Talk:Original Theory of Dino Fusion/@comment-5103836-20120812194959/@comment-5103836-20120812211112

You really were able to put things down very nicely, the tables are great. The most frustrating part for me has always been the discrepency with the 'pure breed' and why a fusion of two of the same biome don't result in the same biome offspring. From a coding standpoint, if biome 'genes' are passed down to the next generation it makes no sense to write a check where if the biome genes match, a different, nonmatching biome is assigned as result. I've tried to think of other ways to describe this effect, with something like a recessive gene that would expresses dominance in 100% of offspring in a pure breed match, but the problem is that then you would also see that same recessive result in 25% of the non-pure breed matches and it just doesnt occur.. I guess the best way to present it is as you did, an exception to the rule, I just wish it fit with the logic better.

The fusion table as it stands now does show many exceptions to what you described above, but as you stated, there are many out of date data points, like the brontornis, which has not been reported for weeks. The '???' system does not remove these results from the table when they exist in rarely done fusion combination cells.

Overall I think it looks good, and matches well with what we see on the current table if you are able to look past some of noise and take into account old out of date data points. Like you said, at this point it is really whether or not it holds up to scrutiny with currently know fusions, and maybe more importantly if it holds up when the potential results table changes. Perhaps the next time there is a change in fusion results we should start fresh with a seperate table with only post-change results and compare it to your tables expected results.