| Author |
 Topic  |
Lorraine
Administrator
Oxfordshire
United Kingdom
1969 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
 Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 09:10:43
|
quote:
What we believe is that there isn't a new gene per se, but a modifier working in conjunction with the gene
So you are saying you believe the qq gene only affects the appearance of the ds/Ds genes?
This is what I don't understand ..
It is being said that qq = Nominantly/Nominant Spotted because
quote:
Dsds qq- Nominantly Spotted Dominant Spot
But then you are saying
quote:
dsds qq - solid colored hamster with extended white on self patterned hamsters
ie dsds qq = Nominantly Spotted (not Dominant Spot)
But qq is NOT spotted!
I can understand (aside from the fact that Nominantly/Nominant isn't a word in my dictionaries) that ..
Dsds qq - Nominantly/Nominant Dominant Spot
dsds qq - Nominantly/Nominant
I cannot understand though where the extra "Spot" has come from as qq is not spotted but the name "Nominantly/Nominant Spot" for qq as in "Nominantly/Nominant Spot Dominant Spot" suggests that two genes or a gene and modifier being present that BOTH produce spots when you've just stated that qq doesn't produce a spotted hamster.
quote:
dsds qq- solid colored hamster with extended white on self patterned hamsters
So qq extends/enhances white on both self and dom spot hamsters so why not call it something that reflects the fact it extends/enhances white, rather call it something that suggests qq produces spots when it doesn't?
Can you see what I mean? Anything "spot" or "spotted" as a name for qq alone or in conjunction with Dominant Spot suggests that qq on it's own produces spotting when it doesn't.
I can understand the problems with HaPV in the lines severely hamper breeding of these and so there are limited results, but as you seem to have established that it enhances white in selfs and dom spots but also say it is believed that is a modifier that only affects ds/Ds genes does this mean that Babaqq, BaBaqq, Whwhqq hamsters have also been bred and found not to have any extension of their white? Am just wondering why it's thought to only affect the ds/Ds genes. |
Lorraine
.....Apache..............Tibbs............Angel........Poppet........Dazzle...........Dizzy |
 |
|
radiocricket
Ohio
USA
14 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 09:37:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by LorraineAs "nominantly" and "nominant" aren't even in the dictionary (not in the ones I have at leas), this name would mean nothing to a lot of people. What are "nominantly" and "nominant" supposed to mean?
My mistake! Even I'm getting tongue tied! The term is:
Nominally Spotted Dominant Spot
Sorry to add to the confusion! It's been months since it's even been discussed (once HaPV was discovered in the hamsters).
-Janice |
|
|
Lorraine
Administrator
Oxfordshire
United Kingdom
1969 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 09:55:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by radiocricket
My mistake! Even I'm getting tongue tied! The term is:
Nominally Spotted Dominant Spot
Sorry to add to the confusion! It's been months since it's even been discussed (once HaPV was discovered in the hamsters).
-Janice
Ah right *laughs* that's a bit clearer although I suspect what is meant by "nominally" is actually nominal (which means "insignificant", "minimal", etc) rather than nominally (which means "supposedly"), at least to us Brits, so would say Nominal is better than Nominally as there is no doubt the spots are minimal - there is no supposedly about it!
In which case I can understand references to Minimal/Nominal Dom Spot, but not Minimal/Nominal Spot Dom Spot as Minimal/Nominal Spot Hamsters ie dsds qq aren't spotted - that's what I was getting at before.
As breeding takes place and produces dsds qq, dsds Qq and dsds QQ hamsters there needs to be a distinction between these to help understand the breeding results accurately and easily. So any name for qq should fit, not only the Dom Spots produced, but the selfs so as to provide accurate details of breedings and results.
To fit both, you could say the Nominal/Minimal refers to the colour as this then fits both the Dom Spot qq and Self qq as the coloured areas on both are reduced as the white areas are extended. Ie Nominal/Minimal Colour Dom Spot, and Nominal/Minimal Colour Self/Black which makes sense as it describes both more accurately. However, as it only has a small affect on extending the white on selfs then it's Nominal/Minimal Colour Self/Black is not exactly accurate as it makes it sound like a self/black hamster with a far smaller coloured area than is being said to be produced.
