Inquiry wanda [email protected]??

[nickolasanastasiou]

Nick,
I did read the other thread. There is still no proof of ant of your accusations as far as the legitimacy of the morph. I did see the video and it does appear to be legit. Not even you can really refute the vid.

If you did read the other thread, there have been claims (not being able to hold back offspring is one) that have been demonstrated to be false. I do not dispute that there is a colored tortoise in the video. I could color a tortoise if I so chose, too. Whether or not there is a heritable trait involved has not been adequately supported and that is what is being claimed by the seller.

A simple answer to the question would due just fine. Did any of the hets that you know of produce any offspring at all? Normal or otherwise.

By the vendor's claims, yes, but without legitimate visual proof. By others, not to my knowledge at this time

Yeah, they do. I have several het animals in my collection that I have not bred yet for a variety of reasons. Will they eventually be bred? Maybe, maybe not. Did you invest in the sunset hypos?

I did indeed, but for reasons explained in the primary thread, I have no faith in the vendor's claims about those at this point.

Is there any proof thet the snapper thing was a scam?

Mitch said altered photos were provided. I see lot purchases of normal babies by the same party and the sale of so-called hets. I would not bet on its legitimacy and this is a judgment call.

Actually, STATICALLY speaking, you should see 1 visual out of 4 eggs from a het to het pairing.

No, statistically speaking, you have a 25% chance per egg of producing a homozygous recessive individual per pairing. It does not speak to the clutch and each egg is an independent event. It speaks only to each egg by probability calculation.

So you are actually waiting for evidence to support your accusations?

That is not what I said and is not what I am doing.

Not my job.

It is the seller's job, but I am always interested to see folks who will back their positions up by putting their own skin into the game.

I am not lashing out but it is pretty ironic though. LOL

Doubtful. lqtm

See, I do have an interest. Not in the tort part particularly. I have an interest because this person also sells hognose morphs. A species which I specialize in. I have my doubts about this person as well. I am trying to see if what I think is correct. Believe me, I am not against you in this. You guys taught me a valuable lesson about the BOI. Put up solid evidence or keep quiet. Well, it seems your evidence is falling short of solid. That's all I am pointing out here.

As I have mentioned, I do not know if the seller has legitimate hognose morph hets. I would assume so due to the relatively short generation time, but I said I would not bet my money on it because the person has been caught in lies and has used family members' identities to circumvent some things. Even *if* the hognose animals end up being legitimate, it would not erase the other concerns already expressed regarding other projects. One cannot prove a negative, Gregg. Evidence has been provided that, when taken in concert, casts strong doubt on some aspects of the seller.

I am not seeking to convict. I am seeking to advise caution to prospective buyers because things simply have failed to add up as of today and the list of inconsistencies (shown in the other thread) has grown too long for my tastes. Would I eat my words and apologize if the sunset hypo thing actually proved out? Of course. Would I take a monetary bet against it at this point? Yes, I would. I have already taken a monetary bet for it and lost, so the opposite feels rather solid at the moment.

 

[Robert Walker]

Actually, STATICALLY speaking, you should see 1 visual out of 4 eggs from a het to het pairing.

No, statistically speaking, you have a 25% chance per egg of producing a homozygous recessive individual per pairing. It does not speak to the clutch and each egg is an independent event. It speaks only to each egg by probability calculation.

Agreed Nick.

 

[Gregg M]

No, statistically speaking, you have a 25% chance per egg of producing a homozygous recessive individual per pairing. It does not speak to the clutch and each egg is an independent event. It speaks only to each egg by probability calculation.

I agree, however, it can be translated into the clutch. You have a 1 in 4 chance of producing a visual. So, technically, 1 out of 4 eggs SHOULD yield a homozygous form from a het to het breeding.

If you have bred enough morphs, you will know that most of the time, the odds play out almost perfectly. I am not sure how much you play with genetics, but most of my hognose and python projects are co-dominant and recessive genetics. Not to mention many prior years of messing with corns, kings, and leopard geckos. The more eggs you have, the closer you get to the odds playing out true. What one clutch fails to produce, it is usually made up for in subsequent clutches.

 

[Gregg M]

I did indeed, but for reasons explained in the primary thread, I have no faith in the vendor's claims about those at this point.

