Question

figure 3
true or false:
a \ff\ parent and an \ff\ parent can have the results shown in generation ii?

Explanation:

Step1: Analyze Parent Genotypes

Parent 1 (I-1) has genotype \( ff \), parent 2 (I-2) is assumed as \( FF \) (for the "FF" parent case). When crossing \( FF \) and \( ff \), the Punnett square gives all offspring as \( Ff \) (since \( F \) from \( FF \) and \( f \) from \( ff \) combine).

Step2: Check Generation II Genotypes

In generation II, the offspring (II-2) has genotype \( ff \), but from \( FF \times ff \), all offspring should be \( Ff \). However, wait—wait, no: wait, the question is if a "FF" and "ff" parent can have the results in generation II. Wait, generation II has II-2 as \( ff \), but if parents are \( FF \) and \( ff \), offspring must be \( Ff \). But wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the parent 2 (I-2) is \( F\_ \), but the question is about a "FF" parent (so I-2 is \( FF \)) and I-1 is \( ff \). Then their offspring (generation II) would all be \( Ff \) (since \( F \) from \( FF \) and \( f \) from \( ff \)). But in generation II, II-2 is \( ff \), which is a problem. Wait, no—wait, maybe the question is about the other parent? Wait, no. Wait, let's re-express: If one parent is \( FF \) (homozygous dominant) and the other is \( ff \) (homozygous recessive), the cross is \( FF \times ff \). The possible gametes: \( FF \) gives \( F \) only, \( ff \) gives \( f \) only. So all offspring are \( Ff \) (heterozygous). Now, look at generation II: II-2 is \( ff \), which is homozygous recessive. But if parents are \( FF \) and \( ff \), offspring can't be \( ff \). Wait, but wait—maybe the "FF" parent is not I-2? Wait, no, the question says "A 'FF' parent and an 'ff' parent"—so one is \( FF \), one is \( ff \). Let's check generation II: II-2 is \( ff \), but from \( FF \times ff \), offspring must be \( Ff \). However, in generation II, II-3 and II-4 are \( F\_ \), II-1 is \( F\_ \), but II-2 is \( ff \). Since \( FF \times ff \) can only produce \( Ff \) offspring, having an \( ff \) offspring (II-2) is impossible. Wait, but wait—maybe I made a mistake. Wait, no: the cross \( FF \times ff \) gives all \( Ff \). So generation II has an \( ff \) individual (II-2), which can't come from \( FF \) and \( ff \) parents. Wait, but the question is "can they have the results shown in generation II?" The results in generation II include II-2 as \( ff \), but \( FF \times ff \) can't produce \( ff \). Wait, but wait—maybe the "FF" parent is II-1? No, the parents for generation II are I-1 and I-2. Wait, I-1 is \( ff \), I-2 is \( F\_ \). If I-2 is \( FF \), then offspring (generation II) must be \( Ff \). But II-2 is \( ff \), so that's a contradiction. Therefore, the answer should be False? Wait, no—wait, wait, maybe I messed up. Wait, no: let's do the Punnett square for \( FF \) (parent 1) and \( ff \) (parent 2). Gametes: \( F \) (from \( FF \)) and \( f \) (from \( ff \)). All offspring are \( Ff \). So in generation II, all offspring should be \( Ff \), but II-2 is \( ff \), so a "FF" and "ff" parent cannot have an \( ff \) offspring. Therefore, the answer is False? Wait, but wait—the question is "can they have the results shown in generation II?" The results in generation II: II-2 is \( ff \), II-1,3,4 are \( F\_ \). If parents are \( FF \) and \( ff \), offspring must be \( Ff \), so II-2 being \( ff \) is impossible. Therefore, the answer is False. Wait, but wait—maybe the "FF" parent is not I-2? No, the parents of generation II are I-1 (\( ff \)) and I-2 (\( F\_ \)). So if I-2 is \( FF \), then generation II offspring must be \( Ff \), but II-2 is \( ff \), so no. Hence, the answer is False.

Answer:

False