CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background
Pseudo deviation of Mendell's law is a form of crossing that produces
phenotypes that differ from the basis of dihybrid according to Mendell's law.
Although it looks different in fact the phenotypic ratio obtained is a
modification of the sum of the Mendel's original phenotypic ratio. Genetic
information stored in DNA is not the same as the nature of paint colors. The
point is that when the paints of different colors are put together, they mix with
the original colors and cannot be separated. This is very different from the
nature of DNA contained in an organism. Mixing the two DNAs through the
marriage of two organisms produces a variety of new individuals. some
features appear to be fused, but often disappear and appear in the next
generation. There are individuals who look the same as the original individual,
but there is also the possibility that the new individual will be very different
from the original individual.
The hybrids are a marriage of two individuals with two different
characteristics. With this cross we can prove the truth of Mendel II's law which
states that genes located on different chromosomes will freely and produce four
kinds of phenotypes in a ratio of 9: 3: 3: 1. In fact, there are often deviations or
results that are far from expectations that may be caused by several things such
as gene interactions, the presence of genes that are lethal homozygous and so
on. These deviations do not mean not following Mendel's law. It's just that the
phenotype comparison shifted slightly. As is the case with dominant epistatics
which have a ratio of 12: 3: 1. Basically the number 12 in the comparison is the
union of numbers 9 and 3 in the comparison of Mendel's Law. These changes
can occur because the dominant parent genes are epistatic or cover recessive
genes. So that the recessive nature of the 3 parts is not visible.

1
 Deviations occur because there are several genes that influence each
other in showing the phenotype. Comparison between new phenotypes from
crossing can change. But the basic principle of inheritance remains in
accordance with the principles found by Mendel. Mendel's Law was discovered
and introduced by Gregor Johann Mendel in 1822-1884. With his discovery
Mendel was asked as the Father of Genetics. Mendel conducted his research
using the pea plant because of its short age, easy to grow, many breeds and
perfect flowering.
In addition, the research also revealed that this was caused by
intergroup interactions. This interaction results in a comparison of phenotypes
that deviate from Mendel's law or better known as the apparent deviation of
Mendel's law. The pseudo deviation of Mendel's law is a form of crossing
which produces a phenotype ratio that differs from the base dihibrid according
to Mendel's law. Although it looks different in fact the phenotype ratio
obtained is a modification of the sum of the Mendel's original phenotype ratio.
In this paper, it is discussed in more detail about the apparent deviation of
Mendel law.
B. Purpose
1. To know the cross modification patterns of two or more properties
2. To explain the cause of a phenotype resulting from crossing is different
from the mandel law
C. Benefit
1. Know the cross modification patterns of two or more properties
2. Explain the cause of a phenotype resulting from crossing is different from
the mandel law

2
 3

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Mandels’s Law
During his life, Mendel’s work was not appreciated and his notes were
destroyed after his death, so when his work came to light in 1900, there were
few primary historical sources left and therefore relatively little was known
about his biological work and reasoning. While Mendel’s experiments and
insights are treated as foundational in virtually all textbooks of genetics,
Mendel as a scientist remains a rather mysterious figure. In fact, the major
Mendel biographies provide hardly any information about his work in the
crucial period of 10 years (1854–1863) during which Mendel performed his
famous crossing experiments with peas. The lack of primary sources has led to
a plethora of speculation about Mendel’s intentions and standpoints, aptly
described as the nine lives of Gregor Mendel (Dijk et al, 2018).
From the fact that there are characteristics that win over others, J.G.
Mendel concluded that in individuals (or in heterozygot features, one allele is
dominant while the other is recessive). From the fact that the characteristics of
the parent reappear in the pea plant derived from heterozygote seeds, J.G.
Mendel concluded that the two factors for the two characteristics did not merge
(did not mix) in any way the two factors remained independent during their
individual lives and separated at the time of the formation of gametes In this
connection half the gamete is in charge of one factor, while the other half is in
charge of the other factor. This final conclusion is known as Mendel's law of
separation (Firdauzi, 2014).
Mendel’s data exhibit remarkable agreement to the ratios he predicted.
In this article, alternative explanations for this close agreement (that
 4
inheritance in pea does not conform to the standard statistical model, that data
were omitted, that ambiguous data were categorized to better match predicted
ratios, and that some data were deliberately falsified) are tested using
approaches that are designed to distinguish between these alternatives. The
possibility that garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) naturally produces segregation
ratios more closely matching Mendelian expectations than predicted by
statistical models is rejected. Instead the opposite is found to be the case,
making Mendel’s results even more remarkable. Considerable evidence is
introduced that Mendel omitted some of his experimental results, but this
alternative cannot adequately explain the low average deviation from
expectations that is characteristic of the segregation data he presented. An
underlying bias in Mendel’s data favoring the predicted ratio is present, but my
analysis could not clearly determine whether the bias was caused by
misclassifying ambiguous phenotypes or deliberate falsification of the results.
A number of Mendel’s statements are argued to be unrealistic in terms of
practical pea genetics, suggesting that his text does not represent a strictly
accurate description of his experimental methods (Weeden, 2016).
B. Pseudo Deviation Of The Mandel Law
1. Complementary
A previous study demonstrated skew. For comparison in this study,
we retested an outcrossed strain by crossing heterozygous mIs10/+ males to
Unc hermaphrodites. Counts of their nonUnc cross progeny confirmed skew
with a transmission bias ratio (TBR; “preferred”/“anti” gamete combinations,
see Methods) of 3.86. This value is smaller than previously observed for).
The difference is likely because of one or more skew modifier mutations
being removed or introduced during our outcrossing. those of gonochoristic
species. One possible driving force for this genome size difference could be
non-random chromosome segregation Given the similarity of DNA
composition between extrachromosomal and integrated arrays, we examined
if the former also shows biased transmission from fathers to sons. We first
 5

