a little help with my het aptors

im a little lost when it comes to het aptors.my male is a shct het aptor and my female is a albino het aptor. what are the chances of hatching out a aptor and other breeding out comes? my male is basicly a double het for the new patternless gene and albino and my female is het new patternless, so i guess am a little lost. thanks for the help guys.

Oh boy...you're going to get some interesting feedback on that question! LOL

It's quite the debate right now. I've spoken with two breeders who should know a lot about APTOR and RAPTOR traits (one being the founder), and they've both admitted that there is still a lot of mystery surrounding these morphs. So, with that being said, there are a lot of theories out there and some who can back it up with experience. Just do like me...put them all together and cross your fingers!

I'm just kidding there, kinda. It just seems that there have been all sorts of results (most of them pleasing) when combining geckos carrying these traits. I'm interested to see what others say before I comment more.

See this thread...
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76739

Basically, the new Patternless gene is unproven (and their has been talk that it is not recessive), the ECLIPSE gene (which only applies to RAPTORS) might be recessive...

So pretty much what you have has far as proven recessive genes is het Albino x Abino which will produce 50% Albino and 50% Normal 66% possible het Albino.

You may of course have some pleaseing surprises if the Patternless gene is expressed in any hatchlings, as well as any Tangerine, Hypo or Carrottail.

In the end, no one can give you a definite answer, the founder never took the time to prove out the RAPTOR/APTOR mutations before putting them on the market.

TripleMoonsExotic said:

So pretty much what you have has far as proven recessive genes is het Albino x Abino which will produce 50% Albino and 50% Normal 66% possible het Albino.

Click to expand...

Actually from het albino x albino you will get 50% albino and 50% normal appearing animals that are 100% het albino.

Tracie, proven or unproven, you should get about 25% APTOR-Patternless, in a mix of Albinos, and Het Albinos. You can also hatch Jungles, Reverse Stripes, and Bandeds (I think), if the parents had the Banded genes I mean.

Thats really all that needs to be said IMO Enough with the conspiracy theory, until it is proven, please. Ron says its a het, Im sure he would be in deep trouble if it didnt prove out, dont you think? Why would he put his ars on the line? Not like he is even charging more for a Het RAPTOR, as opposed to last years Het APTOR. Im sure Ill have a hard enough time selling, without someone discrediting these genetics. LOL

My apologizes, Jeremey is correct. I was think het x het (and in a hurry to run out the door to work).

Enough with the conspiracy theory, until it is proven, please.

Click to expand...

I really hate to pull this thread off topic, but it isn't a "conspiracy theory" it is the truth. It should have been proven prior to claiming it recessive, now shouldn't it have been? If the truth was told behind the genetics, their wouldn't have ever been a problem. I asked for facts in my thread, I received a lot of "maybes" and "I don't knows" which leads me to believe that no one cares one way or another, just about the money involved. I truly hope that the Patternless and the Eclipse prove recessive, it would be a wonderful addition to Leopard Gecko genetics that could be bred into other wonderful mutations. Look what's been done with the Codom snow! That mutation alone opened up a new door to many different, amazing combinations. Those founders did it right however, by proving it out prior to tossing it into the market.

Who said it hasnt been proven by RT? It has, and it proves out the same as ANY pattern trait. Recessive? No clue, I dont think any pattern is, but they are reproducable. Thats what matters. Think of all of the people that believe Jungle and Stripe are recessives. Why do they think that? Because thats what it seems like. You can buy "hets for stripe", and you WILL hatch stripes from them. Same applies here.

Stephanie, do you even work with the RAPTOR line? I have been for over a year, and yes I have hatched APTOR, and Red Eyed Albinos from "Het" X APTOR. Second generation 'hets' will go on to lay soon, so there isnt enough info yet, and it is too soon to go sticking our feet in our mouths.

It is really not up to me to care what RT wants to call his 'mutations'. He is a grown man, and knows what he is doing. I really really dont think he would like to loose the respect and business of Leo-breeders, by selling something that cant be reproduced.

groovygeckos said:

Ron says its a het, Im sure he would be in deep trouble if it didnt prove out, dont you think? Why would he put his ars on the line?

Click to expand...

All I can say about this is...

