66% hets

[Taquiq]

How do 66% hets work. Do you breed a Gecko that is 50% poss het to a 50% poss het and get 66%? I have a Leo that is 66% het Eclipse so if I breed it to a non het what percentage of het Eclipses?:main_huh:

 

[Tony C]

66% het means both parents were het for the trait. You could call the offspring 33% het, or simply possible het. Why not prove it out though?

 

[Taquiq]

Ok thanks Tony.

 

[GreenKnight Exotics]

66% het means both parents were het for the trait. You could call the offspring 33% het, or simply possible het. Why not prove it out though?

I really think that's misleading, because "possible het" infers that there was an actual het involved in the breeding. Without one of the parents being a proven het, or a 100% het, buyers should only know that there's a chance that it could be a het, but that's it. Affixing 33% and 25% possible het to an animal is simply a way to justify a higher price tag.

As for the OP's question, a het to het is the only way to produce a 66% possible het, as the egg had a 66% chance of inheriting the gene. A het to a non-het would produce a 50% possible het, as the egg had a 50% chance of inheriting the gene.

I'm all for disclosing that the animals could be a het, I just don't agree that they should be marketed as 33% or 25% or 12.5% possible hets.
Dave

 

[Tony C]

It's not misleading, it simply requires that the buyer has a basic understanding of genetics and related terminology, which any aspiring breeder should have.

 

[GreenKnight Exotics]

It's not misleading, it simply requires that the buyer has a basic understanding of genetics and related terminology, which any aspiring breeder should have.

Saying that it's a '33% possible het" shows that you do not have a basic understanding of genetics and related terminology,..I hope that you're not an aspiring breeder...
Dave

 

[Tony C]

Saying that it's a '33% possible het" shows that you do not have a basic understanding of genetics and related terminology,..I hope that you're not an aspiring breeder...
Dave

I am both a breeder and a zoology major. Drop the attitude.

 

[GreenKnight Exotics]

I am both a breeder and a zoology major. Drop the attitude.

I'm not giving you attitude, I'm simply correcting the mistakes you've made in this thread. Please explain how an egg can have a 33% chance of being a het. As a breeder dealing with recessive traits you surely know that simple addition and subtraction does not apply when calculating possible hets, as it clearly goes against the method in which 50% possible hets and 66% possible hets are calculated.

Essentially you missed the point that I've been trying to make, that being that there is a 0% chance of any egg ever being a 33% possible het, an egg can only have a 50% chance of inheriting the gene or a 66% chance of inheriting the gene, period. The op asked [/QUOTE]How do 66% hets work.[/QUOTE], and you said [/QUOTE] You could call the offspring 33% het[/QUOTE], which is wrong, and misleading to potential customers, especially if they are not as up-to-speed on how recessive traits work in the case that both parents were hets or possible hets.
I do agree with you that any possible hets should be proven out before their offspring are sold,...after all, the more 25% possible and 33% possible hets that are out there the more likely the "albino waters" will be muddied even further.
No hard feelings Tony.
Dave

 

[Tony C]

"I hope that you're not an aspiring breeder..." is not a correction, it is an insult.

You are correct that the egg is either het or not, but 33% het does not apply directly to any particular egg's chance of being het. What is is really expressing is the chance that the heterozygous gene has persisted from the P generation to the current generation. The P generation in this case is het x het, which produces an F1 generation that is 66% het. This doesn't mean that each F1 egg is 66% het for the trait, it either is or isn't, but roughly 66% of the normal appearing F1 offspring will be hets. Now if you breed the F1s to a normal non-het, there is a 50% chance that 66% of the F1 will pass the gene along, leaving roughly 33% of the normal appearing offspring of the next generation het for the trait. This is a perfectly valid application of probability theory, and it is not deceptive to state that a gecko is 33% het for a trait.

The only problem with applying this in the real world is that breeders do not typically breed an entire generation, instead they hold back a few to breed and sell the rest, so depending on the number of holdbacks and luck of the draw the breeder may have all het F1s, no het F1s, or a mix in their gene pool, which can skew the numbers. If someone is familiar with genetics and what that "33% het" really means, then they will understand that their chances of proving that het could be very low.