This is why "Extended White" for qq or something along those lines would be better as then dsds qq would then be Extended White Selfs/Blacks, and Dsds qq Extended White Dom Spots which would be accurate for both and uisng a name such as this would help to distinguish between Blacks and Extended White Blacks in the breeding results and save any confusion with Nominal Spot Selfs/Blacks dsds qq sounding like they are spotted when they aren't. |
Lorraine
.....Apache..............Tibbs............Angel........Poppet........Dazzle...........Dizzy |
|
|
radiocricket
Ohio
USA
14 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:09:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorraine
So you are saying you believe the qq gene only affects the appearance of the ds/Ds genes?
I don't know. The original post is a bit premature as there have not been enough breedings to make many determinations.
quote:
I cannot understand though where the extra "Spot" has come from as qq is not spotted but the name "Nominantly/Nominant Spot" for qq as in "Nominantly/Nominant Spot Dominant Spot" suggests that two genes or a gene and modifier being present that BOTH produce spots when you've just stated that qq doesn't produce a spotted hamster.
Many names were suggested- High Whites, Modified Dominant Spot, Extended Dominant Spot, etc.. The one that was liked by all was Nominally Spotted Dominant Spot. Since the exact nature of the modifier is unknown, it can only be a temporary name, something to call them until breeding proves the exact expression and transmission of the modifier in all patterns and colors (self and agouti). If it helps to understand it better, consider it a Nominal Dominant Spot. It's really just an arbitrary name at this point as if it effects the other pattern genes, then the name won't make any sense.
The name was not "broadcast" about, it has only been used on the HIF forum in anticipation of the discussions of the breeding results. Once the full nature of the modifier was identified, then an educated discussion could ensue and a permanent name and genotype symbol decided upon.
quote:
I can understand the problems with HaPV in the lines severely hamper breeding of these and so there are limited results, but as you seem to have established that it enhances white in selfs and dom spots but also say it is believed that is a modifier that only affects ds/Ds genes does this mean that Babaqq, BaBaqq, Whwhqq hamsters have also been bred and found not to have any extension of their white? Am just wondering why it's thought to only affect the ds/Ds genes.
I'm sorry if I lead you to believe this. The nature of the modifier's effect on other patterns is unknown. From a few photos I've seen, the Golden Nominally Spotted Dominant Spots have more color (less white) then the Black NSDS. There have only been a handful of breedings though, and I haven't done any myself.
Given that all the NSDS hamsters we have to work with have all been exposed to, and thus assumed to have, HaPV, there may never be a way to separate the virus from the modifier and this needs to be considered.
-Janice |
|
|
Lorraine
Administrator
Oxfordshire
United Kingdom
1969 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:17:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by radiocricket
From a few photos I've seen, the Golden Nominally Spotted Dominant Spots have more color (less white) then the Black NSDS.
But the Golden Nominal Dominant Spots still have more white than you would see on a good Golden Dom Spot? |
Lorraine
.....Apache..............Tibbs............Angel........Poppet........Dazzle...........Dizzy |
|
|
radiocricket
Ohio
USA
14 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:25:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorraine
This is why "Extended White" for qq or something along those lines would be better as then dsds qq would then be Extended White Selfs/Blacks, and Dsds qq Extended White Dom Spots which would be accurate for both and uisng a name such as this would help to distinguish between Blacks and Extended White Blacks in the breeding results and save any confusion with Nominal Spot Selfs/Blacks dsds qq sounding like they are spotted when they aren't.
Of course this makes sense, though the expression of the extended white on the black "dsds qq" hamsters wasn't even known at the time when the name was selected. It was a temporary name based on the appearance of the hamsters. Nominal Dominant Spot was considered, though that suggests little white as opposed to little color. Nominally Spotted Dominant Spot was liked in that it could be shortened to Nom Spot for ease. It does not make sense to keep going back and reassigning a temporary name each time a new aspect of the modifier is discovered though.
-Janice |
|
|
radiocricket
Ohio
USA
14 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:27:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorraine
But the Golden Nominal Dominant Spots still have more white than you would see on a good Golden Dom Spot?
Yes, perhaps Jana will post a photo.
It may just be a coincidence, it may not. There just have not been enough breedings to know.
-Janice |
|
|
Lorraine
Administrator
Oxfordshire
United Kingdom
1969 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:36:28
|
OK am getting more of a picture now from what's been added.
So what is known is ...
That it extends the white areas on selfs and dom spots.
It has not been tested to see if it extends white on Bandeds (Baba, BaBa), Roans or White Bellied (Whwh) hamsters.
It is not located on the ds/Ds locus.
It is recessive.
