Incompatibilities w/ Bell (Blizzard and Murphy Patternless)

[boutiquegecko]

How hard is it to keep 10-20 breeding geckos? The babies would be sold off, of course.

That's if you can sell all the babies. Let's just figure 10 per 20 females. Does the average small hobbiest have room for 200 babies that might not sell? Or the expenses for food/care etc? In general, a small scale breeder tackling this project is Not going to have 10-20 females to try for a bb or albino patty. Or they try to do it and end up with upwards of over 200 geckos that might not get the best care they should.
Anyhow that's a lot of work for anyone. Just curious. Have you emailed the two who have hatched out the bell blazing to get thier numbers? Or anyone who's working on a bell/patty project for thiers? Or even lvbb's? I think once you get people's figures it's easier to see the percent.

I'm in agreement though with many others, that most people didn't start working with bells until a few years ago, so bell blazings and bell patty's are just a little behind.

 

[Paco]

Marlo... Paul H does not breed Leopard geckos( he is into the genetic end of things) so thats why he was asking the question. He did say there would be a lot of work involved. You could move every baby if you had to. There are plenty of people out there looking for wholesale lots of Leos, I see adds every day. You just gotta have the right pricing and number's and most of the time thats much cheaper than the hobbiest wants to go. I am sure all the statistical number's will show upand better percentages can be had.

 

[paulh]

I have never even owned a leopard gecko. As Paco wrote, my interest in them is primarily the genetics. But I have hands-on experience keeping snakes, mice, and birds, and I know how much work they can be.

Getting numbers from breeders would be great. If they keep numbers. If they are willing to share. Hobbyists are often more willing to share the work and the information because they are doing it for the fun of it.

 

[Paco]

There is a lot of work, but it's basically routine. If one male can service 4 females, and each female averages 10 babies per year, then five years production from this one group equals 200 babies.

Actually there would have to be two groups. In one, the females would be
---A-B--
---a-b--
and the females in the second group would be
---A-b--
---a-B--

How hard is it to keep 10-20 breeding geckos? The babies would be sold off, of course.

Records can be simple. Two sheets, one for each of the two types of female. Across the top mark it aa bb, Aa bb, aa Bb, and Aa Bb. Down the side mark the clutch number and mother, though mother is optional. When the babies hatch, mark the the number of babies in each of the four genotypes.

Even if the aa bb, Aa bb, and aa Bb geckos looked alike, the Aa Bb geckos would look normal.

I did some figuring on odds. There is a 99% probability of getting at least one aa bb gecko in 75 babies from double hets, assuming no linkage or other factor. So if that 1 in 200 figure is anywhere close to accurate, it is considerably off what I'd expect.

Paul... Another thing you have to consider as well is that we do not know how many eggs did not make it or babies that died after hatching. These numbers that we are seeing are just the offspring that lived.

So the 1:200 could be even greater than that.

So what could be the possible problem if there is one. Is it just bad luck as other's have stated? Or could there be something else, if so what would make you believe this?

I mean a 99% chance of 1:75. That pretty soild numbers right there.

 

[Gregg M]

Paul... Another thing you have to consider as well is that we do not know how many eggs did not make it or babies that died after hatching. These numbers that we are seeing are just the offspring that lived.

So the 1:200 could be even greater than that.

There could have been 5 other BBBs developing in eggs that went bad... I agree the odds may have been much better than the 1 in 200 some are talking about. You also can not go by one breeders results. This is where the problem shows. How many breeders do we know of that are working on BBBs and BPAs??? I can only think of maybe 3 or 4 at most...

It all comes to the fact that bell albinos are the newest of the albinos and were the least popular of the 3 strains. Add in the fact that hardly anyone is working with the bell/bilizzard and patternless combos and there is the reason we have not seen them on the market yet. Remember, there is atleast one living BBB out there. It only a matter of one or two breeding seasons before you will see them on a classified ad..

Like I said previously, if there was a "linkage problem" we would not see examples of these recessive combos at all.
To me the linkage problem theory is rediculous and is based on nothing more than some speculation and pure opinion without logic.
Sorry if this offends anyone but it is what it is...

 

[godzillizard]

maybe linkage is not the correct term, but there is something causing the odds to be WAY worse than what simple genetics would have us believe. The term "simple genetics" is in my opinion, a paradox...

 

[paulh]

I've had some experience with linkage in a stock of mice. Here's how it would work:

p = the patternless mutant gene
P = the normal version of the patternless gene

a = albino
A = the normal version of the albino gene

Each chromosome in a chromosome pair has either a normal gene or a patternless gene. And each chromosome in the pair has a normal gene or an albino gene located close by.

A normal gecko's chromosome pair:
--P-A----
--P-A----

An albino gecko's chromosome pair:
--P-a----
--P-a----

A patternless gecko's chromosome pair:
--p-A----
--p-A----

A patternless albino gecko's chromosome pair:
--p-a----
--p-a----

If an albino gecko is mated to a patternless gecko, the babies are double hets, het patternless and het albino. These babies have this chromosome pair:
--P-a----
--p-A----

Each sperm or egg gets one chromosome from each chromosome pair. Geckos that are het patternless and het albino can produce these sperm and eggs:
Sperm or egg, type 1 = --P-a----
Sperm or egg, type 2 = --p-A----

With these two types of sperm and eggs, mating a pair of those double hets would be expected to produce three types of babies:
--P-a---- Same as the double het parents
--p-A----

--p-A---- Same as the patternless grandparent.
--p-A----

--P-a---- Same as the albino grandparent.
--P-a----

In other words, a patternless albino is impossible to get from this sort of mating if that's all there is. It turns out that there is more.

When producing sperm or eggs, the two chromosomes in a chromosome pair swap pieces of themselves. This produces two more types of sperm and egg:
Sperm or egg, type 3 = --P-A----
Sperm or egg, type 4 = --p-a----

What we'd like to get is a baby from a type 4 sperm and a type 4 egg.
--p-a---- = patternless albino
--p-a----

That's how we can get the combination despite having a linkage problem. Unfortunately, there are fewer type 4 eggs and sperm than there are of either type 1 or 2. That is why the odds of getting the combination are less than would be expected if there was no linkage.

 

[godzillizard]

cool, thanks for that--that would explain why the pa/pa bred to Pa/pA dramatically increases the odds--but i still believe there is far more going on than we'll ever be able to explain...

When producing sperm or eggs, the two chromosomes in a chromosome pair swap pieces of themselves.

But, there is a much greater probability of this occuring the farther apart the alleles are (on the chromosome) What I'm saying is: the alleles are close to each other, so they're less likely to cross over, and produce those "magic" combos.

 

[paulh]

Other than linkage and bad luck, geckos with the combination of two mutant genes might just be weaker and more likely to die than geckos from either parental stock. The combination sperm might be poorer swimmers or more likely to die, making them losers in the seminal sweepstakes. There might be other factors that I haven't thought of.

 

[Gregg M]

Other than linkage and bad luck, geckos with the combination of two mutant genes might just be weaker and more likely to die than geckos from either parental stock. The combination sperm might be poorer swimmers or more likely to die, making them losers in the seminal sweepstakes. There might be other factors that I haven't thought of.

Seriously, the simple answer is right infront of you guys.
The market is FLOODED with TBBs, LVBBs, TPAs and LVPAs and now there are BBBs... It took work and lots of breeding to get the morphs but the odds eventually hit and now there are more BBs and PAs than some know what to do with. There is obviously no linkage problems or bonding problems. Being that there are so many on the market, there is nothing to suggest that these animals are weak in any way. The only way these recessive genetics would make an animal weak or unable to thrive is if these animals were born in the wild. They would easily be spotted by predators and quickly picked off.
In captivity, once the odds are hit, these morph combo leos act, feed, breed, and thrive just as well as any other leo morph...

I am not sure why some try to dig for info that is non-existant. In my opinion, it does nothing more than cause confusion and puts unreliable info out there for others to see.

Again, the fact that you see these combo morphs in mass quantities sould be enough proof to anyone that there are no issues with these morphs being combined. Some of you are taking statistical odds to heart. If odds worked out in real life as they do on paper, there would be no casinos or days at the horse track. Bookies would never make a dime...

 

[godzillizard]

Gregg, I get your point, but thats not what were discussing here. Are you stating that blazing blizzards have identical physiology/hormones/etc. as a "normal'? if so, I completely disagree, there are very few genes, if any, that control one specific thing. Look at dogs for example--certain breeds have breed/pattern specific "issues"--due to being gentically/physically altered--the same can be true with ANY animal...

 

[Gregg M]

Gregg, I get your point, but thats not what were discussing here. Are you stating that blazing blizzards have identical physiology/hormones/etc. as a "normal'? if so, I completely disagree, there are very few genes, if any, that control one specific thing. Look at dogs for example--certain breeds have breed/pattern specific "issues"--due to being gentically/physically altered--the same can be true with ANY animal...

But these are not dogs. The comparison between reptiles and mammals should never be made unless you are talking about how different they are from eachother.

The only difference between a blazing blizzard and a normal leo is that the blazing blizzard shows two recessive genes that as far as anyone knows, only alters/retards melanin production and outward apperance. There is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwize. The simple fact that all the morphs readily breed should be enough to tell that they are the same (although individuals will vary very slightly) physiology and hormonaly.

You have good points and it sounds like you do have a grasp on things but what you are talking about just does not fit this application.

 

[godzillizard]

How do you explain the Blizzard/Blazings sassy temperment, or the SSs issues with short jaws, trouble gaining weight, etc. Why are the giants so relaxed? and so on and so on...All these morphs are more different from their wild counterparts than any of us want to admit--we need grad students to figure this stuff out--cause it's more than obvious to me that the genes expressed have numerous other effects on the animal...