You made a statement making it sound silly that people would buy hets and not breed them.
So you, yourself bought hets that you did not attempt to breed. Why did you not breed them and prove it out for yourself? I mean, you already had them. What was the worst you could have done? Produce some nice torts?

So my next question is, did you sell them off, give them away? If so, what did you unload them as? Did you disclose the genetic possibility?

Mitch said altered photos were provided. I see lot purchases of normal babies by the same party and the sale of so-called hets. I would not bet on its legitimacy and this is a judgment call.

Yes, we established that Mitch SAID that he received altered photos but have yet to see proof of this claim.

I can buy 100 normal hognose snakes from another breeder and sell off 100 hognose snakes of various hets. Does this mean the hets I have for sale are the same normal snakes I bought? Of course not.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I agree, however, it can be translated into the clutch. You have a 1 in 4 chance of producing a visual. So, technically, 1 out of 4 eggs SHOULD yield a homozygous form from a het to het breeding.

If you have bred enough morphs, you will know that most of the time, the odds play out almost perfectly. I am not sure how much you play with genetics, but most of my hognose and python projects are co-dominant and recessive genetics. Not to mention many prior years of messing with corns, kings, and leopard geckos. The more eggs you have, the closer you get to the odds playing out true. What one clutch fails to produce, it is usually made up for in subsequent clutches.

No, it is not appropriate to speak beyond its application for predictive use in statistical context. With a large enough sample size, it should eventually even out nicely to reach the proportion, but since each egg is an independent event, each roll of the genetic dice is also independent and one independent event cannot be used to predict the next independent event. It is like how the lottery does not become any more "due" just because a person playing their numbers did not win last time. Independent draw with every zygote.

You have already provided an example of how this does not play out according to a misapplication of per-egg chances to per-clutch chances.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

You made a statement making it sound silly that people would buy hets and not breed them.
So you, yourself bought hets that you did not attempt to breed. Why did you not breed them and prove it out for yourself? I mean, you already had them. What was the worst you could have done? Produce some nice torts?

I explained that in the other thread I thought you said you had read. I lost faith in the project and mine, except for two, were not yet breedable. The worst I would have done is spent elegans and ivory sulcata space on pardalis and that would be a waste. My various resources are not unlimited. I manage anywhere from 15ish to 40ish tortoises at any random point in the year, depending on which activities are going on at the time (I have a grow-out service for some rarer species), what has moved in or out, and if I have been fortunate enough to have some offspring. There are people who keep things like regular redfoots in large herds and are stewards of the species and I applaud their excellence, but I cannot be counted among them. If one tortoise can produce $100-200 babies and another can produce $700-1000 babies, I will spend my resources (space and time more so than money or food) on the latter animal as it pertains to keeping a project. I follow strategic complementarity (compatible individuals) and superior returns (morphs and relative rarities) as well some projects I find enjoyable (hybrids) that are subsidized by the primary projects. A $50 tortoise is nice. A $100 tortoise is nice. A $1000 tortoise is nice. If I am going to spend my time, money, and opportunity on my tortoise projects, I prefer to get more return for a given amount of work. At a certain point, due to my lack of infinite space, a $200 nice tortoise means a $1000 tortoise would have to be excluded. I would rather make homozygous recessives in my morph projects than heterozygous or wild type offspring unless that is all I can produce at the time. Other people like other things, so they do their things and I do mine.

So my next question is, did you sell them off, give them away? If so, what did you unload them as? Did you disclose the genetic possibility?

If you had read the other thread, you would not have needed to ask the above. They were answered there.

Yes, we established that Mitch SAID that he received altered photos but have yet to see proof of this claim.

I can buy 100 normal hognose snakes from another breeder and sell off 100 hognose snakes of various hets. Does this mean the hets I have for sale are the same normal snakes I bought? Of course not.

Naturally, but what has been presented in its context is more difficult to ignore. This is not just any random person. It is a person who has been caught lying or misrepresenting himself as other people on multiple occasions.

 

[David Scarboro]

That sums it up well, Credibility.

