larvae, which meant that we had to take the initial flies out so not to disturb our counts. We had discarded the females and put the wild type and mutant males into new vials. The bottles were checked periodically for the formation of females. We then took the second generation and crossed the mutant females with the wild type males and the wild type females with the mutant males. After seeing larvae a week later, we discarded those adult flies. We then counted and recorded our results over the couple of weeks. The dates that we had counted were October 16, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, and 30. ResultsThe cross between the mutant males and the wild type females was predicted (out of 100 flies) that it would result in 50 wild type females and 50 wild type males. We had observed a yield of 55 wild type females and 44 wild type males. The cross between the wild type males and the mutant females was predicted to produce 50 mutant males and 50 wild type females. We had come up with 35 wild type females, 21 wild type males, 4 mutant females, and 40 mutant males. DiscussionOur results from the first cross had indicated that red eyes on the flies were dominant to brown eyes and that presence of wings is dominant to the absence of wings. We also had discovered that the traits were autosomally inherited, though the sexes of the flies varied. There was a large variation in the second cross between the predicted results and the observed results. We were not able to understand the pattern of inheritance in this cross. Our prediction of the dominant trait being red eyes and with wings was correct, but our mode of inheritance was wrong. We were not able to prove or disprove the mode of inheritance. We also had problems with our second cross. We may have placed the wild type flies or the mutant flies in the wrong vial to produce the wrong outcome. We also could have had a mistake in counting. We also could have left a female in the container...
