• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

albino snows

C

CarolinaKid099

New member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
here and there abouts
Here are two albino snows i hatched..
#1
snowalbino3.jpg

snowalbino4.jpg


this one produced by an albino giant x snow het. albino

#2
snowalbino21.jpg

albinosnow31.jpg


This one was produced from a snow het. albino x snow het. albino

These are not from a mack snow or a gem snow.
they are tremper albino.
 
They are Incomplete co-dominant snows just like the "Gem" snows are. i have been working with these snows for about 5 years now. I strongly agree with Reptilian Gem's description of these snows. I don't think any snows were ever really "Line bred" (just a misnomer given to them) . I think all the non-mack snows fall under this.. I am glad Reptilian Gems is taking a stand to help decipher this myth about them. My original snows came from A1 Reptiles 6 years ago.
 
For as much as Jim (Reptilian Gems) hates using incorrect genetics terms, he sure is spreading around the incomplete dominate. If you're not seeing an identifiable homozygous form, then it's not incomplete dominate. I'm sure that in 5 years time you would have seen one.

While it's an interesting theory about the snows, I don't think it'll pan out. It may account for some snows, but I wouldn't say even close to all of them. However, I'm not the one to talk to about line breed snows...really, you need to talk to someone like Albey. He's someone whom I'm sure can talk ALL about line breed snows.
 
In the quest for what may be a more appropriate term, I have come upon "autosomal dominate"...and I don't know WHY I didn't think of it before (I have a genetic disorder that is autosomal dominate, giving my baby a 50% chance of also having it). In the case of autosomal dominance, there is a visible phenotype for the heterozygous form, but the homozygous form would be identical (instead of seperate in the case of incomplete dominate).

From Answers.com (just substitute gecko for person):

"A pattern of inheritance in which only one of the two copies of an autosomal gene must be abnormal for a genetic condition or disease to occur. An autosomal gene is a gene that is located on one of the autosomes or non-sex chromosomes. A person with an autosomal dominant disorder has a 50% chance of passing it to each of their offspring."

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...minant&sbid=lc01a&linktext=autosomal dominant
 
If you're not seeing an identifiable homozygous form, then it's not incomplete dominate.
Click to expand...

I have seen them in homozygous form.

Lets do a small genetics lesson with incomplete co-dominant.

Lets say we take a normal snow and breed it to a normal gecko. If we believe its incomplete co-dominance, we will get roughly 1/2 the offspring will be normal and 1/2 of the offspring will be snow. The snows however will not be totally white, because there is a blending of the genes (normal and snow). Lets say we show the genotypes as RR for the normal and WW for the white snows. All the normal offspring would be considered RR and all the snow offspring would be considered from this clutch RW because those two traits blended together. Thats where the yellowness comes in the snows.

Now lets say we take those two snows from the first clutch (RW x RW) and breed them together. If you do a simple punnets square we end up roughly 25% will be RR (normal) , 50% RR (yellowy snows) and 25% WW (true white snows) . the homozygous form of the snows is the white (non yellow) ones.

We can mix up things and cross a yellowy snow (RW) with a white snow(WW). This cross will give you roughly 50% RW (yelowy snows) and 50% WW (White Snows)

You can do other punnets squares and work them out.

I have seen the "homozygous" ones.. they are brighter and more white , they stick out from the other snows.

Remember how the snows used to be graded A,B, and C? well there is how you get them. Obviously Grade A would be your homozygous form.

Line breeding involves no genes at all. You breed two boldly marked geckos together and you create more bolder marked geckos.. Same with coloration you breed the orangest geckos together to make more orange geckos.

All my breedings with my snows over the years have been consistant with the the incomplete codominant theory.
 
Incomplete or not incomplete, they're completely beautiful. Please post some pics in a few months so we can see how they progress. Thanks.
 
Remember how the snows used to be graded A,B, and C? well there is how you get them. Obviously Grade A would be your homozygous form.
Click to expand...

That sounds logical.
I mean just have a look at the C Snows...everytime I see them I have to think: "Snows? No...those are just normals or High Yellows"
So my guess is:
A-grade Snow: WW
B-grade Snow: RW
C-grade Snow: RR what means, they have no copy of the Snow gene what makes them normals. So all those Snows that are sold as C-grade Snows and look more like a Snow then a normal have to be called B-grade Snows. So the term C-grade Snow is not needed anymore.

