What if the two factors/different factors of a character did not segregate during gametogenesis and blended together?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to iology.SE. What do you call a "factor of a character"? If you have a hard time to explain what you have in mind, you may want to try with a (eventually made-up) example. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Aug 3 '17 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ When you say "did not segregate", you are thinking of a single event of reproduction where the two loci have not been separated by a recombination event or are you thinking about a case where two loci are perfectly linked? $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Aug 3 '17 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ According to the law of segregation:- Pair of contrasting factors or genes for a given character, never blend but segregate during gametogenesis. My question is what if the opposite of the above said law happened $\endgroup$ – Sayan Aug 3 '17 at 8:45

The factors that segregate according segregation law are the two alleles of any gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance). The only way to avoid that two alleles segregate at meiosis is to have them inherited in the same gamete, as shown in the picture below .Lack of segregation Thus, if the two alleles would not segregate you will double you number of alleles (and chromosomes) at each generation. The effect on any given allele would depend on the level of dominance (dominant, recessive, additive), but that would be the least, since at each meiosis the offspring would have twice the number of chromosomes compared to the parents.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ 1. Not all genes are bi-allelic unlike implicitly suggested in your first sentence. 2. The law of segregation does not only apply to genes but to any loci 3. Your diagram shows a case of selfing with whole genome duplicate which may be a little confusing. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Aug 3 '17 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ 4. if the two alleles would not segregate you will double you number of alleles this is simply wrong. You misunderstand the definition of segregation (at least as used in the Law of Segregation). 5. Your comment on dominance is misleading as well. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Aug 3 '17 at 20:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.