Bulging eyes?

[facebooker]

Hey guys I was wondering if you all had/have any leos that have really bulging eyes?
I bought a female hypo tangerine a week back and the moment I saw her I was stunned by the amount of her eyes that was visible! She looked as though her eyes were about to pop out, or wearing some sort of glass piece.

 

[acpart]

Some would consider it a defect and say it should be culled. Some would consider it a defect that doesn't interfere with the gecko's daily life and say it should be kept alive as a pet only and not bred in case the trait could be passed down. Some would say it's within the range of how an eye can be, though a little on the edge. Take you pick, but please let's not start a "to cull or not to cull" discussion here again if possible (there are many threads where it's already happened).

Aliza

 

[prettyinpink]

Some would consider it a defect and say it should be culled. Some would consider it a defect that doesn't interfere with the gecko's daily life and say it should be kept alive as a pet only and not bred in case the trait could be passed down. Some would say it's within the range of how an eye can be, though a little on the edge. Take you pick, but please let's not start a "to cull or not to cull" discussion here again if possible (there are many threads where it's already happened).

Aliza

Couldn't of said it better! :main_yes:

 

[facebooker]

Some would consider it a defect and say it should be culled. Some would consider it a defect that doesn't interfere with the gecko's daily life and say it should be kept alive as a pet only and not bred in case the trait could be passed down. Some would say it's within the range of how an eye can be, though a little on the edge. Take you pick, but please let's not start a "to cull or not to cull" discussion here again if possible (there are many threads where it's already happened).

Aliza

I'm definitely not gonna start such an argument, but my question is that why is it considered a defect? I mean I wouldn't know, how would you gauge which traits constitute a defect and which one doesn't?

If any random mutation that occurs in a gecko was not test bred to determine whether it is a feasible morph, would you not care to say that there wouldn't be any new gecko morphs in terms of genetics?? I'm only stating an opinion here, not trying to say in any sense that I'm on the verge of another "marble eye-like" discovery.

Cheers all and thanks for the comments, feel free to add more but please do not start a flame war here as I know this is a sensitive subject. And pardon my ignorance if any since I'm not an experienced keeper like most of you guys here

 

[Jordan]

I'm definitely not gonna start such an argument, but my question is that why is it considered a defect? I mean I wouldn't know, how would you gauge which traits constitute a defect and which one doesn't?

If any random mutation that occurs in a gecko was not test bred to determine whether it is a feasible morph, would you not care to say that there wouldn't be any new gecko morphs in terms of genetics?? I'm only stating an opinion here, not trying to say in any sense that I'm on the verge of another "marble eye-like" discovery.

Cheers all and thanks for the comments, feel free to add more but please do not start a flame war here as I know this is a sensitive subject. And pardon my ignorance if any since I'm not an experienced keeper like most of you guys here

I suppose a defect would be something that could possibly take a negative effect, and something that takes a positive effect or no effect isnt.
In the simplest form of thinking about it.

 

[richardrojas]

Here is one that I gave in adoption.

 

[Dog Shrink]

A genetic defect is an anomaly that has the potential to cause a negative impact on the quality of life for that animal. Something as simply as color isn't considered a defect unless it carries with it traits that affect the rest of the animal. The enigma morph would be a good example of that but again it's variable as to how affected each animal is. Genetic defect is considered something that would go aganist the standard acceptable "breed standard" for most animals such as bow legs, underbite, or tail bends. Deficite or irregularity in color would not really be considered a genetic defect moreso as a fault. It still shouldn't really be bred if it has faults unless you have a compatible mate that compensates for the short comings of the other animal being used since the primary goal behind any good breeding program should be to produce the best example of the breed that is possible.

Something like this, bulgy eyes, where it may not seem to be a major life impacting issue, you really have to look deeper and ask yourself what can happen and why are they like that. What's the long term life impacting potential something like this could have? Blindness from irregular eye pressure thru out it's life? Eyes exploding? Who knows? That's why things like that shouldn't be included in any breeding program simply because most don't know what causes it, if it can be reproduced, or where down the line an offspring from that breeding might throw that same trait in it's git 5-6 generations away.

