Reply to comment

Andy, Rachel and Caitlin McG 

We tested curly and a wildtype and it was 1:1 and then we tested a f1 curly with another f1 curly and we got a 2:1 ratio which made use confused because it didn't fit with the Punnett square we created. According to the Punnett square, the ratio should have been 3:1. When we were trying to figure why this was, we decided to test 2 completely new curly flies thinking that because they were the same type, they would be true breeders and yield all curly offspring. However, the ratio was 2:1 again. This lead us to believe that the curly flies are heterozygous which means that curly is dominant but has to posess a wildtype gene in order to exist. The CYCY produced by the Punnett square cannot actually exist in reality, thus leaving only 3 possibilities ( 2 of which are CY+ and thus the same.) This why breeding 2 curly yields a 2:1 ratio.

In our second experiment our phenotype was eyelessness. First we crossed 2 eyeless flies which yielded all eyeless flies, which means that they are true breeders. Then we crossed 1 fly with eyes and 1 eyeless fly. All offspring had eyes, which led us to hypothesize that the eye-having gene is dominant. We predicted that their offspring would produce 3 wildtype for every 1 eyeless fly. To test this, we crossed the eye having offspring, which yielded a 3:1 ratio, just as we had predicted because we are amazing scientists.