Consider a study of two genes, "a" and "b". each gene has two alleles, represented by upper- and lower-case letters. assume that an upper-case letter represents a dominant allele, and a lower-case letter represents a recessive allele. if the parental cross ("p" generation) is aabb x aabb, which the following crosses would represent an f1 testcross?

AaBb × aabb

Explanation:

A test cross is a cross between an unknown genotype (dominant phenotype) with a homozygous recessive genotype in order to discover the actual genotype of the species exhibiting dominant phenotype.

This is because one allele of a gene is capable of masking the expression of another, the allele masking is called DOMINANT allele while the allele being masked is called RECESSIVE allele. The combination of these two alleles is termed heterozygosity.

An organism that is phenotypically dominant for a specific trait may either be heterozygous or homozygous for that gene. For example, a plant gene for tallness with an dominant allele T, and recessive allele t. This plant will need tall if the genotype is TT (homozygous dominant) or Tt (heterozygous dominant). In order to know which of these genotypes the plant actually has, a test cross is conducted.

In this example, two genes A and B are involved. For the first gene, A represents dominant allele while a represents recessive allele. For the second gene, B represents dominant allele while b represents recessive allele.

In a cross involving parents AABB (homozygous dominant for both genes) and aabb (homozygous recessive for both genes), the F1 progeny will all exhibit phenotypic dominance (AaBb).

However, we cannot know the genotype by merely looking at the phenotype. We cannot ascertain yet whether the dominance is heterozygous or homozygous, hence the need for a test cross.

The test cross is between the dominant F1 progeny and a homozygous recessive i.e. AaBb × aabb. Some of the F2 generation will show recessive traits if the unknown genotype is heterozygous.

from almost the creation of the first true maps of the earth, people started seeing how continents would be able to fit together.   in particular, people noticed that south america fits almost exactly into africa.

you should be aware that while world maps were around early in the 1600’s and better defined by the end of the 1700’s, those maps were not ‘public’ but were treated as state secrets.   and so it was not till much later that the broader ‘science’ community had access to good quality and accurate world maps.

get the whole story here…

it is now known that most of the major continental masses can be fit together in a jigsaw process.   in fact we now know that the continents were indeed once all joined together as one land mass – the supercontinent of pangaea.

if you look at most world maps you will ponder how this is evidence, as the continents really don’t appear to ‘fit’ together very well.   what you need to understand is that the vast majority of maps are drawn using a map projection that has the north and south poles (which are points) are a line the width of the map at the top and bottom.   this means that the map distorts the true shape of the earth’s land and oceans as you love closer to the poles.     some other map projections distort less, but have the map shape looking like segments of an orange.   see here for a range of map projections.   check out the way greenland changes size in each!

what is more remarkable, is the next piece of evidence when added to the shape of continents.

location of mountains and fossils

what is remarkable, when you reassemble all the continents together, the ancient mountain ranges (many now eroded to their cores) and the location of rock types and fossils all match up.

c

explanation: