Eclipse being simple recessive....

[Retribution Reptiles]

Why does everyone believe that the Eclipse trait is simple recessive? If this were true you would see a considerable more Radar's and Typhoons.

I have heard from MANY people stating that in the past when RAPTOR's were first introduced that there were Raptor x Raptor breedings coming up with non Raptor babies. I have first hand found this to be true from Radar x Radar breedings giving me zero Radar babies.

Considering that the eclipse trait came from a jungle x reverse stripe how are we to state that it's 100% recessive. It sounds to me more of a polygentic trait that shows itself when crossing those other traits. Also from personal experience I have created an Eclipse from a Redstripe non het x Bold Stripe Bell. I have since proven this to being genetic by crossing it with a "het" radar male.

So what say you?....

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

Eclipse is not Polygenetic. As far as eclipses coming from "non hets" all that means is there is some muddy genes going on. Someone at some point crossed animals with one being het for eclipse. This is becoming more common to find random hidden hets due to poor records keeping, breeders not knowing what they really have, and labeling geckos wrong.

If you proved it out to be genetic by using a "het" radar...how did you prove it out if its polygenetic? You cant prove out polygenetic because there would only be influence and not a morph. As for your Radar x Radar pairing...who did you get them from and have you bred them to ensure that both ACTUALLY contain the eclipse gene? One may simply have a pigmented eye. That's why its hard to answer your question directly because for the most part we don't REALLY know ALL the genes involved with most of our morphs today. We have crossed and crossed our way into genetic chaos and can but assume and hypothesize our way into the BEST guess to what all we believe is happening within that gecko.

As far as not getting eclipses from a visual x visual, this to happens and has been hypothesized upon. The general consensus is that they are low to no visual expression of the gene but are in fact "eclipses". I have hatched non visual "eclipses" from a visual x visual pairing, and have produced visual babies from my "non visual" eclipse. If you work with eclipse enough you will know that there is a WIDE array of pigmentation that can/will occur. Some full and some very little and sometimes they fade away. This is also why it is important to know how eclipse influences the rest of the gecko (pattern, color, etc.) because it will allow for proper identification in these rare instances when the eclipsed eyes are not a visual representation of the morph. .

The pairing from which eclipse came is irrelevant due to the fact the they are two entirely different genes. The eclipse gene is able to be singled out from those other genes...thus making it its own gene. I agree that sometimes eclipse x eclipse pairings will throw out a random odd ball (which may not be a lot expression eclipse but actually not eclipse), but you have to put things into perspective. How many leopard geckos are produced a year, the amount of genetic disturbance involved compared to a normal, the fact random genetic mutations occur naturally, the amount of inbreeding involved, and so on. You breed enough normals you are for sure to get a random genetic mutation sooner or later (many not be genetically inheritable but a genetic mutation none the less).

 

[Kristi23]

Why does everyone believe that the Eclipse trait is simple recessive? If this were true you would see a considerable more Radar's and Typhoons.

I have heard from MANY people stating that in the past when RAPTOR's were first introduced that there were Raptor x Raptor breedings coming up with non Raptor babies. I have first hand found this to be true from Radar x Radar breedings giving me zero Radar babies.

Considering that the eclipse trait came from a jungle x reverse stripe how are we to state that it's 100% recessive. It sounds to me more of a polygentic trait that shows itself when crossing those other traits. Also from personal experience I have created an Eclipse from a Redstripe non het x Bold Stripe Bell. I have since proven this to being genetic by crossing it with a "het" radar male.

So what say you?....

Radars and Typhoons aren't produced as often because it took quite awhile to get the tremper genes out of the eclipse. There are way more eclipse het trempers than het bell or rainwater.

I've produced all eclipse from eclipse x eclipse pairings. Some have very little to no eclipse in the eyes, but you can tell by the nose and pattern.

 

[Thorgecko707]

I have a quick eclipse question. I have been told my db is not eclipse because it has snake eye and should be labeled as blazing blizzard het eclipse. This is wrong right?

 

[100yan]

I have a quick eclipse question. I have been told my db is not eclipse because it has snake eye and should be labeled as blazing blizzard het eclipse. This is wrong right?

Genetically, the Snake eye is also an Eclipse (it is just a partial expression in the eye colouration).

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

Depends. Blizzards (like Super Snows) have/can have pigmented eyes without being eclipse. If eclipses were used to create it then it would be a DB. If it is just a pigmented BB then it would be het eclipse/DB (assuming one of the breeders is eclipse. Being snaked eyed does not mean its not eclipse though.