The Logic of a Punnett Square
A Punnett square is bookkeeping for Mendel's law of segregation. Each parent carries two alleles for a gene and passes exactly one, at random, to each offspring. The square's rows are one parent's possible gametes, the columns are the other's, and each cell is one equally likely fertilisation outcome. That is the entire mechanism — the grid is just a way of not losing track of it.
The classic case shows why genotype and phenotype ratios differ. Two heterozygous parents (Aa × Aa) produce four cells: AA, Aa, Aa, aa — a 1:2:1 genotype ratio. If A is dominant, the first three all display the dominant trait, giving the familiar 3:1 phenotype ratio. That gap between the two ratios is the whole insight of the exercise: two organisms can look identical while carrying different genetic futures, which is exactly how a recessive trait vanishes for a generation and reappears in the next.
Ratios are probabilities, not guarantees. A 3:1 ratio across four offspring is an expectation, not a promise — precisely as four coin flips need not produce two heads. Real litters and plant crosses deviate, especially at small sample sizes, and a cross producing four dominant offspring has not broken any law. This is genuinely probability wearing a lab coat; the Statistics tools cover the odds maths behind larger crosses.
This is monohybrid — one gene in isolation. That constraint matters. Real traits involve linked genes, incomplete dominance, codominance, and polygenic inheritance where dozens of genes contribute to one characteristic. Height and skin colour do not obey a simple Punnett square. The square is the foundation those complications are built on, not the finished picture — which is exactly why it is taught first.