I much prefer to prove out possible hets so that the 33% or other oddball low % het situations can be avoided, and I would never pay a premium for a low % het, but my preference does not invalidate the application of probability theory by those who do not take the time to prove a possible het.

 

[GreenKnight Exotics]

I'm sorry Tony, I'm not trying to insult you in the slightest, however, you are mistaken in how you interpret the percentages of heterozygous genes in relation to how they are passed along to offspring.
66% possible het DOES NOT mean that "66% of the offspring will be hets",...it means that EACH EGG had a 66% chance of inheriting the gene. At NO POINT will an egg ever have a 33% chance of inheriting a gene.
Again,...AT NO POINT WILL AN EGG EVER HAVE A 33% CHANCE OF INHERITING A GENE.
It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.
Ask your professors, they'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to explain to you.
I realize that by having only hatched 600+ leopard geckos that I'm nowhere near the expert that many on this site are, however I know how recessive traits work, and I know that by labeling an animal as anything other than 66% or 50% possible het is wrong. You are correct that when you breed two hets the ensuing offspring that were not homozygous for the mutation are considered 66% possible hets, but that's not because "66% of the offspring will be hets", it is because EACH EGG HAD A 66% CHANCE OF INHERITING THE GENE.

Dave

 

[BethanyB]

How do 66% hets work. Do you breed a Gecko that is 50% poss het to a 50% poss het and get 66%? I have a Leo that is 66% het Eclipse so if I breed it to a non het what percentage of het Eclipses?:main_huh:

Another wording to explain it is: 66% het means there is a 66% chance that your leo has the Eclipse gene. Your best bet from this point is to breed it to a known Eclipse to see if it actually has the gene or not.

 

[GreenKnight Exotics]

Another wording to explain it is: 66% het means there is a 66% chance that your leo has the Eclipse gene. Your best bet from this point is to breed it to a known Eclipse to see if it actually has the gene or not.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

Maybe it's just that when I post something certain people feel the need to disagree with me.

Dave

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

Dave, Its not that people want to agree or disagree with you. This is not a popularity contest for people to try to negate what you say or anything of that nature. I do however think that you are rather disrespectful in your approach of addressing someone who disagrees with you. If you have an issue with someone please to so via pm's and not disrespect the OP by going off topic.

Well Joey, Tony has given you the answer your looking for. Hopefully you got the answer you wanted.

 

[Tony C]

Maybe it's just that when I post something certain people feel the need to disagree with me.

Or maybe it is because you haven't presented a coherent fact-based argument. I explained how probability theory can be applied to arrive at low% hets, all you have done so far is tell me I'm wrong and hurl insults. If you disagree that's fine, but back up your argument with some facts.

 

[GreenKnight Exotics]

Here you go Tony.
http://www.newenglandreptile.com/genetics_simple_recessive.html

Maybe you'll believe NERD?

It's too bad that bad information still gets passed along the internet so willingly.

Sorry, I hope that my information hasn't hurt your feelings, I'll go back to kicking puppies and squishing dew worms for fun(sarcasm).
Geez, grow up. If somebody disagrees with you and points out your mistakes, man up and admit it.
Dave

 

[Tony C]

I'm more than familiar with how to draw a punnett square. Once again, drop the attitude and address my question or stop pushing this thread off course. Why is it that you believe the application of probability theory is invalid? I am more than willing to admit an error if I made one, but so far you haven't pointed one out, your posts have been nothing more than saying I'm wrong with no explanation as to why, and hurling childish insults.

 

[Mel&Keith]

If I were buying a gecko that was the offspring of a 66% possible het to non-het I would prefer that it were labeled as possible het not as a marketing ploy to raise the price tag but to add information about it's genetic background. Ideally, you would just prove out the 66% het and avoid all the guessing.

 

[Taquiq]

thanks

 

[jermh1]

actually you can wind up with all kinds of % when you do di-hybrid and tri-hybrid crosses
but in a mono hybrid cross or one trait, when crossing two hets you have a 1:3 ratio now thats 75% look normal and 25% express the recessive trait. Now if your buying one of those normal ones 2 out of the 3 will carry the recessive allele also known as 66% or 2/3.
Baisicly the actual chance as a breeder in producing a Het is 50% but once you dont get the recessive one its ruled out.