How are all those het giants doing for everyone?? Weren't those suppose to be simple recessive?? Hmmm

Yes, but the Giants are still genetic. That whole Giant thing, is IMO the only reason anyone even questions the newer traits.

I couldnt tell you if it was co-dom or recessive, by breeding results alone either. LOL Het X het whether its recessive or co-dom, still equals 25% homozygous. So how do you tell, when the only difference is size? You cant.

I let that one go as a 'mistake'. Or maybe even the best marketing in the world. Certainly would keep everyone from flooding the market, when they dont know its co-dom, and easy to reproduce, right?

Who said it hasnt been proven by RT?

Click to expand...

RT himself, look at his website...

Recessive? No clue, I dont think any pattern is, but they are reproducable. Thats what matters.

Click to expand...

Because it's reproducable does not make it recessive (or codom for that matter). WHY don't you understand that?

Think of all of the people that believe Jungle and Stripe are recessives. Why do they think that?

Click to expand...

Because people are breeding these animals and not understanding the genetics behind it. Because people aren't taken the time to understand the genetics behind it.

Because thats what it seems like. You can buy "hets for stripe", and you WILL hatch stripes from them

Click to expand...

BUT they are not "het" Stripe. They are not recessive, they are not Codom. PERIOD.

I couldnt tell you if it was co-dom or recessive, by breeding results alone either.

Click to expand...

Want to prove it out recessive? Do a RAPTOR x NORMAL. Breed the offspring together and see what you get. Not hard. Why hasn't it been done? Because no one is interested in taking the time to prove anything out. No one is worried about the true genetics behind the mutation, and no one wants to take the time to prove it out.

Because people are breeding these animals and not understanding the genetics behind it. Because people aren't taken the time to understand the genetics behind it.

Click to expand...

BUT they are not "het" Stripe. They are not recessive, they are not Codom. PERIOD.

Click to expand...

First of all, I would like to know how many Stripe lines you have worked with, and for how many years. I am not being sarcastic here, I'm asking a serious question. If you have been working with these animals for a few years, please tell us the results of your breedings. If not, tell us where you got the information that some Stripe lines are not recessive? I have to disagree with you on that, since I have been breeding Stripes for many years, and have come to the determination that at least 2 of the Stripe lines I work with (one being the HQR red stripe line) are either recessive OR they work just like a recessive trait. I have taken the time to understand the genetics, firsthand, and I have done the work, and would really like to know HOW you know that the Stripes I work with are not recessive.

Now, as far as the Giants go.. as I have posted in other threads in this forum, I knew from the day that I hatched my first eggs from Giant X Normal breedings that the Giant trait was NOT recessive. It was quite obvious to me since one of the 2 babies that hatched was a Giant. By the way, this was when Giants were still being marketed as recessive. The Giant trait does behave like an incomplete dominant with the super form being an even larger Giant, but it could very well be that when you breed two really large geckos together (Giant X Giant), you are naturally going to produce some even larger geckos.

Raptor/Aptor/Het... I'm not exactly sure how those traits work either. I produced what I believe are two non albino Aptors from parents that are Red Stripe X Reverse Stripe Albino Giants, so I believe (for now) that Aptors are actually albino forms of patternless stripes, and the non albino form can be produced by breeding stripe to reverse stripe. The other possibility is that the parents of those 2 babies are Het Aptor, and that Aptor does work like a recessive trait.

I just hatched my first clutch from Raptor X SHCT "Het" Aptor. I mean, they literally just hatched an hour ago. The one on top looks like a Giant hybino, the bottom one looks like an Albino Jungle Giant. Neither of them look like an Aptor to me, although I think the bottom one might have snake eyes. It's hard to tell, they are so small and tend to close their eyes a lot. I'll update here if it does have snake eyes. I really hope it doesn't, I don't care for them much, they look creepy to me, almost like a defect.

I have an theory of how the solid red eye trait is tied in to the Aptor, but I don't really know since I did not buy any Aptors, only Raptors. I do have a question for those that did purchase pairs or groups of Aptors: Did you produce Raptors from breeding the Aptors together, and if so, how many?

