Talk:Dominance (genetics)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . ◅ Sebastian 10:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Autorecessive.svg]] to appear on the main page

message: 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)
thread_title:  Autosomal Recessive Inheritance. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The first sentence of this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: “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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What does [this, in brackets, below] mean? 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Last paragraph of Co-dominance section 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Co-dominance (reptiles)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]