is Phenotype All ?

Definitions of "phenotype" are usually shown in contrast to "genotype".
Most often some kind of equation is given, showing phenotype resulting from genotype and environment, and perhaps, "random variation".

The definition given almost always says phenotype is the observable trait(s) of an organism.
My question is this; as we are able to observe more, we are able to observe the genes.
So how is it that the genotype is never thought of as part of a possible phenotype ?

Thanks !

Edit: To be more clear about epigenetics, the environmental impact doesn't directly effect the expression of genes. Rather, the environmental stimulation influences other cellular mechanisms that then regulate the gene.

I don't think this is quite correct, either, gregulous. I'll have to look about, but my bet is that both what you mention, takes place, and direct action from environmental chemicals and possibly more...take place to produce epigenetic changes.

Interesting -- though I wonder if it's much different than other kinds of publications.

You can search PubMed for free, so you can do a search for various psych topics to see. (You're not going to have electronic access to the full article though without an institutional subscription)

One postulation that he offered was that smart contemporary writers use smart language, to hold interest, and that use of the colon or semicolon might not be the cause of acceptance or rejection, rather the tendency to approve of smart contemporary writing might have been a cause.

Either way, I suppose it's good enough reason to align yourself with that group; write in smart contemporary fashion - and put that semi- colon or colon in there; sexy/explanatory.

You can see the table of contents online from various publications like the American Journal of Psychiatry. Not a ton of colons and semicolons on a quick glance.

I think it's less common in my subspecialty -- one wonders if it would cause harm. The editors put a colon in the title of an article I wrote once and added an insipid subtitle. I've been biased ever since.

I don't think this is quite correct, gregulus. I'll have to look about, but my bet is that both what you mention - that is: that indirect environmental influence takes place- and that also direct action from environmental chemicals or other, takes place.

And produces epigenetic changes.
Edited for comprehensibility and coherency and civility :perplexed:

Epigenetics, though, to my understanding, refers to gene regulation without changing the underlying nucleotide sequence of the gene. I don't know that a gene can be turned on or off without complex mechanisms being involved that don't alter the genetic sequence of the genome.

I am simply skeptical of a direct influence from the environment that can alter gene expression without inducing some sort of mechanistic response.

Epigenetics specifically does turn genes on and off without modifying the nucleotide sequence. Things like histone acetylation (common in eukaryotes) and DNA methylation (common in prokaryotes) will cause covalent bonds to either histones or DNA itself without altering the sequence.

Again, there are intermediate steps -- but the leaves wouldn't change color in the fall if environmental triggers did not alter gene expression.

If you're playing billiards and you sink the 8 ball, you can still take credit for it even though it was the cue ball that hit the 8, and it was the stick that hit the cue ball.

Organisms have evolved to be responsive to their environment -- because they have to be. There may be intermediate messengers and processes to transmit the environmental signal to the genes in question, but that's just the solution to the problem. Like in billiards, there are rules.

What's important in this conversation is that the point be understood that our genome's activity and regulation is modulated by environmental factors.

Yes. I took memester's argument to be one supporting what I was referring to as a direct influence. If that was not his argument, then my apologies for misreading.

That is what I was going to look for; direct influence.
but I'm only looking to refute your quoted clarification, not all subsequent modification of it, as one of the modifications has a "hedge" built into it, of unknown height.

I already sense a problem because you use the term "gene regulation" , moving away from "gene expression", in a field where "regulation" has a very specific meaning, usually, and I see you moving freely, equating the two.

The challenge is to show change in gene expression without change in DNA sequence, was it not ?

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on semantics here.

What is being discussed here is the regulation of gene expression.

You and I both know this, and it is clear what my argument is. Your emphasis on diction is bordering on being a red herring, or if that is too strong, at least a ignoratio elenchi fallacy.