Caheao

Yeah, thats what I was thinking - once something has been dissected it is contaminated! At least thats how my mind works.

Eww! I don't mind eating them but not dissecting them first.

Doesn't that make it sex-linked recessive? Because if a gene can be split (ie. hidden) then it must be recessive, even if only on the male side. If it can't be split (like green) then it is dominant...though green isn't sex-linked. Yes in a way but it wasn't explained in the prior post about how hen's can not hide a sex-linked gene but they can hide a non linked sex-linked gene which needs to be explained because there are different outcomes between a sex-linked vs a non-sex linked Of yeah, of course: autosomal (non-sex linked) vs sex-linked is very different. Autosomal has the same chances for both males and females, its only in sex-linked genes where there is a difference. Most sex-linked conditions are recessive, even for the hens just that they can't have the dominant gene and the recessive gene at the same time: ie. non-albinoism is dominant to albinoism, so even if a hen has the albino gene and shows it because hens only have one Z chromosome, the albino gene is still recessive to the dominant non-albinoism gene. So if you cross a "normal" (non-albino hen) with a cock who is spilt for albino: Where Zn is non-albino and Za is albino Hen: Zn W Cock: Zn Za Possible offpring are: Zn Zn - cock normal Zn Za - cock split albino Zn W - hen normal Za W - hen albino But for an autosomal (non-sex linked condition): Maybe for colouring green vs blue (not worrying about shade or anything else) Genes: C - green colouring (large "C" for dominant) c - blue colouring (small "c" for recessive) Hen - C c Cock - C c (ie. both parents appear green but are split for blue) Possible offspring: 25% chance C C - green 50% chance C c - green split for blue male or female 25% chance c c - blue! no "green" gene at all Which is irrespective of sex, there could be any amount of hens or cocks for any of the above.

Hence we should eat them, and promote eating them. They're pretty good for you too - nice and lean. Though in this topic we have sort of gone from protecting native species, to eating native species!

My parents didn't think too much of roo (too gamey apparently) but my brother and I loved it! We should eat more kangaroo, especially seeing as there are so many of them. Don't know whats wrong with the media and the world...its not like roos are whales!

True, may as well just kill it in the first place. Though some people may not be happy about that.

Or we could just have what my dad suggests: a feral cat hunting season! You could get vet students to spay feral cats so they can get some more 'practise'...not sure if that is ethical though.

I love cats too, and my cat is strictly indoors as well (I get annoyed when my dad says "cats should be let outside"). Actually, my dad went to a biology conference the other week and he meet someone there who thinks people should be allowed to keep native animals as pets: why should we be keeping non-native animals are pets? We have stacks of native animals in Australia that may make good pets. Like budgies! I'm so proud of them... I don't consider the budgies that we keep these days as being native. Sure they originated from them but through years and years of inbreeding they are no longer anything like the native budgerigar. Thats why I don't like show budgies. Why would you want to make them bigger? Budgies are good because they are small. I especially don't like show budgie's heads, they have a nice profile but when you look at them front on, you can't see their eyes! I have two 'aussie' type budgies by-the-way. Any pet is different from the 'wild-type', not just budgies, as soon as you domesticate them they change - even if they still seem similar.

I love cats too, and my cat is strictly indoors as well (I get annoyed when my dad says "cats should be let outside"). Actually, my dad went to a biology conference the other week and he meet someone there who thinks people should be allowed to keep native animals as pets: why should we be keeping non-native animals are pets? We have stacks of native animals in Australia that may make good pets. Like budgies! I'm so proud of them...

No way! I'm really not a beach person.

Lucky you! My last exam for this semester is tomorrow...should be studying right now actually. Field trips is one of the reasons I don't want to do Zoology...I'd much prefer to be in a lab playing with DNA and bacteria!

Yeah

Yay! I'm at Latrobe - I'm actually doing Animal and Vet Biosciences but I'm (hopefully) transferring to Science for next semester.

No, I wouldn't include them as the same species. Wild tigers and lions would not reproduce at all in the wild. :hap: I'm studying Science at uni (I'm in first year) - will probably major in Microbiology and/or Genetics. Not much of a zoology person though think I would prefer to do chemistry! Genetics-wise I find breeding two different species fasinating and I don't usually consider the ethics of it. Yeah, you have to take it with a grain of salt (or a whole packet)...I only use it to get the general gist of things or to confirm what I already know - would never use it as a proper scientific reference though!

