Hypo, xantic, SHTCT, het for this or that...

[groovygeckos]

once you have 2 animals that are showing the same .. you can breed the two and only

GET BABIES SHOWING (REC. TRAIT
)

 

[progeckos]

Recessive traits are easier to work with. With them you can create so many new morphs just like tangerine albinos, patternless albinos, jungle albinos etc. If you breed two of the same recessive traits the offspring will be 100% that trait.

Albino X Albino = Albino

 

[humpbacks1962]

But this uncertainty is scary to think about when you are talking hundreds and thousands of dollars invested in an animal for its "het potential"

I mean, I hope people think about this unless they have money to burn. If your breeding pair only give you one or two eggs per clutch, that is not even statistically representative of what they have in those genes! And based on that halved probability, breeders define their animals as het for this or that.... That is not accurate at all! At least, I think I missed something here

Maybe all the arguing about definitions and jargon is meaningless unless you are absolutely certain about what your AAs and aas cross out for! And it sounds like you get there only after the poor female's uterus is sponged out...

So it just seems to me some people may be stretching the gene pool thing and maybe misleading potential buyers who aren't inquisitive enough.

But it also seems to me you're better off getting a pair that has attractive qualities that are pleasing to you, breed them and hope the hatchlings are just like them, rather than buy what they can't see in the parents hoping that several clutches later it shows up...

I think that is most reasonable, with all that is given: Just get a butt kicking, visually gorgeous handsome pair and mate them for life. Instead of getting hundreds of breeding pairs and play dice with what could come out. Dunno, just a leo lover's outsider's $0.02 who does not even breed, but if probabilities and tables are what people go by, it just seems to be the rational thing.

So then yes, what you guys say makes sense: Get two recessives or "the same" to get the same... As long as a dominating characteristic won't perk up on you

Wanda

 

[riverjop]

BINGO

 

[humpbacks1962]

So then maybe each time a clutch is laid, that AA aa table is reset... To square one! And the dice goes at it again. Each clutch doesn't really bring closer to the coveted het by checking out the other probabilities! Or by breeding one male to a trillion females hoping it may make Junior a spit image of polygamist daddy is really resetting tons of AA tables too... I see, breeders that sell tons of normals, that could be why they produce so many... But that is like spinning your wheels in the mud then!

Fascinating. Sounds like the simple "KISS" rule applies then: Keep it simple, silly...

You guys have provided priceless info to help me understand the dynamics of breeding leos, the theory and reality.

And how's that for the probability of finding wisdom in a message board? Cheers!

Wanda

 

[groovygeckos]

probability isnt as unlikely as you just made it sound lol

albino (or any recessive) X albino = albino albino (or any) Xhet = half albino /half hets and het X het = %25 albino ....%75 "normals" and %25 of the " normal looking" babies are without het for the trait the %50 are hets ,,,,, since we cant tell which "normals" are hets (look the same) it gives each "normal" a %66 percent chance that it is a het .....also %66 chance that is is just a normal ...... thats the only real "gamble" say if a unknown recessive trait pops out of one of your eggs , (there would only be one like this ) if you wanted to do anything with the trait ... youll have to make hets from that one showing trait , then breed back to him ,the hets( 50/ 50 mix) , until you get more showing trait , to then breed together (and get all homozygous) an albino is homozygous (opposite of het.) for the albino trait ( it shows it ) hets carry and do not show !!!

 

[groovygeckos]

but hey

a new breeder or one on a budget can work with hets (cheaper to aquire) and just get the 25% normals out of it , with lots of hets , and 25 % homozygous !!! alot of people do it !!

 

[humpbacks1962]

Nothing wrong with that, but then based on what you guys explained to me the breeders should not only show pictures of the parents but each sibling, per clutch! Otherwise, how the heck will you know your animal's probabilities? Then it is really a shot in the dark...

 

[KelliH]

Nothing wrong with that, but then based on what you guys explained to me the breeders should not only show pictures of the parents but each sibling, per clutch! Otherwise, how the heck will you know your animal's probabilities? Then it is really a shot in the dark...

