Hmmm. I’ll apologize in advance if this reply is a bit fuzzy. Having a bit of a rough day.
I believe I understand the intent here. And I can see where it would be functional for one generation. But after that, calculations would be botched. Maybe I’m confused and missing something, but let me try and show what I mean. For shorthand I’m going to use R = recessive mode of inheritance and ID = incomplete dominant mode of inheritance.
If a gene is ID and one parent has it, 50% of offspring have and express it. (It can be seen on the MM calculator with something like using the more typically presenting Red Factor as an example since Halo’s unusual visual presentation is the point of this discussion and it doesn’t appear accurately on the MM calculator.)
P1 heterozygous form ID trait x normal: F1 results, 50% of offspring carry and visibly express trait, the other 50% don’t have it at all.
F1, heterozygous form ID trait x same: F2 results,75% have visible trait (25% super form, 50% het form), 25% haven’t got it at all.
These results are very different when we use a recessive trait in the calculations. Here’s an example with Caramel.
P1, homozygous Caramel recessive trait x normal: F1s 100% het Caramel, none visible. Hets are visible with ID traits so 100% would visibly express the trait.
F1 het Caramel x same: F2 results 25% visible homozygous Caramel, 50% het Caramel (which is invisible), 25% normal. With an ID trait, 75% would have the trait visibly expressed.
I do think I see what’s meant here. I’m just not seeing it as the solution. I’ll sit down with some Punnett squares and play with the “Visual” idea but I’m currently not seeing it working. May be just me.
There’s also the fact that the MM community strives to be an accurate resource. It is accepted in the corn snake community that Halo is an incomplete dominant trait. It’s been proven multiple times.
I wouldn’t want us to present any gene with inaccurate info about mode of inheritance.