tested two hermaphroditic species, C. elegans and C. tropicalis, by crossing

males carrying extrachromosomal arrays with GFP or mCherry to tester
hermaphrodites (Le et al, 2017).
2. Atavism (cryptomery)
Iinteractions between genes lead to hidden inheritance for generations.
Charles Darwin has called the event of the reemergence of an offspring that
has disappeared for generations called atavism. atavism is often found in
pigeons which have open tails like a fan when mated with each other for
generations, sometimes producing children with straight tails resembling wild
birds. The common alternative conceptions the concepts occurred regardless
of contextual factors. Nevertheless different proportions of the common
alternative conceptions and different levels of understanding suggest that
conceptualisations develop under the influence of different educational
contexts. More than 30 years ago, Johnstone and Mahmoud [7] examined the
topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology syllabus and they
revealed that the topics found to be difficult by students are related to genetics
(e.g., DNA and RNA, gametes, and genes) (

CHAPTER III
METHOD

A. Date and Place

Day / date : Monday , 23th September 2019
Time : 7.30 AM – 9.10 AM
 6
Place : Laboratorium of Microbiology of Biology laboratorium 2nd
Floor
B. Tools and Materials
1. Tools
a) Jar 1 piece
b) Microscope 1 piece
c) Straight pin 1 piece
d) Lighter 1 piece
e) Preparation glass 1 piece
2. Materials
a) Ice cube
b) Female fruit flies
c) Male fruit flies
C. Flow Diagram of Morphology Observation of Drosophila melanogaster

Jar and Ice cube are Ice cube is put into the
prepared jar

Drosophila
Drosophila melanogaster
melanogaster
put into
is took fromjar.culture
Wait untill
bottle
fainted
 7

Drosophila melanogaster
Fainted fruit flies is
under microscope is
observe under microscope pictured

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION

A. ObservationResult
 8
Table 1. Life cycle of Drosophila melanogaster

Fase Egg Larva Larva Larva Pupa Imago

Instar 1 Instar 2 Instar 3
Date 20/9/19 21/9/19 22/9/19 23/9/19 24/9/19 25/9/19

Picture

Note Egg Larva Larva Larva Pupa No imago

Table 2. Morphology of Male and Female Fruit Flies

Male Fruit Flies Female Fruit Flies Note

1. Sex comb
2. Tip of abdomen
1 (Longated)
4 3. Total segment (Five)

4. Feet
5. Tip of abdomen
(Pointed)
2 5
3 6 6. Total segment (Seven)

B. Discussion

The media in the bottle is finally replaced with rotten banana medium.
Then the flies are put in a media bottle. The number of flies inserted in a media
bottle is around 13. On the start date found several white patches. According to
 9