Or the snow color gene is stored on two different alleles. Human skin color is stored on 6 or 8 alleles!
But the conclusion of that would be: If you say C you have to say D as well.
So:
A-grade Snow: WWWW
B-grade Snow: RWWW
C-grade Snow: RRWW
D-grade Snow: RRRW

But then, there have to be muchmuchmuch variation in appearenceof those Snow animals.
I hope this was not to confusing. My english i just to bad to explain it better :toiletcla
 
Maybe I am saying something that is already known, but has anyone considered these lines to be linked to subspecies?
 
has anyone considered these lines to be linked to subspecies
Click to expand...
Yes...I think Kelli did so...because temperature sexing does not seem to work the same way with the Mack Snows, like with the other morphs. So if I remember corrsctly her guess was, that the macks could be a subspecies...but it could have been someone else mentioning that.
 
I would think we would see a lot more white snows then...I've only see one or two. The vast majority of snows that I've seen have a very small amount of yellow to them. Can you tell which one is which when they are hatchlings? How about some pics as babies and adults...I, for one, would be very interested in seeing them. Especially if they came from a het snow x het snow breeding...you should be able to demonstrate the full range of the genetics. With the Gem snows, there is a very OBVIOUS distinction between the het form and the normal (wild-type) form, but he has said he doesn't know if he's seen a homozygous form which doesn't fit with the definition of incomplete dominate.

PS: I guess I should be living in the "Show Me" state right now! This isn't to say I don't think they are beautiful (I'd love one or two in my collection), but if people are going around saying they KNOW the gentics, they should be willing and able to provide some proof of it. (A bit of this is my pregnancy hormones....sorry! It'll go away in a few months)
 
MatthewK said:
Maybe I am saying something that is already known, but has anyone considered these lines to be linked to subspecies?
Click to expand...
One of the people on this forum had pics of a mack he got along with 2 E.m. montanus. It was scary because if he hadn't labeled the pics I wouldn't have known which was mack which was E. m. montanus.
 
Yes, that was me made that idea about Macks linking to Sub-species and there it many possibility of our market by hybrids led to many morphs... It made sense because E. fascolous (SP?) lived round near mountain base basing on my research on geography and the last seen places. I shared this idea with Kelli...
 
Thank you Sam! Your description at the bottom of page two made a lot of sense to me. I'm working with the gem snows and so far your explanation fits in perfectly with what I'm seeing. I bred a gem snow to a gem snow and got a very white snow with no yellow. It definitely stands out from the other gem snows I'm hatching (that were crossed with "normal" and albino leos). So, I suppose that would be the "homozygous" form...or an A grade snow. You can understand, I'm sure, why most people would assume a "line bred" process associated with the snows...when you see an A grade, B grade, C grade, etc... But, I'm inclinded to think it is an incomplete dominant trait. I did ask Jim about the "super form" of the gem snows several times before I purchased them from him...and he did say that while he didn't intentionally breed to find a homozygous form (he crossed to hypos, albinos, etc...for more morphs) he did see some that were very white and grey in apperance and suggested that these could be the super form (from breeding two snows together). Urban Gecko describes thier snows as dominant. I would be curious to see what Albey thinks after his many years working with snows (other than macks).
 
Sam,

Thanks for the post. As far as proof of a homozygous form, in my mind, the only absolute proof would be to outcross the snow that you think is homozygous, and if it produces nothing but snows, then it has two copies of the gene. For a female, I would think it would take two breeding seasons (due to the fact that she can only produce a limited number in one year) to call it proof, and for a male, it would only take one, since you would be breeding him to several females.
Unfortunately, since I didn't really understand what I had till last year, I haven't gotten that for into the project. Last year, I did almost all outcrossing, using geckos from different breeders. I proved that no matter what I breed them to, I get snows. This year, I am doing almost all snow to snow breeding. I haven't gotten enough babies to form any conclusions. Next year, I will take any that I think are homozygous, and outbreed to try to prove whether I have produced a homozygous form or not. The key for me is the fact that no matter who's breeding stock you breed these to, you get snows. So that simple fact to me says there is some for of dominance going on. That leaves 3 things to choose from---Dominant--- Co Dominant---or Incomplete Dominant. I ruled out Co Dominant, because Co Dominance is fully expressed in the first generation, with the Heterozygote having a full expression of both parental phenotypes. I guess Dominant would be a possibility if the phenotype of a Heterozygote, and a Homozygote were the same. Like I said earlier, I haven't gotten far enough into this project to prove or disprove any of these, but if I had to bet my next paycheck on it, I would go with Incomplete Dominant.

Do you have any pics of the homozygous form Sam?
 
Shanti,

Got caught up in geckos, and forgot my manners on my last post. Nothing wrong with pregnancy hormones. My youngest son became a Daddy in FEB. Nuthin neater. Good luck.
 
Back
Top