So the suggestion above that it was located on the ds/Ds locus (in which case it would have to be dominant from the breeding results given previously) is incorrect.
Any suggestion that it is a modifier gene only affecting the ds/Ds genes is pure speculation with no evidence to suggest this, at this stage.
From the original post the use of the term "black" or "unpatterned" hamsters in breeding results may refer to dsds qq, dsds QQ and dsds Qq hamsters as no distinction seems to be made between them or possibly not even being noted which isn't going to help in establishing the facts.
Does that about sum it up? |
Lorraine
.....Apache..............Tibbs............Angel........Poppet........Dazzle...........Dizzy |
|
|
Lorraine
Administrator
Oxfordshire
United Kingdom
1969 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 10:51:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by radiocricket
Of course this makes sense, though the expression of the extended white on the black "dsds qq" hamsters wasn't even known at the time when the name was selected.
OK, but now that it is known, wouldn't it be sensible to change to another name that takes this into acount?
quote:
It does not make sense to keep going back and reassigning a temporary name each time a new aspect of the modifier is discovered though.
quote:
Nominal Dominant Spot was considered, though that suggests little white as opposed to little color
It reads as having minimal spots which happen to be dominant to me which would be accurate. Can't see how it would suggest little white as white isn't mentioned.
Usually a name is not given to a new mutation until the gene has been tested on several other colours and patterns to establish the nature of the gene. It seems the name was given extremely prematurely in that it was named on a single colour and pattern combination but I can understand this given the limited breeding that has been done and the need to call it something and so Dalmation would have been as good as Nominal Spot Dominant Spot for this.
You say the name is temporary though ie "momentary", "short term" and keep highlighting this and yet still don't think it makes sense to keep the name up-to-date and change it as more is known about the gene and would rather keep a name that is misleading or inaccurate even when more is known about it?
The longer any name is used the harder it is to change it later on so it's better to change it each time something more is found about it and keep the name up-to-date once it is found the previous name becomes inaccurate or misleading.
If breeders aren't willing to the change the name and keep it up-to-date when more is found out about the gene then it hardly suggests the name is temporary.
|
Lorraine
.....Apache..............Tibbs............Angel........Poppet........Dazzle...........Dizzy |
|
|
radiocricket
Ohio
USA
14 Posts
Report Post
To Moderators |
Posted - 06 Aug 2007 : 11:17:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorraine
OK am getting more of a picture now from what's been added.
So what is known is ...
That it extends the white areas on selfs and dom spots.
It has not been tested to see if it extends white on Bandeds (Baba, BaBa), Roans or White Bellied (Whwh) hamsters.
It is not located on the ds/Ds locus.
It is recessive.
We have no idea what locus it is located on. If it only effects the Dominant Spot pattern, then it could be surmised it is on the same locus. It is a modifier and not a gene and that makes a difference. Jan of The River Road Hamstery had described it to me, but that was at the beginning of the year and I'd have to go back and find it again.
quote:
So the suggestion above that it was located on the ds/Ds locus (in which case it would have to be dominant from the breeding results given previously) is incorrect.
Hmm...Even I had a hard time following the breeding results above. It does not appear to be a dominant modifier in that one of the breedings of a "nom spot" to a black hamster (assumed not to have any modifiers) did not produce "nom spots", only typical Dominant Spots. Again, there just have not been enough breedings to say that it wasn't just a fluke, though we do hypothesize it to be a simple recessive modifier.
quote:
Any suggestion that it is a modifier gene only affecting the ds/Ds genes is pure speculation with no evidence to suggest this, at this stage.
Correct, though the speculation that it only effects the Ds pattern is that we are guessing that it is a modifier and not a new gene.
quote:
From the original post the use of the term "black" or "unpatterned" hamsters in breeding results may refer to dsds qq, dsds QQ and dsds Qq hamsters as no distinction seems to be made between them or possibly not even being noted which isn't going to help in establishing the facts.
Correct, the term "unpatterned" seems to be used interchangingly. It would be helpful to come up with a temporary genotype. It's not been something I've considered, especially since I'm still debating whether I should pursue a comprehensive breeding program or not.
quote:
Does that about sum it up?
Pretty much. For me, the bigger aspect of the modifier is HaPV. Given the highly contagious and incurable nature of the virus, if it can't be separated from the modifier, is it ethical to pursue breeding the modifier?
-Janice |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Dalmatian appearance in Syrian Hamster
Forum Locked
Bookmark This Topic