Want to prove it out recessive? Do a RAPTOR x NORMAL. Breed the offspring together and see what you get. Not hard. Why hasn't it been done? Because no one is interested in taking the time to prove anything out. No one is worried about the true genetics behind the mutation, and no one wants to take the time to prove it out.

Click to expand...

Stephanie, that IS being done, by myself and I am sure there are other breeders doing the same. Raptors really have not been on the market long enough for any Raptor X Normal offspring to be bred together, but it will happen this year.

I do understand the point you are trying to make (I think), that it would be alot easier on all of us if these morphs were completely figured out before they were marketed. And yes, that is probably true, but I am just happy to have an opportunity to work with the Raptors, and to be able to hatch some of my own this year. I have only Ron to thank for that, because if it wasn't for him, none of us would have them in our collections. I can (eventually) figure out the genetics on my own.

well thanks guy for the help. i did not mean to start any debates if i did. both of my hets are poss. het raptor. they are some what confusing still, but i love them all. i always thought that giants were co-doms at least thats what what i heard and read.
as you guys can probaly tell this all is still a little new to me. but in the i hope to join in on the threads w/ my own imput, but not right now, because im still learning. thanks guys

Like talking to a wall

Stephanie, you take my words and make them into something I did not say, or mean. Im not arguing with you, I made a simple point, and you are nitpicking everything. I am sick of having to over-explain everything, and then have you take a completely different meaning from it.

I say Ron has proven this out because he has, or he would not have sold it PERIOD. Does that mean it proved out as a recessive? Yes actually, to Ron it proved genetic enough for him to call recessive. If he wants to call it recessive, because it acts that way, I could care less. It is not as if it isnt genetic, and it is just a flat out lie.

I say "Recessive"? with question mark, because he says it is recessive, he says everything is recessive though. Yes they act like recessives, I did not say that they are. I dont care if its recessive, and like I told you, and Kelli just told you, there IS NOT ENOUGH INFO TO SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.


Stephanie, how do you even think, that you can tell the difference between a recessive, and a polygenic trait? There is NO way to say 100% for sure, by breeding 'het' offspring together. Same goes for co-dom trait, if there is little difference in the heterozygous form. Depends on the trait, like is it an obvious co-dom or not. People believe Blizzards are recessive, but they have some 'speckled' visual-hets. That should actually make them co-dom. I dont think all of the hets are speckled though, but if they were we wouldnt be calling it recessive. In terms of breeding results, and for breeders, there is little difference. Simple mistakes, are also made.

So lets say you breed: Co-dom X codom = 25%
Recessive X recessive = 25%
Poly. X poly. =25% ( yes around 25%)

Now please tell me how many even know what polygenic means?
Are you going to be the person to explain it to thousands? And make them understand it? Trust me it will take years, have fun.
Does anyone understand the difference when you can get the same results?


I just went and read Ron site again. No where does it say that APTOR, or RAPTOR IS recessive. It certainly doesnt say anything about it not being proven. Ron told me on the phone TWO YEARS AGO he found the red eye gene, do you not think he has been working with it all of this time since?? It used to say the "Patternless" was a recessive gene, it does not anymore. It only says about the RAPTOR " Perhaps we are dealing with two seperate recessive genes for eye color". Thats all it says. Perhaps, to me, means perhaps there are two, perhaps there is one, or perhaps it is not recessive at all.

Funny this sounds soooo much like someone calling traits linebred for the time being, until they are proven. When they have several breeders telling them it IS proven.

Because it's reproducable does not make it recessive (or codom for that matter). WHY don't you understand that?

Click to expand...

I do, you dont understand what Im saying, Im sorry. It means that if it acts recessive, you will not know 100% for sure which it is, no matter what you do.

Breed the offspring together and see what you get. Not hard. Why hasn't it been done? Because no one is interested in taking the time to prove anything out. No one is worried about the true genetics behind the mutation, and no one wants to take the time to prove it out.

Click to expand...

Wrong, it is hard when both will give you the same results, because one acts recessive. Wrong Wrong and Wrong, it is being done.

I have only Ron to thank for that, because if it wasn't for him, none of us would have them in our collections. I can (eventually) figure out the genetics on my own.

Click to expand...

Amen, sister! LOL

Kelli, your question: Well we bought an APTOR, and "Hets" which were Reverse Stripes in late 04`. Out of six eggs from the only one that bred, only three hatched, and two are RAPTORs. One is a "snake eye" having one normal eye. The other is a snake eye, but having one solid RAPTOR-eye. As far as patterns, one is an APTOR, and the other a Jungle.

KelliH

Very glad you posted. I wish you (and others) had replied to the initial thread. I am in no way bashing RT, I don't agree with his methods (IE not proving it out before claiming it recessive/codom - he should have learned his lesson with the Giant fiasco), but I do respect the guy for putting a ton of time into a number of wonderful mutations. I also think it's wonderous that he produced such a beautiful gecko in the APTOR/RAPTOR. I am also extremely pleased that you (and hopefully others) are trying to prove the mutation out the correct way. However, no one posted that a few days ago with my initial post. Please, please, please let us know what happens! I'm crossing my fingers for the Eclipse and new Patternless to be recessive. When I say Stripe, I mean Stripe...I was not referring to the HQR red stripe line. I consider that a whole different ball game. The end result of what I'm saying, I want the truth behind this mutation. [[Someone now should scream "You can't handle the truth!" ]] Also, congrats on the Raptor X SHCT "Het" Aptor hatching! I personally would be considerably pleased to produce the Giant Hybino and the Albino Jungle Giant.

Groovy Geckos

I feel that you are argueing with me. Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming this "conspiracy" theory.

I say Ron has proven this out because he has, or he would not have sold it PERIOD.

Click to expand...

Then why the Giant fiasco?

Yes actually, to Ron it proved genetic enough for him to call recessive. If he wants to call it recessive, because it acts that way, I could care less. It is not as if it isnt genetic, and it is just a flat out lie.

Click to expand...

So you don't care about the ethics behind guaranteeing genetics that aren't there? You think it's ok that he's done it once, and could very well have possibly done it again?

I say "Recessive"? with question mark, because he says it is recessive, he says everything is recessive though.

Click to expand...

You find nothing wrong with him saying everything is recessive? You're willing to jump on the RT bandwagon and regardless of whether he's right or wrong, it's ok?

Recessive X recessive = 25%

Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Recessive x Recessive = 100% Recessive

Funny this sounds soooo much like someone calling traits linebred for the time being, until they are proven. When they have several breeders telling them it IS proven.

Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong and wrong (again). The only one that states that it is proven is you because RT said so. Though it should be considered selectively bred until it is proven. By proven...It's either Recessive or it's Codom. Not "acts like recessive."

FYI, I'm started a discussion about this on cornsnakes.com in hopes that Charles (Serpwidgets) would reply with his opinions...I'd like his input since he is a genetics guru.

O, o! Kelli, I didn't see the attached pictures originally (or did you just attach them?)! BEAUTIFUL, SCREAMER babies! My jaw hit the floor! I am so jealous!

Very glad you posted. I wish you (and others) had replied to the initial thread. I am in no way bashing RT, I don't agree with his methods (IE not proving it out before claiming it recessive/codom - he should have learned his lesson with the Giant fiasco), but I do respect the guy for putting a ton of time into a number of wonderful mutations. I also think it's wonderous that he produced such a beautiful gecko in the APTOR/RAPTOR. I am also extremely pleased that you (and hopefully others) are trying to prove the mutation out the correct way. However, no one posted that a few days ago with my initial post. Please, please, please let us know what happens! I'm crossing my fingers for the Eclipse and new Patternless to be recessive. When I say Stripe, I mean Stripe...I was not referring to the HQR red stripe line. I consider that a whole different ball game. The end result of what I'm saying, I want the truth behind this mutation. [[Someone now should scream "You can't handle the truth!" ]] Also, congrats on the Raptor X SHCT "Het" Aptor hatching! I personally would be considerably pleased to produce the Giant Hybino and the Albino Jungle Giant.

Click to expand...