I can tell you with dogs it is a genetic trait... take 2 excessively bulgy eyed pugs or boston terriers and the pups will come out with the same defect. Overly pronounced bulgy eyes. Whether or not it is genetic in something like herps idk, but knowing what I know of mammal genetics I would say it could unless the bulgy eyes was a result of some sort of traumatic event.

 

[facebooker]

Here is one that I gave in adoption.

Wow that's really bulging mad! Was she feeding/functioning alright? Mine behaves perfectly fine as of now..

A genetic defect is an anomaly that has the potential to cause a negative impact on the quality of life for that animal. Something as simply as color isn't considered a defect unless it carries with it traits that affect the rest of the animal. The enigma morph would be a good example of that but again it's variable as to how affected each animal is. Genetic defect is considered something that would go aganist the standard acceptable "breed standard" for most animals such as bow legs, underbite, or tail bends. Deficite or irregularity in color would not really be considered a genetic defect moreso as a fault. It still shouldn't really be bred if it has faults unless you have a compatible mate that compensates for the short comings of the other animal being used since the primary goal behind any good breeding program should be to produce the best example of the breed that is possible.

Something like this, bulgy eyes, where it may not seem to be a major life impacting issue, you really have to look deeper and ask yourself what can happen and why are they like that. What's the long term life impacting potential something like this could have? Blindness from irregular eye pressure thru out it's life? Eyes exploding? Who knows? That's why things like that shouldn't be included in any breeding program simply because most don't know what causes it, if it can be reproduced, or where down the line an offspring from that breeding might throw that same trait in it's git 5-6 generations away.

I can tell you with dogs it is a genetic trait... take 2 excessively bulgy eyed pugs or boston terriers and the pups will come out with the same defect. Overly pronounced bulgy eyes. Whether or not it is genetic in something like herps idk, but knowing what I know of mammal genetics I would say it could unless the bulgy eyes was a result of some sort of traumatic event.

Hi Kel thanks for the heads up, its a shame though since she is of a nice size, oh well then I see what I can do. Thanks again appreciate the input

 

[richardrojas]

He was doing everything fine. But since I didn't need and want him for my projects, I gave him in adoption.

 

[Dog Shrink]

You're welcome and I'm glad you can understand how important it really is to consider ALL aspects of the animal you want to consider breeding, not just because it's a good size, nice temperament or a pretty color BUT has this defect as well. It isn't something that you would want to reproduce then unfortunately add into the gene pool for many possibly unsuspecting buyers down the road. Try to breed only the best examples of the animal and you will produce the best. Good luck

 

[M_surinamensis]

Take you pick, but please let's not start a "to cull or not to cull" discussion here again if possible (there are many threads where it's already happened).

You've typed something like that a few times, in a few threads and it is irritating the piss out of me. This preemptive passive aggressive tactic to try to impose your views on the subject by orchestrating a scenario where anyone coming along to express another viewpoint is countering your wishes is crap. Just. Plain. Crap.

It becomes a discussion as often as it does because people continue to fail to practice genetic management.

It becomes a discussion as often as it does because people continue to simply be unaware of the issue.

It becomes a discussion as often as it does because the underlying ethical responsibilities have to be viewed as absolutes. The captive gene pool is one enormous population, it cannot be made separate and distinct- what one person chooses to do affects everyone else.

You, Aliza, are not in a position to issue dictates about what is and is not an acceptable subject for discussion. You may want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the responsibilities- with your halfway measures and your "pet only" adoption policies but your refusal to meet your ethical obligations as a breeder has no bearing on anyone else's ability or inclination to have such a discussion. Quite frankly, if you don't like it then you don't have to continue to open the threads where it is likely to or has come up. That is your prerogative, just as discussing it if they choose to- as of now and until told otherwise by the moderators of this site- is the prerogative of everyone else.