 

[Mac's Morphs]

Here seem to be the only two pictures i could find at the moment but they work just fine. First picture is her "breeder" albino male chucky, second picture is the "pair" of dirty hypo snappers she tried to sell on kingsnake about 3 years back (the female I actually traded to another person named amanda which I think is another name she used, but another thing that led me to catch on to her)

You can see the first central scute on both turtles is exactly the same being mis shaped/imperfect. You can also see the "albino" is just a hypo by the black around thesscute edges which is a common trait of hypos. Also that exact hypo was posted for sale a few months on kingsnake before she started offering the "het" albinos. Of couse I don't have that picture because I don't save pictures of ads I look at and Iit was before all this stuff withwWanda came up

 

[Gregg M]

No, it is not appropriate to speak beyond its application for predictive use in statistical context. With a large enough sample size, it should eventually even out nicely to reach the proportion, but since each egg is an independent event, each roll of the genetic dice is also independent and one independent event cannot be used to predict the next independent event.

It certainly is appropriate. Every breeder, including yourself gets 12 eggs from a het to het breeding will say, "hey, 3 of these SHOULD be homozygous". We do not say they will definitely be homozygous. That is what the prediction is based on statistics. The prediction does not always work out. Again, I am not disagreeing with you. Just saying that those same numbers can be applied to an actual clutch based on the statistical numbers.

It is like how the lottery does not become any more "due" just because a person playing their numbers did not win last time. Independent draw with every zygote..

You can not use the lottery as a comparison. However, if the lotto allowed you to pick one number from 1 to 4, and you played 12 times, chances are, you will win 3 times.

You have already provided an example of how this does not play out according to a misapplication of per-egg chances to per-clutch chances.

Yes, but 30 or so eggs after that, the odds evened out.

Here seem to be the only two pictures i could find at the moment but they work just fine. First picture is her "breeder" albino male chucky, second picture is the "pair" of dirty hypo snappers she tried to sell on kingsnake about 3 years back (the female I actually traded to another person named amanda which I think is another name she used, but another thing that led me to catch on to her)

You can see the first central scute on both turtles is exactly the same being mis shaped/imperfect. You can also see the "albino" is just a hypo by the black around thesscute edges which is a common trait of hypos. Also that exact hypo was posted for sale a few months on kingsnake before she started offering the "het" albinos. Of couse I don't have that picture because I don't save pictures of ads I look at and Iit was before all this stuff withwWanda came up

Now that is exactly what helps your case against "Wanda". Like I said earlier in the thread, I had my doubts and suspicions about this seller for a couple of years because of really low prices on some cutting edge hognose morphs but have never seen any proof to solidify what I thought. After seeing the above photos, I would agree that this person was at least saying they had something that they in fact did not and makes them not trustworthy.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

If you want to use statistics incorrectly when dealing with independent events, you can.

 

[Gregg M]

If you want to use statistics incorrectly when dealing with independent events, you can.

Again, it is not incorrect. It is just less specific. It can be applied to the clutch because it does work out statistically. You can not deny that.

If I have a clutch of 12 eggs from a het to het breeding, I am expecting 3 visuals to pop out. The same as every other breeder in this industry. Statistically, that is what you should get.

 

[Bryan S]

If you want to use statistics incorrectly when dealing with independent events, you can.

In terms of Greg's lottery suggestion it is an individual event 12 separate times so you could hit that number 0 times, 5 times, 6 times etc. Every event does not increase the probability of the next event changing just like flipping a coin for example.

I find it interesting that Greg would be so steadfast in his support of this seller but nothing would show a greater support than buying various animals from him/her and proving you wrong or at least spending thousands of dollars trying to do so

Nickolas has mentioned why he isn't sold on their claims but it is up to every individual buyer to do their due diligence. Personally I am glad to have people posting concerns and then I ultimately have the final decision on any perspective deals.

There is nothing that Greg has said to change my opinion of this seller and until/unless the Sunset hypo starts to be produced by those that have bought hets I will be skeptical.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Again, it is not incorrect. It is just less specific. It can be applied to the clutch because it does work out statistically. You can not deny that.

If I have a clutch of 12 eggs from a het to het breeding, I am expecting 3 visuals to pop out. The same as every other breeder in this industry. Statistically, that is what you should get.

That is incorrect. Just like your lottery expectations. The argumentum ad populum fallacy does not alter such. It would simply mean a great many people have a misunderstanding of probability.

If you want to invest in improving your own understanding, look up independent events in probability theory for more information.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Thanks, Bryan. I have made mention of how Patterson also sells legitimate things (in a sense), but I want others to have the ability to judge whether they want to dive into the questionable things. Especially with inconsistencies and character issues about.