You're right, I should have replied to the initial thread. For some reason I felt like posting earlier today, and this thread came up when I viewed new posts. I will for sure post any results I get from my Raptor "experiments" . The stripes I was referring to are the Bold Stripes I have been working with for some time, as well as the HQR red stripes. Oh, and I am not complaining about the two new hatchlings, I was very happy to see them a few hours ago! I think when it will get really interesting is when I hatch my first clutch of Raptor X Raptor eggs in a couple of weeks. Frankly I am just thrilled to have them, period, and I am so happy I made the decision to get some Raptors, because however the traits are passed, they are certainly genetic in some form or fashion, which means I will have baby Raptors of my own soon! (Thank you RT)

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Recessive x Recessive = 100% Recessive

Click to expand...

What Dan was saying is that if you breed two Hets together, (for discussion purposes we will call them het Albino), you will produce, statistically speaking of course, 25% Albino. As well if you breed two "co-doms" together, ie. "visual hets" (for example, Mack Snows), you will produce 25% of the super form (Super Snows in this example). That is why it isn't always so easy to tell if a specific trait/morph is passed on via a "co-dom" or recessive manner, especially if the co-dom form is not easily distinguished from the non co-dom (normal) form. In Ron's situation it might be very difficult to know exactly if the Aptor is in fact a co-dom, since all of his geckos for the most part are related, and similar looking, and it might be easy to mistake the gene as a recessive one.

My theory on the Aptor trait is that it is co-dom, and with the super form comes the solid red, or snake eyes. However it also could be that Raptor is indeed a recessive trait, and that many of the Aptors sold were hets. Of course Ron could have done more test breedings with Raptor X unrelated normal, but he chose not to. I don't mind doing that, it makes it more interesting to me.

O, o! Kelli, I didn't see the attached pictures originally (or did you just attach them?)! BEAUTIFUL, SCREAMER babies! My jaw hit the floor! I am so jealous!

Click to expand...

Thanks! I was really excited to see them, but then again I always get excited seeing new babies, no matter what the morph! Steve tells me I obsess over my leo eggs by checking on them 4-5 times a day, but I think he's just jealous! Heheee I know you will be reading this Steve.

My apologies, GG...I thought you were saying Homo x Homo not Het x Het...

Thanks Kelli, for clarifying that!

Quotes from Serp (with his permission):

I think the issue starts with lack of "standard usage" of the terminology.

For example, everyone considers the mack snows to be proven codominant. In order to prove that a mutant is codominant, there need to be three phenotypes. IIRC there are only two known phenotypes. What has been proven is that mack snow is heritable in a simple fashion but that it is not recessive. What has been proven is that mack snows are heterozygous.

The point I'm making with the above example is that the term "codom" is being used in a situation where it translates into genetic terminology as "heterozygous."

The problems above all stem from the fact that het gets misused, enough that for many it has come to mean "it's carrying a recessive mutant" and does not mean "it is heterozygous." This is where the term "visual het" (which is a nonsense term) comes from and why "codom" then gets used in place of "heterozygous."

What exactly is the situation with macks? When you cross mack X mack, do you generate a third phenotype?

If you only ever generate two phenotypes, then the mack gene is dominant. If it is possible to generate three phenotypes (presumably what would be called a "super mack") then the mack gene is codominant.

Dominant or codominant applies across the board to the mack gene. If it is codominant in one gecko, it is codominant in all of them. It is not a genotype, it is a relationship between two alleles.

-----

I believe the same "misuse of codominant" is also true of the giants. Are there just giants and normals, or is there a third ("super giant" or "half giant") phenotype? Unless there are three phenotypes, giant is also a dominant gene, as opposed to codominant.

Again, the difference between what I'm saying and what you will hear elsewhere is a result of the fact that "codominant" is being misused to mean "heterozygous for a dominant mutant" and "dominant" is being misused to mean "homozygous for a dominant mutant."

Click to expand...

Note: I did clarify that Mack x Mack = Super Mack and Giant x Giant = Super Giant

Here's the link:
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31694&page=1&pp=10

well thanks guy for the help. i did not mean to start any debates if i did. both of my hets are poss. het raptor. they are some what confusing still, but i love them all. i always thought that giants were co-doms at least thats what what i heard and read.

Click to expand...

Tracie, no worries at all, you asked a very good question and this debate has been going on, in some form or fashion, since the Leo Forum beginnings. Sometimes things may get a tad heated in our discussions here, but that is the nice thing about this forum: we can have these discussions and state our opinions (within reason of course ) freely. Welcome to Fauna BTW!