You choose willful ignorance and then try to enforce it upon others by limiting the exchange of information. Others choose education, it is my time and effort I am spending explaining the subject, I'll use it as I see fit.

On to the subject at hand...

Bulging eyes beyond what is normal for a species can contribute to or make an animal more predisposed towards a few medical complications. It can also be either a condition or a symptom, a distinction that cannot always be made clear by a pet owner with the information available to them through observation.

The quick and dirty explanation for why it is potentially bad; the eyes are simply more exposed, with a shape and surface area outside of what is normal and which the surrounding structures and tissues are supposed to work in conjunction with. They're more prone to issues with contaminants, with infections, with being damaged from physical contact with the environment. "More prone" does not make such health issues an absolute, it simply increases their probability.

Additionally, depending on the why behind the visible condition, there can be problems with pressure in the eye itself and in the surrounding connective tissues and support musculature.

Visual acuity is also affected, though this can be a problem with highly variable expression. The length of the eyeball from front to back and the shape of the lens can change the ability to see, especially at a distance and can result in fish-eye or wall eye vision. It might be argued that in captivity there's a different standard for an acceptable decline in sensory capability but at the end of it all, it's not a good thing.

Looking at a single gecko, the exact cause of such a condition is usually going to be an unknown. Setting aside conditions resulting from infections (which can cause eyes to bulge but are generally accompanied by discharges or discoloration) the three most common reasons would be developmental deformities, nutritional deficiencies/imbalances (which may have resulted in a developmental deformity) and genetic deformities. Unfortunately, there's not much most individuals can do to determine which of these is the case for their specific pet.

Developmental deformities happen when something goes wrong while the animal is growing, in or out of the egg. Temperatures outside the ideal incubation range are one of the more obvious reasons, but there are numerous potentials. The moisture content, contact with contaminants that are capable of penetrating the permeability of the eggshell, the position of the developing animal, the nutrient content of the egg yolk and so on. I mention the nutrient content of the yolk specifically because eye development and health is highly dependent on vitamin levels and under or over supplemented females can produce yolks with variable amounts of vital, but trace, nutrients.

Nutritional imbalances during growth post-hatching can cause problems as well, underfed, overfed, under supplemented, over supplemented, the environmental conditions can have significant effects; every cell in the animal's body has a growth rate that is dependent on all these external factors and on the intake and regulation of necessary nutrients. If they're a bit off, things can grow... wrong. Too fast, too slow, too much, not enough, the wrong shape, the wrong size.

Genetics mandate or contain the potential for everything an animal inherently is, before environment gets in there to start mucking it up. It is possible that any displayed trait which is not a product of a known and verifiable external cause could be genetic. The method of transmission is not always simple and the strength of expression is not always an absolute, but until such a time as genetic mapping becomes cheap and easy, there's no way for most people to determine such things without extensive test breeding. Given a trait that has, or increases the likelihood of, quality of life issues, test breeding is not an ethical choice, as it creates additional offspring with the same problems or spreads around the gene (if it is genetic) responsible for the problems without necessarily expressing them.

Since there's no reasonable way to determine the cause of a visible condition that an animal was born with or developed as it grew when there was no specific instance of acute injury, all such instances should be treated as potentially genetic. Deformities that result from developmental problems are isolated to the specific affected animal, genetic problems are potentially inheritable and can affect more than one animal if handled improperly. Can't tell which is which, so they should all be regarded as the more severe and dangerous of the two.

Which leads to the subject of genetic management.

When we place animals in captivity, we usually retard or remove the process of natural selection. We dramatically change the threshold for survival and we dramatically change the method of mate selection. Many of things that are priorities in wild populations, the ability to avoid predators, the ability to find food, a strong immune system, efficient digestion or aggressive breeding tendencies are things that simply stop mattering that much in captivity. We breed for color and pattern and docile behaviors- things that mean success for a species that is going to live in a box with readily available food, no predators and regular vet visits. Our choices about which males and which females get bred have replaced the natural process of surviving to adulthood and being healthy enough to mate. We are responsible for every single trait that gets propagated in our captive animals, good or bad.