Sorry, I meant a different species of wild cat...yeah, found it on wikipedia. The bengal is descendant from a domestic cat and Asian Leopard Cat, and should be at least 3 generations from the original crossing. And bengals are an accepted domestic cat now!

A species is a group of animals which can produce fertile, viable offspring. And Lions and Tigers are very closely related but are not considered the same species because in the wild they don't produce fertile, viable offspring because their instincts say "kill" instead! But I think they found that a lonely lion and a lonely tiger (ie. enclosured side by side in a zoo environment) can overcome their instinct to kill because their instinct to breed becomes stronger than their instinct to kill. According to wikipedia, ligers have been (or documented) since at least the early 19th century. I'm not sure how long AI has been around though... And apparently only female ligers and tigons are fertile (but I think they have to breed with a lion or a tiger).

Seeing as show budgies are the exact same species as wild budgies, there is a giant difference between importing budgies and importing any kind of cat as cats are not native in Australia. Also, the only reason Lions and Tigers don't breed in the wild is because they kill each other instead! Genetically, they are well suited to breeding with each other as they are able to produce fertile, viable offspring. Kaz, that is great. It just goes to show how misinformation can cause so much conflict/problems; there is so much misinformation out there, as someone who is very into science (and "the facts") it makes me angry . Also, weren't Bengals descendant from a wild cat bred with a domestic cat?

Name: Katie Pets: 1 cat - Matilda, two budgies - Wattle & Gumnut and two rats - Gallium and Bromine Favourite Colour: Green Astrological Sign: Gemini Age: 19 Weakness: Lazy, selfish and not good at empathy. And I eat way too much chocolate! Strength: Friendly, easy going (most of the time), science Favourite Animal: I love all animals but my favourite is cats (especially my own)! Favourite T.V. Show: most british comedy (including Black books and Skins), The Simpsons, Collectors, The Time Team to name a few. Live: Melbourne, Australia How long have been a BBC member: since last week (June 2008)! Anything else? I'm pretty quiet towards people I don't know but can be quite noisy around my close friends, I'm pretty particular (hence put the "u" back into "Color" and "Favorite") :hap: , I love biology (especially microbiology and genetics), love going to the movies (to see anything), love reading.

Well, for birds: hens are ZW and cocks are ZZ Instead of (for mammals): males XY and females XX But it still works the same, just males and females are swapped around. So for birds, females are more likely to show a Z-linked (sex-linked) recessive gene and for mammals, males are more likely to show a X-linked (sex-linked) recessive gene. I specify Z-linked/X-linked because there are actually Y-linked and W-linked genes just to get more confusing! If you can work out the genes/possibly genes for MB's rescue then you should be fine! For anyone interested: Wikipedia on the ZW sex-determination system

I'm not bad with genetics (in general), I just don't know much about budgie genes! But most sex-linked genes are recessive as sex-linked dominant genes seem to be much rarer. It also gets confusing (for me) because I'm more familiar with mammal genetics in which case the sex chromosomes are "swapped" round. I think of "splits" as carriers (the common biological term), meaning they carry the gene but do not show it. So anything that is showing the dominant gene can be carrying (or split for) the recessive gene* but something that is showing the recessive gene cannot have the dominant gene. So when you're talking about splits, you're generally talking about the recessive gene (or the more recessive gene) being "carried" by the budgie even though it is showing the dominant trait. Of course, then you have co-dominant genes and co-recessive genes as well just to confuse things...and there are all the different things budgies can have like spangle, opaline, shade, colour etc. And when you try and do it all at once it can be confusing but if you're "new" to budgie genetics (like me) then it might be easier to focus on one gene at a time. * except for hens when sex-linked genes are involved

Doesn't that make it sex-linked recessive? Because if a gene can be split (ie. hidden) then it must be recessive, even if only on the male side. If it can't be split (like green) then it is dominant...though green isn't sex-linked.

At least the cock is looking like a budgie now! They must be feeling a whole lot better now.

You're amazing Libby! Especially when you compare the before and after shots.

They are so cute! Its great to see them grow up (in pictures).

They say love is blind. :hap: