Giant questions / musings ...

I've been thinking of getting some giants this year, but the thread on dwarves caused me to ask myself some disturbing questions.

In most species that I'm aware of giantism is a defect. Large breed dogs for example have greatly abbreviated life spans (I know that there are exceptions). Giantism in people (I think it's caused by a pituitary gland tumor) leads to a host physical problems / ailments. The list goes on...

Does anyone know how old the oldest giants are? What happens if it comes to light that giants only live 10 years / much shorter than the normal leo? Will everyone be trying to weed out the giants? Will the trait become akin to deformed eyelids and kinked tails? Will we have irrevocably "contaminated" the captive population?

Aside from the risk of egg binding in dwarves, giantism would almost seem to be the more dangerous of the two...

-Alice

as far as the oldest giant goes, i'm not entirely sure, they were discovered in 2000-2001 and the oldest one i personally know of is trempers moose, here are his stats, they have not been around all that long..

Moose's Stats
05-16-01 - hatched
06-15-01 - 14 grams
07-21-01 - 34 grams
08-18-01 - 54 grams
09-17-01 - 70 grams
10-16-01 - 85 grams
11-22-01 - 96 grams
12-20-01 - 107 grams
01-17-02 - 115 grams
02-18-02 - 123 grams
03-15-02 - 129 grams
04-17-02 - 136 grams
05-16-02 - 140 grams
08-22-02 - 144 grams
09-26-02 - placed with females
05-01-03 - 126 grams
05-03-03 - removed from females
06-08-03 - 134 grams
07-11-03 - 144 grams
07-24-03 - 150 grams
08-08-03 - 152 grams
09-28-03 - placed with females
05-12-04 - 130 grams
05-14-04 - removed from females
06-03-04 - 136 grams
08-04-04 = 144 grams
10-22-04 = 156 grams - new weight record

Tremper may have older ones that we just dont know about..

I personally would not be looking at the length of life but the quality.

Justyn...that is true...however length of life can be an affect of quality of life. Leopard geckos being prey animals can probably hide illness for a good long time and may not express any discomfort for years and then just drop dead....like rabbits (yes I know...mammal comparison...only example I can think of...), they may show no signs whatsoever of being ill until basically dropping dead within hours. I don't know that this happens for sure in leos...but it is definitely possible. Basically what I'm saying is that they could have a serious illness related to the giant gene and never show any signs (although could still feel it) until shortly before it causes thier death.

Originally Posted by aliceinwl

In most species that I'm aware of giantism is a defect. Large breed dogs for example have greatly abbreviated life spans (I know that there are exceptions). Giantism in people (I think it's caused by a pituitary gland tumor) leads to a host physical problems / ailments. The list goes on...

-Alice

I agree, that's why I posted in the dwarf thread that there seem to be some bias or hypocrisy, but my expertise is clearly not in geckos, so I left my comments at that, and haven't kept up with the thread.
In my opinion one of the photos I have seen of a giant (I wonder if it is Moose, that tokaydude mentioned) looks as "deformed" in it's own way, as some were saying the "dwarves" looked. That's just my not much experience with leos opinion.
I do think you have valid questions and concerns.

Honestly, I think the Giants might be a different sub-species or they are mix between common leos and another sub-species. On average they seem to lay a few more clutches than normal leos. If their was really something wrong, wouldn't they be a lot weaker and not such good reproducers? All of my Giants seem alot more robust, than my normals. For some reason I don't think the "Giants" are a genetic mutation.

They may have shorter life spans, though.......... It might be like comparing neanderthals to modern humans. Ones more robust and physically stronger, but has a shorter life span.

Matt

i am with matt in the thought they are originally of another sub species. if that is the case i would see no ill effects but i agre that if it is true giantism that it may very weell have some drawbacks or other problems underliying.. or perhaps just a shorter life span... but like i said i think it at least originally was the product of a sub specific leo

I agree with the theory that giants may be from a separate sub-species, and 'dwarfs' may be as well. Personally, I have never been interested in keeping/breeding either of them, mostly for the reasons that were discussed on the "Dwarf" thread.

Originally Posted by MattP

On average they seem to lay a few more clutches than normal leos. If their was really something wrong, wouldn't they be a lot weaker and not such good reproducers?

I have no experience with giants, so it's interesting that you brought up this observation. Producing more clutches may be life-shortening in itself. It adds more strain to the body.

My only concern is that since giants seem to have a single gene mutation, that means that something isn't working right....or they would grow to normal size. The mutation could be a lot of different things such as nothing triggering the slowing of growth hormone release past puberty or the mechanism that stops most body parts from continueing to grow has stopped functioning. If it is something like the second one that could be a problem if some organs stop growing but the leo itself does not....for example if the heart stopped growing once it reached the appropriate size for a normal leo, no effects would be seen right away, but the heart would be stressed and overworked in a larger leo and it could possibly lead to an early death. Even if the mutation does arrise from a subspecies they still may not live as long as other leos for reasons like those above because they still could have plenty of time to breed while they are young before they show any signs of illness. Anyway...that's just a thought.