That's why purchasing "hets" from the breeder that produced them is so important.

When buying 100% hets it is not a shot in the dark, they both carry the gene for the receissive trait you are looking for. I suppose it is more of a shot in the dark when you are dealing with 50% and 66% possible hets. Sometimes people wanting to get into a morph that is a recessive trait but cannot afford to buy some of the morph itself, will buy a male 100% het and a few female possible hets. That way you KNOW you have a het male, and you have an excellent chance that one or more of your females is a 100% het also. You just have to breed them to find out for sure!

 

[groovygeckos]

there might be some people!

that will sell a normal that know its not het ..but say it is ..66 or 50 percent poss. ..just to get your money ......but this wont happen often ....do some research on the boi about who u r buying from , most people that do this type of selling online etc. (websites) are for real ...and would not tell you something they dont know to be true ...like an animals possible perc. ..they have reputations to uphold .... or build (like myself) ....sure there ar people in some classified trying to rip people off ...just do yourself a favor try to find out which ones are actually breeders w/ websites ,names, and addresses etc. and the board of inquiry is taken very seriously ,..... you can usually find info on someone good or bad ......if they have been around a little while !

 

[humpbacks1962]

Rip offs and what have yous aside, I was focusing on the probabilities alone here. Let's assume breeders are all acting out in good faith, only aren't aware of what the probability implies.

If you get one "25%" or "50%" for this and that, my point is how the heck does the breeder know what he is talking about if with just a few hatchlings those characteristics do not always show because you need to produce more hatchlings to confirm what is dominant and recessive? Get my question? I mean, if you produce only 3 hatchlings and you were splendid about filling your table, how the heck can you talk about 25% or 50%? That is, assuming you will get exactly what your theoretical table predicts with four leos!

If you produce two, you still can't call one 50% for this or that because you do not have enough hatchlings to even come close to the statistical predictions.

So if they sell you a leo and all you see is the pictures of the parents and the breeder took it upon himself to define dominant and recessive traits for you, assuming he is right, you still can't tell how dominating or recessive your animal is! I mean, going back to the table, didn't your AAs and aas produce Aas too? So if you do not even see the siblings..How the heck...

I need a beer

I think they should DNA-analyze leos That way, everyone knows for sure how "het" this one or the other are. But until they do that, seems to me most breeders could be just speculating and may be jumping to conclusions believing the math is backing them up. Maybe in theory but in practice, it may not be

We need a mathematician posting on this thread next!

Wanda

 

[KelliH]

Wanda, that's why they are called possible hets.

When you breed a 100% het to another 100% het, statistically, 25% (or 1/4) of the offspring will be homozygous (ie. showing the visible trait like albino, blizzard etc). 50% of the offspring (or 1/2) are going to be heterozygous (hets), meaning they will look normal yet carry the gene for the recessive trait. The remaming 25% (or 1/4) will be normal animals that do not carry the gene for the recessive trait.

Now, in saying all of that, when you look at the normal appearing offspring, there is no way of knowing which is a het and which is not, because they all appear normal. Therefore, breeders cannot sell them as "hets", because there is no way to know which normal appearing offspring carry the trait and which don't. Thus, we call them possible hets. In the case of normal appearing offspring from a 100% het to 100% het breeding, each normal looking baby statistically has a 66% chance of being a "het" (carrying the gene for the desired recessive trait). In the case of breeding a 100% het to a normal, all of the babies will appear normal, but statistically have a 50% chance at being a het. Again, you cannot tell by looking at them because they appear normal. The only way that you would know which are hets and which are not hets is if you are clairovoyent.

The terms "66% het" and "50% het" do not mean that the animal carries 66% or 50% of the trait. It means that you have either a 66% chance or a 50% chance that the normal appearing animal carries the trait. It's all about the probability.

Hope this helps!

 

[humpbacks1962]

OOOOOOOOOOOh, now we're talking. Nobody mentioned "possible" before! Yup, a speculation makes sense rather than a statement.

