× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
e
5
e
4
4
d
4
o
3
p
3
t
3
3
m
3
p
3
m
3
f
3
New Topic  
bruin bruin
wrote...
Posts: 10
Rep: 0 0
9 years ago Edited: 9 years ago, bruin
I am reading Behavioral Genetics by Plomin et al and it contains this statement:

"[Red-Green] color blindness is caused by a recessive allele on the X chromosome...An unaffected mother and color-blind father have unaffected offspring, but daughters have sons with 50 percent risk for color blindness."

However, I feel that this is incorrect as a blanket statement.  It seems to me that it should say that this is true of the offspring of homozygous dominant mothers and color-blind fathers, not of "unaffected" mothers and color-blind fathers.

Am I correct?  Is this a slip-up by the authors?
Read 541 times
3 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
Educator
9 years ago
They don't mention the mother being a carrier, so that's what I'm assuming they mean by unaffected.
 Attached file 
Thumbnail(s):
You must login or register to gain access to this attachment.
bruin Author
wrote...
9 years ago Edited: 9 years ago, bruin
Thanks bio man.  I'm not that familiar with the terminology - "unaffected" sounded to me like a reference to phenotype. (I probably should have seen that if "unaffected" meant phenotype, then for a recessive sex-linked trait like color blindness, there would be no such thing as an "affected" female - rendering the term "unaffected" redundant).
wrote...
Educator
9 years ago
(I probably should have seen that if "unaffected" meant phenotype, then for a recessive sex-linked trait like color blindness, there would be no such thing as an "affected" female - rendering the term "unaffected" redundant).

I suppose. I hope that cleared things up. Let me know if you need anything else.
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  914 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 95
  
 357
  
 301