Are these aptors?

[acpart]

Every time I think I've got the aptor genetics figured out I have doubts again. So, are these two aptors? They are the result of a banded Tremper albino (last year he produced 50% stripes when bred to a stripe so he may have some stripe in him) and a patternless redstripe het for albino. They lost their tails the first day to an older hatchling but when they were born the tails were fully striped. Do they have too much pattern on the head to be aptors?

 

[paulnj]

technically no, but YES they are by most people's standards. I have one that's almost and aptor(few body spots) and she throws aptors and raptors(few jungles too) when bred to a raptor. That's good enough for me.

 

[godzillizard]

When you say stripe, do you mean reverse stripe? If so, they're Aptors, just not from the "original" aptor project lines.

what makes the traditional Aptor is when both the stripe and reverse stripe trait are both expressed in the same gecko, causing a gecko with a striped tail, and a "patternless" look on the body--but when the 2 stripe traits combine, they don't always produce that "patternless" appearance--alot of these have a small amount of pattern at hatch. so they cannot technically be called Aptors, even though that name itself is also technically inaccurate...they should've been called "super stripe albinos" or something more descriptive of the lines/genetics used to create them. IMHO I could talk Raptor genetics forever, such an intriguing complex of genetics!

 

[acpart]

I realize that I made a mistake when I described the parents in the original post. I originally said that one parent was banded tremper, but actually it was redstripe het for albino (the grandfather was the banded tremper and I got mixed up). The father is a redstripe I got from JMG but when I got him he seemed to be more of a patternless redstripe. I know that aptor is generally reverse stripe x stripe, but if one parent is already a patternless stripe (I assume reverse stripe x stripe) and it breeds with a stripe, can you count the previous generation stripe x reverse stripe as a contributor to an aptor?

Aliza

 

[GroovyGeckos.com]

Yes they are Aptors. Honestly there are very few Aptors which are totally patternless, and there are even less that actually look like they are both striped and reverse striped. I do not agree with that theory. They all hatch so differently, and then can change quite a bit and look nothing like the way they hatched. I think the best way to explain it is an "aberrancy" of pattern. The combinations of more than one pattern, make them different.

The "Patternless Stripe" project actually proved out the way the Aptor/Raptor genes work. I hatched a totally "new" pattern, from breeding Red Stripe to Reverse Stripe Albino. Straight away, there were no hets or anything to breed together. This happened with just one breeding. When "Patternless Stripes" were bred together and to Raptors, "Raptors" were produced. Stripes, Aptor, Eclipse etc, have all proved out with recessive type results in the past. Now since that line was proven to be the same as the Aptor, I think it is very safe to say, this is what happened for Ron. Although it does not sound very scientific, I think Ron`s term "gene unlocker" is somewhat correct. I think it would actually be called a "co-recessive" in genetic terms.

Whatever causes new types to be made(example Reverse Stripes came out of Striped lines somewhere along the line) also causes the "Patternless", and even the "Eclipse"(Ruby Eyed) gene.