Aptor / Raptor Debate

first off... stephanie from TME is my new hero.

what you caught on to is the fact that ron likes to call every little thing a mutation. giants were the same way. and he always talks as though they are recessive. het for this, het for that... i doubt he even knows what heterozygous means. it seems to be this catch all term he uses for "probably carries the genes for, whatever those genes might be."

i want a raptor or aptor or whatever but in my opinion the only simple recessive trait in these animals, phenotypically speaking, is tremper albino.

they still have great carrottail and nice color but carrying the solid red eyes trait to other morphs probably isnt going to happen. tremper cant even breed true the solid red eyes in his raptors, hense the snake eyes.

as far as the cornsnake thing, i see where your coming from but it makes alot more sense considering that both anery and albino are simple recessive traits in cornsnakes and snow is a double mutation consisting of both so an anery het for albino could be het for snow and an albino het for anery could as well. an albino that is het for both is "double het for snow".

it would be alot nicer if ron tremper would prove out his morphs before making claims about them because on paper his claims just don't add up.

awhile ago i posted a thread about trempers marketing. i feel it deals with the same issue.

click here to check it out.

first off... stephanie from TME is my new hero.

I'm very glad someone saw the point I was making. Thank you very much for you input!

I think it is extremely bad business practice to claim an animal to be "het" for a mutation when in fact all of the genetics behind the morph are not recessive. If the only part of the RAPTOR mutation that is recessive is the ECLIPSE and TREMPER ALBINO, it should be het ECLIPSE and TREMPER ALBINO, period. You cannot have het Tangerine; his new "Patternless" mutation is currently unproven (I'm sure that's in the works however, hopefully being done the right way by breeding a normal to RAPTOR, which Tremper should have done in the first place to prove out his mutation); their has been talk of the ECLIPSE being simple recessive (though Tremper himself says he's not sure - and considering the SNAKE-EYES is linked to the ECLIPSE, I wonder if it's not Co-Dom or incomplete Co-Dom).

A non-Albino het Eclipse, is called "Het ECLIPSE Het RAPTOR" if it is Het for Albino too.

But that would be wrong. It would be (if genetics terms were be used properly) Normal het ECLIPSE het TREMPER ALBINO.

In the end, my whole point of this is that if genetics termonology is to be used, it should be used properly.

I know I saw your point too, but this has been brought up a ton. I know he is not even calling the "Patternless" recessive any longer. I have seen enough proof that no pattern, including APTOR-Patternless is recessive. As in you can breed two of the same together, and hatch out something different.

BTW "Het" does not only refer to a recessive trait. It can be used in the case of co-dominant traits also. Het Super Snow, Het Super Giant are acceptable in terms of "correct terminology". Check out "Serp widgets" webpage on corn genetics it is great.

I know who Charles is, I own both his 2005 and 2006 Cornsnake Morph Guides...However, I believe you are misinterpreting what he says.

Quoted from the CMG:

Heterozygous - Unalike alleles at a locus. It is mutually exclusive to homozygous.

Homozygous - Identical alleles at a locus. It is mutually exclusive to heterozygous.

Codominant - a relationship between two alleles where both are expressed when they are heterozygous together. When a codominant/codominant pair of alleles are shown in all three configurations, there are three resulting phenotypes.

Heterozygous does not affect a Codom specimen as the commonly used heterozygous for recessive does. A Dominant/Codominant allele is expressed when present regardless of its paired allele; while recessive alleles are not expressed unless their are identical alleles on the same locus. In other words, the "het" would be the Snow while the Super Snow would be the "homo." Saying "het Super Snow" is redundant.

I think more research should go into this topic before we fly off the hook. I myself have breed RAPTOR X TA and got all extremely nice TA's and am awaiting for the eggs to hatch from the het RAPTOR X RAPTOR and RAPTOR X APTOR. And I know alot of breeders who would consider a het aptor when bred to a aptor of another het to produce APTORS OR POSSIBLE RAPTORS. I think someone should really bring RT (Ron Tremper) into this discussion before we go and acuse him of things like not even knowing what het means. I mean he did write 2 books on leopard geckos. NOT saying he is the know all to leos but someone should get his opinion on this before jumping to conclusions. No one has done more RAPTOR/APTOR breeding then him.

Who is accusing whom of anything? Maybe you're referring to the other thread on RT?

My whole point is correctly labeling the mutation(s). het RAPTOR is obviously wrong. Tangerine and "Orange" are not recessive mutations. Tremper Albino of course is recessive, the ECLIPSE is showing to be possibly recessive, the Patternless is currently unknown.

What needs to be done is a RAPTOR x Normal (no APTOR/RAPTOR genes) to prove each suspected mutation (ECLIPSE and Patternless) out in the F2 generation.

Actually on the previous page of this post the was people accusing RT of not knowing what het means. My point is why dont we bring him on this, or atleast have someone email him to ask.

Actually on the previous page of this post the was people accusing RT of not knowing what het means.

that was me. and i did say probably.

Originally Posted by diablohogs

as far as the cornsnake thing, i see where your coming from but it makes alot more sense considering that both anery and albino are simple recessive traits in cornsnakes and snow is a double mutation consisting of both so an anery het for albino could be het for snow and an albino het for anery could as well. an albino that is het for both is "double het for snow".

I'm was trying to decipher what you were trying to say here regarding cornsnake genetics...But you've lost me...

Amel het Anery and Anery het Amel is simply that; it is not het Snow being that it already expresses half of what makes up the Snow mutation. A double het would be Normal het Amel, Anery. Amel nor Anery can be "double het" for Snow.