the literature, white patches less than 0.5 mm are none other than eggs from
Drosophila melanogaster. Observation was continued again until the first instar
larvae appeared after 2 days. Instar 1 larvae are approximately 0.5 mm in size, are
white, and have motile movements. The next change is seen when the 1st instar
larvae begin to enlarge in size on the 3rd day, this is what is called the 2nd instar
larvae. In addition, the movements are more active than the 1st instar larvae.
When observing the emergence of 2nd instar larvae, fungal contamination is seen.
The following day, larval size grew larger and the 3rd instar larval
phase began to emerge. Movement of these larvae is active both on the media and
on the walls of the bottle. When observing the 3rd instar larvae, the media in the
bottle experienced a rise in surface due to gas pressing at the bottom. The gas is
estimated from the fermentation by fungus that grows around the surface of the
media. But after the larvae turn into instar larvae 3, the fungus on the surface of
the media disappears. The larvae that eat mushrooms that grow on the surface of
the media. However, after the loss of the fungus the base of the media begins to
runny. Next, the 3rd instar larvae begin to move to the top of the bottle, reducing
its movement and still sticking to the top wall of the bottle. This 3rd instar larvae
will begin to turn into white prepupa. Prepupa then turns into the pupa phase.
The time required for Drosophila melanogaster to take turns practicing
2 is 8 days. The duration of the egg to imago change is influenced by
environmental conditions such as ambient temperature (low, ideal or high) and the
treatment given by each practitioner such as giving light intensity (the bottle is
placed in a dark or bright place).
In breeding Drosophila melanogaster in a medium bottle, it was
observed that there was contamination with the growth of fungi on crushed rotten
ambon banana medium. This is because the media is getting rotten. In addition,
for a few moments the bottle was placed in a fairly humid place (in the cupboard).
However, after some time of re-observation, the fungus that grows on the fruit
medium disappears because Drosophila eats mushrooms that grow in the fruit
 10
medium in a bottle. This shows that Drosophila melanogaster, a type of ordinary
insects that are generally harmless, are eating mushrooms that grow on fruit.

CHAPTER V
CLOSING
 1
1

A. Conclussion
1. The stages of the growth phase of Drosophila melanogaster are; eggs -
instar larvae I - instar larvae II - instar larvae III - prepupa - pupa – imago
2. In analyzing the morphology of the fly's body, analysis of the heart and
female flies was also seen. The female fly is larger in size with its
abdominal segment up to the anus. While the male fly is smaller in stature
with an abdomal segment that dilates to the anus.

B. Suggestion
1. Laboratory
The advice I can give for a laboratory or laboratory assistant is that
laboratory staff can better equip all tools and materials that will be used in
practicum.
2. Asiasten
The assistant should pay more attention to the practitioner in conducting
the experiment so that all practitioners can be serious in conducting the
practice.
3. Practitioner
Practitioners in practicing should be serious and not playing so they can
get maximum results.
 12
REFERENCES

Reece, J B., Lisa A U., Michael L C., Steven A W., Peter, V M., Robert B J. 2009.
Campbell Biology Ninth Edition. Pearson: USA.
Urry, L A., Chain, M L., Wasserman, S A., Minorsky, P V., Reece, J B. 2017.
Campbell Biologi Tenth Edition. USA: Pearson Higher Education
Nainu, F. 2018. Review : Penggunaan Drosophila melanogaster Sebagai
Organisme Model Dalam Penemuan Obat. Jurnal Farmasi Galenika
(Galenika Journal of Pharmacy). 4(1):50-67 ISSN: 1223-7768
Markow, T A. 2015. The Natural History Of Model Organisms The Secret Lives
Of Drosophila Flies. eLife. 4(2) ISSN: 3464-9083
Purwatiningsih, H., and Kartika S. 2017. Deskripsi Morfologi Drosophila
melanogaster Normal (Diptera: Drosophila), Sepia and Plum Strain.
Jurnal Ilmu Dasar. 18(1): 55-60 ISSN: 4566-8971
Agustina, E., Nursalmi M., Herdanawati. 2013. Perkemnbangan matamorfosis
lalat buah (Drosophila melanogaster) pada media biakan alami sebagai
referensi pembelajaran pada mata kuliah perkembangan hewan. Jurnal
Biotik. 1(1): 1-66 ISSN: 2337-9812
Rolf, J., Paul R J., Stuart, R. 2019. Complate metamorphosis of imsect.
Philosophical Transaction. 4(1): 144-218 ISSN: 4557-8796
Apte, M S., and Meller, V H. 2015. Sex Differences in Drosophila melanogaster
Heterochromatin Are Regulated by Non-Sex Specific Factors. Plos
One. 6(1): 218-290 ISSN: 4554-9076