05-24-2011, 02:34 PM
Not SA here, either. I'm pretty sure we've always played as if it passes, just wanted to pipe in and say if it was an actual gene now (not necessarily a virus itself), it is possible for two parents that express dominant genes to have offspring that don't IF they each "carry" (possess) the recessive gene. So for example, if we let R represent a dominant gene and r recessive.
[html]
First we consider each parent carrying both the dominant and recessive gene. Since it's dominant, they both express as luperci.
However, we see about 25% of the children will not possess the dominant gene.
If instead one of the above parents had two of the dominant gene, we'll see that all children will be luperci, but 50% will carry the recessive gene:
If a non-luperci were to mate with a RR luperci, all children will be luperci, but all will carry the recessive/non-luperci gene:
Finally if a carrier and a non-luperci had children, half would be luperci (but non-luperci carriers) and half wouldn't be luperci.
[/html]
/biology lesson
;
Again, this assumes it's 100% due to genetics and not a virus. I don't think the virus simply sparked a genetic mutation and took the back burner, because it can still be passed via bodily fluids. Maybe when it's transmitted this way you wind up with an Rr carrier? In this case my third table might wind up more like the second, the fourth more like the first, etc. depending on how quickly it 'manifests'.
Even so it's unlikely that a virus would pass with a 100% success rate, but out of all the methods of transmission I'd assume in the womb would be most successful.
I dunno. But if it *does* take most of the time, even the puppy that didn't have it in the first scenario I presented would probably "catch" it in the womb/during birth even if it didn't "inherit" it. This would make it exceedingly unusual to say the least :3
[html]
First we consider each parent carrying both the dominant and recessive gene. Since it's dominant, they both express as luperci.
| Rr x Rr | ||
| R | r | |
| R | RR | Rr |
| r | Rr | rr |
However, we see about 25% of the children will not possess the dominant gene.
If instead one of the above parents had two of the dominant gene, we'll see that all children will be luperci, but 50% will carry the recessive gene:
| RR x Rr | ||
| R | R | |
| R | RR | RR |
| r | Rr | Rr |
If a non-luperci were to mate with a RR luperci, all children will be luperci, but all will carry the recessive/non-luperci gene:
| RR x rr | ||
| R | R | |
| r | Rr | Rr |
| r | Rr | Rr |
Finally if a carrier and a non-luperci had children, half would be luperci (but non-luperci carriers) and half wouldn't be luperci.
| Rr x rr | ||
| R | r | |
| r | Rr | rr |
| r | Rr | rr |
/biology lesson
;Again, this assumes it's 100% due to genetics and not a virus. I don't think the virus simply sparked a genetic mutation and took the back burner, because it can still be passed via bodily fluids. Maybe when it's transmitted this way you wind up with an Rr carrier? In this case my third table might wind up more like the second, the fourth more like the first, etc. depending on how quickly it 'manifests'.
Even so it's unlikely that a virus would pass with a 100% success rate, but out of all the methods of transmission I'd assume in the womb would be most successful.
I dunno. But if it *does* take most of the time, even the puppy that didn't have it in the first scenario I presented would probably "catch" it in the womb/during birth even if it didn't "inherit" it. This would make it exceedingly unusual to say the least :3