If we manage them properly, there's a lot of potential for healthy, perfect lizards, in whatever weird colors you like. If we mismanage or fail to manage our captive populations, there's a tremendous potential for unhealthy, twisted, deformed, suffering and sickness. A lot of these initial presentations seem like cases which are on the fence... a gecko with slightly bulgy eyes or a slightly curly tail or slightly stubby toes doesn't seem like such a big deal. It still gets around, eats on its own, does all the usual gecko things. Expression of a trait is not always linear though, slightly bulgy might just make them nearsighted, but two generations down the line, they might be excessively bulgy, unable to blink and have their eyeball immediately turn into a painful infected abscess millimeters from their brain.

So when you get a condition like this, it needs to be treated as if it were genetic, it should never be propagated, the animal always has the potential to breed unless it is sterilized or culled. Sterilization is difficult, impractical to a degree that borders on impossible when looking at a lizard that probably weighs under 100 grams. Culling is an absolute however, the humane euthanasia of an animal in order to remove the risk of it ever passing along its genetic material.

You may never intend to breed the animal, you might never do it while it is in your care and ownership. Unfortunately there are circumstances which can remove the animal from your ownership that are beyond your control. If you die or are injured to a degree that prevents you from keeping them, if you lose your job or your house and are forced to give them up, if they are stolen or escape; there are ways for you to lose control over the animal that are unpreventable. Leopard geckos can live for twenty years, two decades... that's a long time with a lot of potential for things to go wrong. What an owner does have control of is the animal right now.

Ultimately it comes down to risk management. The potential for negative consequences is present, those negative consequences are severe (take a look at leucistic texas rat snake eyes or kahl line albino boa constrictors) and can quickly get out of hand, affecting large numbers of animals. In order to manage the risk, to eliminate it completely, culling is the only real option. Fast, clean and as painless as possible, for the future of the captive population. It's a responsibility and a moral obligation that we accept when we choose to own the animals. No matter how many other people may not fulfill it or want to hide from it.

Discussing it, asking questions, sorting the information and understanding the subject, is never a bad thing. So please, feel free to bug me for clarification if anything I said was unclear. Or if not me, ask someone else, get some different perspectives, examine and explore and think and learn. Aliza may not want you to, but I'd much rather have people figuring things out than ignoring them. I'll take smart discussion and even debate over blithe ignorance any day.

 

[Dog Shrink]

:main_thumbsup: for the genetics lesson Seamus... very informative as usual. :main_yes:

 

[acpart]

Seamus, sorry you took my request that way. I have no desire or intention to dictate and no desire to censor anyone's views or opinions. I have no problems personally with someone commenting about any leo on any thread as to whether they feel it should or shouldn't be culled, and why. My request was intended simply to indicate that we've already dedicated several threads to discussing whether culling in general should happen or not and sometimes we get into discussions as well about what kind of gecko keepers those who don't agree must be. I don't feel those kind of discussions have covered any new ground lately except for finding new ways to insult people whose opinions may differ. Those are the kind of discussions I'm requesting we try to avoid since we've already had them. Once again, it's just a request and a suggestion. If they happen anyway then I, of course have the perogative to not read them (which I exercise regularly).

Aliza

 

[fl_orchidslave]

The good thing about having these discussions regularly is it does help new members

 

[Dog Shrink]

Just curious but can leos suffer from Corneal lipidosis? It would certainly explain the bulgy eyes, and I know frogs can suffer from it from eating a diet consistantly high in fatty foods like too many waxies but can leos also suffer from it?

Here's a pic of a cuban tree frog with it, the left eye, it looks almost identical to what the pic of the leo was displaying.