 

[Pasodama]

No, it is not appropriate to speak beyond its application for predictive use in statistical context. With a large enough sample size, it should eventually even out nicely to reach the proportion, but since each egg is an independent event, each roll of the genetic dice is also independent and one independent event cannot be used to predict the next independent event. It is like how the lottery does not become any more "due" just because a person playing their numbers did not win last time. Independent draw with every zygote.

You have already provided an example of how this does not play out according to a misapplication of per-egg chances to per-clutch chances.

There are many people, &/or breeders, who, incorrectly, apply the statistics (or percentage of chance) to an entire clutch.
However, you are absolutely correct. It is per each individual egg (no matter if it is one clutch or multiple clutches).
I am one person/breeder who, while I can cross my fingers in hope, never "counts their chickens before they hatch".

 

[Gregg M]

I find it interesting that Greg would be so steadfast in his support of this seller but nothing would show a greater support than buying various animals from him/her and proving you wrong or at least spending thousands of dollars trying to do so

I am not supporting this seller. In fact, I have said on 2 occasions in this thread that I had my doubts about Wanda as well. Just wanted to see the proof. But sill, no one has actually proven that the "sunset hypo" is not an actual morph. No one has produced any offspring from the supposed hets to help determine anything.

Interesting classroom coin flip data.

H T Count
0 10 0
1 9 0
2 8 0
3 7 5
4 6 9
5 5 14
6 4 7
7 3 5
8 2 2
9 1 0
10 0 0

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

There are many people, &/or breeders, who, incorrectly, apply the statistics (or percentage of chance) to an entire clutch.
However, you are absolutely correct. It is per each individual egg (no matter if it is one clutch or multiple clutches).
I am one person/breeder who, while I can cross my fingers in hope, never "counts their chickens before they hatch".

Likewise. I have won and lost, so to speak, over the years. Sometimes in the same pairing. While we must all realistically draw lines at some point on whether to maintain or abandon a course for a project, keeping the application pure lets us do so with the potential for better objective evaluation.

 

[Guy Castro]

I am expecting 3 visuals to pop out.

Not me. You can "expect" all you want,it doesn't make it so.Had a pied x het clutch of 9 this year with only two pieds. Had a different clutch also this year of 6 from a pied to het with 5 pieds.The proper words would be, that you hope at least 3 are visuals in your example clutch.

 

[Bryan S]

I am not supporting this seller. In fact, I have said on 2 occasions in this thread that I had my doubts about Wanda as well. Just wanted to see the proof. But sill, no one has actually proven that the "sunset hypo" is not an actual morph. No one has produced any offspring from the supposed hets to help determine anything.

Interesting classroom coin flip data.

H T Count
0 10 0
1 9 0
2 8 0
3 7 5
4 6 9
5 5 14
6 4 7
7 3 5
8 2 2
9 1 0
10 0 0

I find it odd that you have doubts about this seller yet you have to have proof from others who have a similar opinion. Your stance seemed argumentative from my perspective. Last that I checked it is on the breeder to prove the validity of their animals. Without knowing the entire history of these animals and the claims of the breeder I would think that the breeder would've held back some hets to cross to the hypo parent since hypo Paradalis don't seem to be very common. I would think that the breeder themselves would be the first to try and prove out their claims wouldn't you? As Nickolas has said he would be the first to admit if he was wrong, I have little doubt that he would as he has always been a stand up individual with me in our dealings. In the mean time we all sit and wait to see if the sunset hypo is legit or not. By the sounds of Nickolas' posts he has an interest in them as if they don't prove out he is on the hook to some degree for them. It would be a terrible thing to have to take a hit because something was misrepresented to you and I for one would be pissed if I had to take the hit for something like that. Hopefully for everyone's sake they prove out, however what most people are saying here is to look at the whole picture and then form your own opinion. Cheers, Bryan

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

To clarify, I am on the hook for two het for hypo RF juveniles if they do not prove out (they were sold to me as 100% het hypo RFs by Patterson). The sunset hypo leopard tortoise stuff was fully put to bed before that other major thread (once I lost faith in the morph/trait legitimacy, I dropped the prices down into the higher end of non-morph Gpp ranges and mentioned the questionable nature). If the het hypo RFs prove out, gravy. If they do not, I will reimburse the buyer of those two hets and let him keep the animals for his trouble. That is what I alluded to earlier.