyed cat that was test bred, the hidden has been revealed, and is Ody Bell or more recessive, meaning he does not hide Nebula.

Let me try to illustrate how I am reading the pedigree, what each cat hides, and why this pedigree is not a proof of the relationship between Apple and Nebula eye colors...

Wow, HappyDaize you went above and beyond on your explanation here, and I am very appreciative. It actually cleared up a question that was foggy in my mind. This is the best explanation I have seen yet on how to track a cats traits during this process.

I am new to providing proofs so this was a learning experience. I renamed Argos and realize now that wasn't a good idea for this purpose. Also, I was intending to breed Argos back to his mother, but wanted to help place Nebula and that is the only reason I bred him to an eye more recessive then Nebula. Originally, I really was breeding for the Nebula.

Thanks for your help, I think I will bow out trying to help with the proofs and leave it to the experienced. It is too expensive to breed for yet another Od Bellini and not even be able to provide a useful proof.