No. It was an idea that yielded common positive results. “Not a good theory” is biased terminology. New technology can yield new information, but it does not mean that it was not a good theory.
Explanation:
The problem says that the hairless phenotype never breeds true. That means that it's not the result of a homozygous genotype (H₁H₁ or H₂H₂), so it is caused by the heterozygous genotype (H₁H₂).
The <u>expected </u>offspring from the cross between two Mexican hairless would be:
<h3>P
H₁H₂ x
H₁H₂</h3><h3>F1 1/4
H₁H₁, 2/4
H₁H₂ and 1/4
H₂H₂.</h3>
And the <u>expected</u> phenotypic ratio 3:1. However, the observed offspring shows a 2:1 ratio. What's happening?
If the observed phenotypic ratio in the offspring of a monohybrid cross (a single gene with two alleles) is 2:1, we can suspect that one of the genotypes is lethal in homozygosis and therefore does not appear in the progeny (the puppies are born dead).
If we proposed that the H₂ allele is lethal in homozygosis, then:
- The H₁H₁ genotype would cause normal puppies --> 1
- The H₁H₂ genotype would cause hairless puppies --> 2
- The H₂H₂ is lethal and causes the death of puppies --> 0
The phenotypic ratios change to 2:1, as observed in the experiment.
<span>palisade and spongy layers of the mesophyll are </span>the two layers of the plant containing chloroplasts
The photoreceptors would be your eyes, chemoreceptors skin, olfactory for nose and mechanoreceptors for obviously tongue hope this helps.
