R W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > >so basicaslly, if there's a double ch involved it's a >DTW or a PEW, but NOT a REW? But other gene >combinations can produced REW than the one I've seen. >okay, I can get that. I'm just trying to get it >staright because I'm trying to avoid getting white >gerbils with ruby/pink eyes from my breeding pairs. >that's why I'm interested in the possible gene >combinations . . . so i can try to avoid them, or at >least be expecting it. > That is right. Only c[h]c[h] will give the light pink eyes. Other combinations can give red (ruby) eyes. The other varieties all have pp, but in combination with other genes that incrementally remove all colour. So for example, aaCCggpp will be a REW because aa removes all yellow, pp removes a lot of black and gg also removes yellow and reduces black to grey. The result is a gerbil with so little colour it is effectively white. Being Cc[h] or Cc[b] as well will help remove any remaining colour. > > >thanks for this info. it was really driving me nuts >because I was trying to figure out if I was thinking >of the same color as someone else, or a different >color. well I guess I'm actually thinking about the >genes rather than the color. :) > One problem is that some terms in use describe colour regardless of genotype, others describe genotype regardless of the precise colour. When talking genotypes then list the gene symbols. -- Julian [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Gerbil Society http://www.gerbils.co.uk/
