Talk:Dominance (genetics)

Article split or merge

 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 1
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2

Dominant trait vs dominant allele

 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 1
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 1
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive 2

Archiving
I think it would be useful to archive most if not all of this page. There are too many threads, and quite a few of them are of no value to someone coming to the article as it is now. For example, comments on the article as it stood prior to July 2009 (when it was rewritten) are largely irrelevant, and many of the other threads have been resolved. Are there any threads that really need to stay? If not I'd move everything to an archive but make a few indexes to specific groups of threads eg: Does this seem sensible? TuxLibNit (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Archived threads relating to split or merge.
 * Archived threads relating to dominant trait vs dominant allele.
 * Maybe some more groups to be determined.
 * Yep. Dominant trait vs dominant allele threads will surely be useful again, but if there are several, then consolidation into a single archive might be helpful. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I found some feature requests buried in there that still seemed relevant. I'm not sure what to do with them so I'm dumping a list here for now:
 * A request for coverage of dominance v polyploidy buried under an unrelated heading here
 * A request for clarification of the term "wild type" here
 * Talk:Dominance_(genetics)/Archive_1 This is the thread associated with the image request in the talk page header.
 * Also, the archive search in the talk header does not appear to be working.  Apart from those issues I think the archiving is done. TuxLibNit (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Autorecessive.svg to appear on the main page
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Autorecessive.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 14, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out by 71.67.97.128, the image incorrectly suggested some sort of sex linkage in autosomal recessive inheritance. In fact, the probability of having a healthy/carrier/affected son or daughter is the same.

I would like to state that this image still needs correction. The diagram somewhat still suggests some sort of sex linkage. I think the correct image will be most similar to the images given in the following links.

Homozygotes & Heterozygotes. Simple image.

Having said that, I would like to thank Kashmiri for his/her previous correction which was necessary due to some worthless self-professed expert with no knowledge or skills of biology at all.

-Kashi Siddique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashifsiddique (talk • contribs) 2015-06-10T16:44:21 (UTC)


 * I think what Kashi meant by “somewhat still suggests some sort of sex linkage” is that the image unnecessarily distinguishes between “Father” and “Mother”. Since I agree that that can be misleading I carried the discussion over to File_talk:Autorecessive.svg. ◅ Sebastian 10:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Autosomal Recessive Inheritance.
As pointed out by 71.67.97.128, the image incorrectly suggested some sort of sex linkage in autosomal recessive inheritance. In fact, the probability of having a healthy/carrier/affected son or daughter is the same.

I would like to state that the .svg image still needs correction. The diagram somewhat still suggests some sort of sex linkage. I think the correct image will be most similar to the images given in the following links.

Homozygotes & Heterozygotes. Simple image.

Having said that, I would like to thank Kashmiri for his/her previous correction which was necessary due to some worthless self-professed expert with no knowledge or skills of biology at all.

-Kashi Siddique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashifsiddique (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article
Surprising that, given my very limited knowledge of genetics, I believe I have picked up an error in the first sentence of this article - surely "makes" should read "masks"?109.151.34.9 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dominance (genetics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026062710/http://www.omim.org:80/ to http://omim.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414125159/http://hopes.stanford.edu:80/causes/inherit/c0.html to http://hopes.stanford.edu/causes/inherit/c0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought this would be easy to set to checked, but the OMIM link now shows a blank search page. ◅ Sebastian 09:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What does [this, in brackets, below] mean?
“The most common allele in a population may be recessive [when combined with some rare variants.]” This is quotation from current article as of july 12,2019. I was understanding the sentence until I got to the bracketed part. Rich (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've changed this to "Both dominant and recessive alleles can be extremely common or extremely rare."  I think the sentence was trying to say that a wildtype allele may be revealed to be recessive in a heterozygote, when it occurs together with a rare dominant allele.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Co-dominance section
The last paragraph of is not clear.

The most conspicuous problem is the last sentence, which states quite strongly “Again, this classical terminology is inappropriate”. The word “Again” is empty here, since I see nowhere an equally strong statement; the word “inappropriate” does not appear anywhere else in this article. Presumably, what it refers to may be the words “if [...], the phenotype is said to exhibit no dominance at all”. I understand that simply as a borderline case – just as one may call a point a “line segment of length 0”, which is certainly not “inappropriate”.

The main purpose of that paragraph, however, appears to be a distinction between co-dominance and incomplete dominance. Its explanation here hinges on the term “intermediate phenotype”. It uses pink as an example for an intermediate between red and white, which is fair enough. But it seems to contrast that with “spotted”, which, if I understand it correctly it considers somehow not “intermediate”. That appears to be a question of personal taste; one might just as well regard “spotted” as an intermediate. Or am I misunderstanding that part of the paragraph? ◅ Sebastian 10:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is already the first sentence of that section. What does “contributions of both alleles are visible in the phenotype” mean, anyway? Does that mean that in pink one can not see the contributions of red and white, whereas in spotted, one can? That seems an arbitrary preference: Anyone who ever mixed red and white is aware of the contributions of both colors in pink. If one instead considers the presence of a pattern or lack thereof as the defining contribution, one would start with the opposite of the premise of this section. ◅ Sebastian 11:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Blood groups are perhaps a better example. Genotype AO gives A as phenotype, same for BO. O is recessive, so one only sees it in individuals that are homozygous OO. AB is codominant, as both A and B are seen in the phenotype. --Randykitty (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The definition of incomplete dominance is not completely correct. If the phenotype of the heterozygote is exactly intermediate between the two homozygotes (as in the pink flower example), then there simply is no dominance. Incomplete dominance would be if the flower were red, but less intense as the red homozygote or white with a reddish glow compared to the pure white homozygote. --Randykitty (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dominance relationship
Hindi 2409:4052:817:266:3DC8:9603:A7A2:38AD (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics
— Assignment last updated by BurgulaNiharika (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Co-dominance (reptiles)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Co-dominance (reptiles) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)