Assuming shortness is a recessive trait, we know that the genotype of a short plant would be tt, so we know that crossing two homozygous recessives (tt x tt) will only yield homozygous recessives, so all the plants would be short.
Response to ztim--thats why I assumed that shortness was a recessive trait, because if shortness was a dominant trait, You would not know whether either of the parents were heterozygous Tt or homozygous TT, and trying to name all the different possibilities that could arise would be messy. The simplest question that yields the simplest answer is that shortness is recessive.
Using your own analogy, two red-headed people have children, there's a good chance that they will all be redheaded, since red hair trait is recessive to most of the other hair color traits out there, and to have red hair means that you are homozygous recessive, and will only pass on recessive genes to your children...
2007-11-08 09:25:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Wally M 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You don't have to *assume* that short is recessive. Mendel only worked with seven different traits in peas. Tall and short was the first trait he did, and tall was dominant to short.
So the short x short cross had to be tt x tt. All the offspring were tt, short.
2007-11-08 12:24:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by ecolink 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
One would think a short plant. But that is not always the answer. It all depends if there were any long plants in the past histories of the plants. There even can be a blond with two parents that were brunettes.
2007-11-08 09:27:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by ztim 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Tt Tt 50% 50%
2016-04-03 02:35:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