DWARF Leopard Geckos???

This is the first post that I have ever replied to, so I apologize for my naiveté. I have not decided what my position is on dwarfisms in leopard geckos.

First, I think it must be determined if this alleged dwarfism is truly genetic. It is very difficult for me to determine if these geckos truly have genetics for dwarfism or if there small size is due to environmental conditions. Until some other breeder, using their own environmental conditions can “prove” that this is a genetic mutation, I will continue to have doubts about a genetic link for dwarfism. The problem with this purported mutation is there are many factors that could cause a gecko to be stunted. In other mutations (the tremper giant for example), it is fairly easy to prove a genetic link. No matter how much I feed my regular size male tremper albino, it will never grow to over 100 grams. However, I think I could create an environment that would stunt the adult size of a gecko, if I had the lack of caring and ethics required to commit such an act.

Second, if it is proven that the dwarfism is genetic, is it a “healthy” mutation. Meaning is the life of the gecko going to be shortened or problematic. For me only time will tell on this one. I’m personally not convinced of this with the tremper giant.

Overall, I think that the person selling these geckos needs to do some more work before he can claim that these small geckos have the genetics for dwarfism.

defect - an imperfection that impairs worth or utility; a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection.

mutation - a significant change or alteration; a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biological change in the codons that make up the genes.

That doesn't disagree with what I was saying at all Marcia...lol Although I was sort of rambling and may not have been clear... Anyway...all genetic defects are mutations...but are termed defects if they are detrimental in some way...in my opinion its a defect if it would be detrimental in the natural environment. Also...the definition you posted of defect is a general definition refering to anything...not specifically to genetic defects...here is a definition of genetic diseases (same thing as defects...)
"A genetic disease is an heritable genetic alteration from wild type which, when expressed, results in decreased viability of the individual receiving the altered gene(s)" (a professor from the University of Florida's College of Vet Med).

OK
enough is enough
if i remember correctly a few years back a large scale breeder. had a group of "dwarfs" and if i remember correctly
the FEW babies that they got were normal sized and grew to be normal sized BUT allot of them either never bred or got egg bound .... people have tried it and it does not prove out.. they simply are genetically weak animals, like a runt.. it is not a mutation ... dude maybe we can get kelli on here i think she knows a little more detailed info than me

HA. runts. yes I said runts too. *pats self on head

my granpappy would turn over in his grave if he heard people were breeding their runts!

Originally Posted by montezuma

Marcia, you just made one of my points for me. bigger doesn't mean better or "robust". The trend is a large fat gecko but that doesn't mean it's healthier!

My vet maintains that he has had more success breeding average weight leos compared to overweight ones which are becoming the popular trend. He actually wanted me to put one of my geckos on a diet (granted 80 grams at 6" was pretty damned obese, she's now grown into the weight and is 8").


I believe Monte once suggested (Correct me if i'm mistaken) that since in nature it is unlikely that they eat so consistently, especially during the cold months, it may be benefitial to give them a lean period in captivity as well...

I think that leos have gotten larger over the years. I acquired my first leos over 8 years ago. The female offspring produced from them usually top out around 50 grams (same size range as the parents). I've never had any problems with egg binding and the babies are very vigorous.

It's only been in the last few years that I've been adding a lot of new leos and most out grow my originals. My originals usually max out at 5-6 clutches a season while the newbies will often lay around 10. I think that as gecko breeding has taken off, we are exerting selective pressures on our geckos. Larger females produce more eggs, so leos are getting bigger.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with breeding old stock (smaller leos) and I like the idea that I can trace the majority of the offspring I produce back to my original male.

I should add that my leos are all normally proportioned.

I agree that the smaller, squattier looking leos with the compressed tails which I've occaisionally seen marketed as dwarves carry a defect and should not be bred and that the females in the ad seem to carry this trait.

-Alice

Steve...what your vet says makes 100% sense! I've been saying since I got into the hobby (a year ago) that leos shouldn't be obese....obesity in reptiles will cause basically the same problems as in mammals.

Here is what I think..... First on to the mutation thing..... Not all mutations are bad..... Infact genes mutate all the time in order to addapt to changing conditions and alot of mutations are found in wild animals that are thriving just fine in the wild..... There are locality spacific color morphs and locality spacific recessive genetics..... Now we all know now that the giants are not recessive..... They can very well be an example of a larger subspecies of Leopard gecko..... Also the hypos on the market now are the result of wild caught adult hypos, years ago...... Once in captivity selective breeding refined this morph...... There have been albino hets caught in the wild.... How did those imported albino hets become hets???? Obviously some genetic mutations do fine in the wild and live to breeding age....

Now onto the Dwarf leos...... Dwarfism is a defect that is not wanted in captive collections and is not wanted in nature..... Dwarf animals are way more likely to have problems giving birth and staying alive in the wild because now they have many more predators that will pick them off....

Ethics??? No one here can really talk about ethics..... Ethics are rules made up be people..... Nature does not fallow our rules..... It is not ethical for a person to run up and bite a cow on the neck because we get hungry, but in the wild some animals need to do this in order to live...... Is it ethical to strip an animal from the wild and confine it to a cage for the rest of its life???? Is it ethical to inbreed a species 2, 5, 10, 15 generations???? The funny thing is that ethics are unwritten rules made up by us and in some way, shape, or form we ALL break them somehow.... Just something else to think about here....

Now I in no way feel it would do any good to continue BAD genetics like dwarfism.... There is no benefit to being a dwarf....

Actually Gregg if I'm remembering correctly....about 95% of all mutations are fatal or detrimental. The vast majority of mutations in the wild are bad, however occasionally one will pop up that will benefit the species. Albinism is a VERY detrimental disorder in the wild...but it can occasionally be found in hets (or very rarely a VERY lucky albino) because it is recessive...and therefore extremely difficult to altogether eliminate from the gene pool. As far as dwarfism, I'm not really going to say anything specifically because I don't know enough about it...however I don't know how you can say automatically that dwarf leos would automatically have more predators that would pick them off...if they are just small but still normal physiologically otherwise...I would think they would be able hide more easily and be less likely to be caught. The detrimentality of dwarfism in the wild would depend on the cause of it and what other aspects of physiology are affected. Just a note...when I say dwarfism refering to the leos I am simply meaning smaller than normal leos....not necessarily genetic dwarfism.

Ok .....So there are instances in animals where a "mutation" or "adaptation" if you will, into a smaller species has occurred and they have flourished....even in humans! Just think about this! The geckos are trying to survive in a specific area, say an Island, peninsula or just a area that is different than the normal area that they live in. This area has maybe small crevises possibly caused by eons ago volcanic disruption or maybe even a certain type of tree or brush that grow closer together. Over time (and were talking about many many generations) the geckos that continually survive predation and seem to escape there predators might be the smaller gecko! So over time this "Adaptation" or "mutation" (whatever you want to call it) have Evolved into a smaller and more successful species!
So is it bad to breed smaller geckos! Well I think that if there is no long lasting effects, that the females can lay eggs properly and everything checks out, than why not? What is the difference of a small gecko than a large gecko? Of a orange gecko or a albino gecko? Sure in the wild none of these would probably survive, hell 95% of the geckos being bred in the U.S. wouldn't survive in the wild! But who is planning on releasing them back to the wild anyway? NO ONE!
How will we find out if this is a viable gecko if no one ever tried it? What if no one ever tried to breed a tangerine because someone said "It's not right".
Anyway these are just my thoughts, Im sure my sister who loves her little "yipping" taco bell piece of #@%$ would love to argue in favor of smaller is better! For me I could care less!