House Fly Genetics

McDonald, Ian C.; Overland, Delores E.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a108389

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Breeders' preference for animals with a certain shape, number and location of hair whorls may have some scientific legitimacy and is not entirely baseless. Studies found an association between shape and position of hair whorls with genes, heredity, cognisance, temperament, brain development, health conditions and sexuality, in cattle (Craft and Warner, 1934;Deesing, 2020), dogs (Lillebo, 2014;Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010), horses (Cruz et al, 2021;Encina et al, 2023), swine (Craft and Warner, 1934) and human beings (Aksu et al, 2013;Csabi et al, 2014;Kiil, 1948;Klar, 2005;Luo et al, 2023;McDonald, 2011;Ruiz-Maldonado, 2002;Sechi, et al, 2020;Smith and Gong, 1973;Smith and Gong, 1974;Tirosh et al, 1987). Studies found that cattle with hair whorls above the eyes are more agitated during restraint (Grandin et al, 1995), and in the auction ring (Lanier et al, 2001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Indigenous Technical Knowledge of Cattle Pastoralists of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, India

Siripurapu,

Moola,

Sharma

et al. 2024

P&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) of livestock breeding is often tacit and not necessarily expressed in conventional forms of scientific research and documentation. Indigenous livestock breeding systems rely mostly on qualitative traits than pure quantitative qualities. Qualitative traits are difficult to measure and most of the indigenous knowledge systems are in forms of qualitative traits. The lack of documentation and predominant qualitative nature makes it difficult to validate the ITK related to livestock breeding. In this context a study was conducted to examine the traditional breeding practices associated with two heritage cattle breeds of the Deccan Plateau region of India. The study examines the criteria used for selection of the breeding bulls of the indigenous Poda Thurpu and Nallmala-Pasa/Kamma, cattle breeds native to the study area. Results of the study identifies fourteen traits specific to breeding bulls and four traits that are generic to the breeding stock/cows. These traits/characteristics are ‘deemed desirable’ by the local cattle breeders for the ‘heritage breeds’, believed to have been bred and managed by them for generations. Observations of the present study supports the notion that traditional breeders of heritage breeds lay more emphasis on qualitative traits (ability to warding-off predators, fending off-springs, coat colour and texture, gait of the animal, temperament, and response and obedience to instructions of the master) than quantitative traits. It was found that local breeders give significant importance to the fertility of bovine bulls than cows. Breeding bulls are meticulously chosen with extreme caution and care, following a very long and meticulous selection process that could last for four years. Traditionally local cattle breeders of the study follow open nucleus breeding system for breeding and are strictly against promotion of inbreeding among their cattle herds. Only men are involved in cattle breeding in the study area and women usually stay away.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Indigenous Technical Knowledge of Cattle Pastoralists of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, India

Siripurapu,

Moola,

Sharma

et al. 2024

P&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even those traits that do usually fall into two categories, like left- or right-handedness, are strongly influenced by developmental processes in which genetics and environment are intertwined. Confirmation that these traits are rare comes from detailed examination of the many “Mendelian” human traits that have been proposed and then revealed to be multifactorial (Dougherty, 2009; McDonald, 2011). Of the single trait confirmed to be Mendelian by McDonald (2011), ear wax consistency, the author cautions use in the classroom because as a recent mutation (arising about 2000 generations ago) it is unevenly distributed among human populations such that many classrooms will have either all wet or all dry phenotypes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How about taster markers? The ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) seems pretty harmless, but there is no clear threshold that separates two clear groups, considerable variation for single people at different times, and the chemical involved is toxic at levels near those used for testing (McDonald, 2011; Campbell et al, 2012). Moreover, there is some evidence that nontasters are at higher risk for schizophrenia (Compton et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for Caution When Genotyping Students

Bailey,

Sherman

2023

The American Biology Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genotyping real alleles in real people is an excellent way to connect abstract genetics concepts to human variation in the classroom; however, these activities can inadvertently promote misconceptions of the power of genetics to determine individual and group traits. By analyzing our own and others’ experiences of genotyping activities in the classroom, we illustrate the types of problems encountered and propose solutions. We find that genotyping activities can be an effective learning experience for genetics students when instructors use a nuanced approach to these activities emphasizing the predictive utility of genotyping, avoiding racializing or differentially valuing genotypes, and promoting good communication in the classroom.

show abstract

“…11 For eye colour as among the ‘myths of human genetics,’ see McDonald (2011, 34–6). Blue-eyed parents can, in fact, have brown-eyed children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making sense of Mendelian genes

Radick

2020

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An enduring legacy from the heyday of Mendelian genetics is talk of 'genes for'. Such talk suggests straightforwardly that genes make characters. But for over a century, thoughtful biologists have insisted such an understanding is mistaken. For them, a gene is a chromosomal difference that, when internal and external environments are otherwise equal, makes a phenotypic difference; 'genes for' talk is but shorthand for this more complex understanding. This paper examines the remarkable durability of the disowned, deterministic character-making understanding, placing particular emphasis on the role of the traditional, start-with-Mendel curriculum in investing that understanding with a heuristic power which later teaching may never fully displace. The paper also reports on recent experimental work exploring the potential of a reordered curriculum for teaching genetics without bolstering genetic determinism.Evelyn Fox Keller's The century of the gene (2000) is the most famous obituary of the entity forever associated with Gregor Mendel (Keller 2000). But what kind of a life did the Mendelian gene ever really have, anyway? Haven't thoughtful biologists long regarded the idea of it as an oversimplification? Indeed, from early days, all kinds of complexity have been allowed for. At the same time, the power of Mendelian explanations to cut through complexity and expose underlying simplicity has been relentlessly showcased. In the spirit of Keller's subsequent book, Making sense of life (2002), I want in what follows both to exhibit this 'ambi-valence' (Keller 2002, 130) and to suggest how crucial it has been in making the Mendelian geneand the determinism it underwritesso long-lived. Although my analysisof what has made gene talk so durable will not coincide with hers, our accounts are complementary, to such an extent that that the curriculum reform experiment I shall describe at the end could well be considered applied Kellerism. The Mendelian geneGene concepts are legion. 1 By 'the Mendelian gene,' I mean the entity that does the explaining in elementary genetics, e.g., in explaining why two blue-eyed parents can have only blue-eyed children. On the standard Mendelian explanation, there is a gene for eye colour, and it comes in two versions or 'alleles.' There is the brown-eye allele, which is dominant. And there is the blue-eye allele, which is recessive. The father's sperm and the mother's egg each carry only one allele. If the zygote formed from the union of these gametes brings together a brown-eye allele with another brown-eye allele, then the child will have brown eyes. If the zygote brings together a brown-eye allele and a blue-eye allele, then the child will also have brown eyes, because brown-eye is dominant. Only if the zygote brings together a blue-eye allele with another blue-eye allele will the child have blue eyes. A corollary is that, since blue-eyed parents can only ever contribute blue-eye alleles, two blueeyed parents will have only blue-eyed children.Note two features of the entity invoked in this ex...

show abstract

House Fly Genetics

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Validation of the Indigenous Technical Knowledge of Cattle Pastoralists of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, India

Validation of the Indigenous Technical Knowledge of Cattle Pastoralists of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, India

Reasons for Caution When Genotyping Students

Making sense of Mendelian genes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About