Per Tremper's site...
non-albino "het" RAPTOR x non-albino "het" RAPTOR
non-albino "het" RAPTOR x Albino "het" RAPTOR
ECLIPSE het albino x non-albino "het" for RAPTOR
ECLIPSE het for albino x Albino "het" RAPTOR
will all produce RAPTORs in one way or another...
The last two crosses, hints very strongly that the RAPTOR is not a simple recessive mutation. HOWEVER, further down on that same page, he states that RAPTOR is actually the albino version of the ECLIPSE mutation.
In all technicality, how can it be possible to be het RAPTOR? If you break down his description, it is basically a red-eyed, patternless, tangerine. Tangerine is NOT a recessive mutation. The new patternless gene very well may be...He is also unsure whether or not the "red-eye" aka ECLIPSE is recessive...Also, if a particular gecko is Albino, it cannot be het Albino too (or is this being thrown around like some individuals with cornsnakes saying their Amels are het Snow
).
So maybe het RAPTOR is incorrect, and it should technically be het TREMPER PATTERNLESS from ECLIPSE lines (at least until the ECLIPSE mutation is proven)?
He also states
"It is not known at this time if R.A.P.T.O.R. times R.A.P.T.O.R. results in 100% pure R.A.P.T.O.R.s or if you get 50% R.A.P.T.O.R.s and 50% snake-eyed R.A.P.T.O.R.s."
RAPTOR x RAPTOR must produce 100% "pure" RAPTOR to be a simple recessive mutation (thus making it possible to be het). But that line in itself contradicts itself, because he is speaking as if RAPTOR is alone a single mutation involving only the ECLIPSE/SNAKE-EYE mutations, when in fact, that's not what he states it stands for at the beginning of the page.
Pretty much all of this applies to APTORs minus the "red-eyed" or ECLIPSE mutation.
My main reason for bringing this up is to keep the LGR up to date. I was speaking with a member here privately, and he told me that RAPTOR has been proven recessive. I find, following the rules of genetics, that impossible.
If anyone would like to add to the discussion and enlighten me, please do so!