I don't mean to upset... but it sounds more like a case of incomplete dominance rather than co-dominance. I may be further misunderstanding lol I know sometimes people simplify genetics to make it easier to understand but I find it harder to understand that way.
but your example sounded goodI tend to ramble a bit as well
Co-dominant doesn't result in a blending of the two, it results in both alleles fighting for dominance, if that makes sense. For example, you may get a striped animal and a spotted animal and if co-dominant, you would get a spotted striped animal. Both phenotypes would be present. If the genes were incomplete dominant, you would get an animal with halfway between spots and stripes, with elongated spots or the like... the phenotype would be a blend
lol maybe colour is a better example, say you had a red flower and a white flower... and you bred them together and the alleles for both were co-dominant... you would end up with a flower with red and white spots. If red was incomplete dominant, you would end up with pink flowers instead
Co-dominance implies that the wild type is as dominant as the jag type. Whereas incomplete dominance allows a blending of the two... which makes more sense. Unless you are talking about jag not being co-dominant with the wild type, but being co-dominant with another morph? In which case that would make more sense.
Please no more giggle dribble. Its been long established that the trait is co-dominant.