That seems rational and acceptable. Then you show the parents, say this may possibly show this or that as recessive, het or what have you. And I still think they should also show sibblings from the same clutch, when you claim percentages as well. Like, to justify your numbers... I think

Yes, Kelli, I think you hit it right on the head and answered my question. Thanks

Wanda

 

[robin d.]

statistically when you breed 100% het to a 100% het like keli said above
25/%will be homozygous
50% will appear normal but carry the gene (het)
and 25% will be normal and not carry the gene... THEse are statistics based on probability.
their have been cases in which 100% het x 100% het produce nothing but normal appearing offspring and also cases that a homozygoius bred to a 100% het yeilded all normal appearing babies.(of course 100% het for the desired trait)

in genetics you are working with probabilities but some of these are not set in stone and in some rare instances the odds dont hit

 

[humpbacks1962]

Yup, that's why it is baffling that with just a couple of hatchlings some people define recesive and dominant characteristics. No matter how reputable the breeder, to claim het for this or that with a few hatchlings is talking nonsense.

You'd have to breed the same pair quite a few years to tell what is dominant and recessive... Switching breeding partners may only hide the recessive traits even more.

Wanda

 

[groovygeckos]

well that was exactly what i said ... glag you got it now though

i did mention that they are" possible hets" even if you only produce 1 " normal"- looking gecko from known hets ..... it is considered to have 66% possibility to either hold that trait ( a "normal -het") or it has the same amount of possiblity that it is just a "normal" (non-het)

 

[robin d.]

No matter how reputable the breeder, to claim het for this or that with a few hatchlings is talking nonsense

No, that is incorrect considering about 99% of the morphs out there have been proven time and time again year after year. Their have not been any new morphs in several years... just combinations of the already existing and proven morphs.

the only questionable animals genetics wise are hypos (some say dominant some say co dom), snows, even though they are line bred the trait is believed to come from a certain subspecies, and jungles and stripes... some lines have proven to be genetic while others have not and is the jungle the "super" of a stripe (genetic) or what

it is not very hard and you are reading more into it than you should... try and take a step back and look at it and try not to over analyze

 

[robin d.]

one other thing. working with hets is the best part about breeding morphs cuz you never know what each little egg holds and to open the incubator and see something you have been working hard at is an incredible feeling.

Also, you say epople might try and rip you off as far as it being a het or not. well considering the going rate for normals that are het are just about the same as a normal leopard gecko the odds are very slim. Personally, i sell alot of hets as normals because it seems people do not want to be bothered with hets and unless these hets are something spectacular arent willing to pay for them. I have probable sold 20 or more normal geckos that were either het for this or that as normals this year. normal looking hets just dont command any real prices and can be bought for about the same as a normal leo (in most cases)

 

[Blazin]

I had to jump in here.

hets is the best part about breeding morphs cuz you never know what each little egg holds and to open the incubator and see something you have been working hard at is an incredible feeling.

Oh man talk about FUN! Hets are such a BLAST! Hands down! Oh sure buy the morph out right and hatch them out, but there is just something to be said about making hets or purchasing them and then hatching out that long awaited Morph! Very FULLFILLING! Its alot of fun that some people just don't realize. Hands down I think one of the best purchases I have ever made to date has been a Double Het leopard gecko. This guy is also possibly a TRIPLE het. Talk about fun and genetic diversity! Man he is SOOO COOL! Not only is he het for Bell albino but also Rainwater! I proved him out myself(not that proof was needed)! Just more of the fun! He threw gorgeous Rains and Bells. My only regret this season with him is not giving him a Patty or Het patty to see if he is in fact a Patternless het also. I can't stress enough how much fun this guy has been and how much fun HETS are. Not only that alot of time they further genetic diversity ensure well outcrossed animals! I am sure glad I still have him as he is such a PRIZED ANIMAL!

 

[humpbacks1962]

No, that is incorrect considering about 99% of the morphs out there have been proven time and time again year after year.

Doesn't that, by definition, make them dominant characteristics then?

Freckles, my snow girl, is a hypo? But she has over ten spots on her body alright!
I'm only trying to understand the lingo among breeders...

Blazin, can you post a pic?

Wanda