 

[Paco]

How do you explain the Blizzard/Blazings sassy temperment, or the SSs issues with short jaws, trouble gaining weight, etc. Why are the giants so relaxed? and so on and so on...All these morphs are more different from their wild counterparts than any of us want to admit--we need grad students to figure this stuff out--cause it's more than obvious to me that the genes expressed have numerous other effects on the animal...

Brian... Don't forget Snows not following Temp. sexing rules as well. I think that is an important one.

Or one that we don't talk about much as well, possible Enigma problems?

 

[paulh]

Again, the fact that you see these combo morphs in mass quantities sould be enough proof to anyone that there are no issues with these morphs being combined. Some of you are taking statistical odds to heart. If odds worked out in real life as they do on paper, there would be no casinos or days at the horse track. Bookies would never make a dime...

Actually, odds do work out in real life as they do on paper, with time. Bookies and casinos make a killing because they are in it for the long haul, and the pay offs are skewed in their favor.

Once a statistically unlikely crossover occurs, it is a lot easier to get the combination using the animal with the first crossover as a breeder. That may be the situation now.

It is possible that the answer is simple bad luck. Right now, nobody knows for sure. And that's where the situation will remain unless the numbers are collected and analysed.

 

[Paco]

Actually, odds do work out in real life as they do on paper, with time. Bookies and casinos make a killing because they are in it for the long haul, and the pay offs are skewed in their favor.

Paul... I wanted to say this earlier but I did not want to get in anargument with other's about it. As Paul said Gambling is skewed in favor of the bookies. Genetics numbers are set but not guaranteed to happen every time but happen more than not.

Odds do happen in real life like on paper more times than not. Otherwise Breeders would not have the time or resources to waste on projects that are 1:200. No matter how big or how much money they have.

Like I said before if odds were this bad for Ball Python Projects we would not see any of the cool morphs that we have today. NO breeder would waste time or effort on such great odds. To many animals, to much space and to much food means a huge loss with these odds. Especially when you paid $100,000 for a particular animal, if odds were 1:200 this animal would be a complete waste. Period end of story.

Thats the reason that people tackle the projects they do. Because the odds are in their favor and most of the times the odds are very obtainable.

If other breeders want to disagree with this they are more than welocome to but if you do that tells me you are not looking at the facts and results we have gotten from 1000's of different reptile projects and their outcomes.

Also as Paul said until the Statistical info is analyzed, people are just Assuming that BAD LUCK is the issue. You have no proof either. Just because a certain combo can happen does not mean that there might not be problems with that particular animal. Unless you do genetic testing you are just assuming that the animal has no problems.

 

[Baoh]

Unless tested, the endocrine profiles can be suspected but not properly stated to be different.

Unless ANY of this is rigorously tested, only suspicions and opinions exist. We can all state our observations, and that has potential usefulness, but the reasons we believe to be responsible for what me might be observing in limited fashion are not to be adopted outright. Otherwise, that's not science and is not to be relied upon.

 

[Gregg M]

How do you explain the Blizzard/Blazings sassy temperment, or the SSs issues with short jaws, trouble gaining weight, etc. Why are the giants so relaxed?

Its called complications from INBREEDING!!! The same things can happen with any individual born from related parents especially with the frequency it happens at when a new morph pops up... Repetitive inbreeding causes all the issues you just mentioned plus many more. Do you think when blizzards hit the market they were outcrossed??? LOL Anyone who got them want to make money as fast as they could on them before the market plunged... The same goes for any morph especially recessive ones... With dom and codom morphs, inbreeding is not done as much but it does go on enough to propagate bad or week genetics... So with the snows, how many people had trouble with them putting on weight compared to the amount sold when they first hit the market??? How many had "short jaws"??? I think you are taking what maybe one or two people said in a thread and are taking it as gospel...
Point being that inbreeding shows genetic traits both good and bad. Sometimes the more inbreeding that goes on the more magnified the traits become...

Now on to the snow temp sexing thing... I have bred out plenty of snows and I personally have not seen any difference in temp sexing ratios... If there really is something to this it can have something to do with the fact that snows MAY be a subspecies more so than just a morph... Again I have bred out plenty of snows and all that I have hatched, hatched as they were incubated for with a hot female and a cool male or two. No more than any other morph I have bred out...

So that is how I explain it. I am sure there are atleast some who agree. Sometimes when one looks for answers, they pass the correct one because it is not complicated enough...

Also as Paul said until the Statistical info is analyzed, people are just Assuming that BAD LUCK is the issue. You have no proof either.

My proof is that the first time I did a double het to double het, I got a LVBB. Did I get lucky??? Yes I did but I also closed the gap on the "1 in 200" pretty tightly...

 

[Paco]

Gregg... what happened to you is exactly what I would expect to happen. when the number's are so far skewed it makes me wonder what might be going on, besides bad luck, when the number are so high. As Paul said earliler odds evently work themselves out. When did you have luck with your LVBB project?

Would you ever waste your time on a 1:200 outcome if you knew before hand that is what your outcome would be?

 

[dprince]

Now on to the snow temp sexing thing... I have bred out plenty of snows and I personally have not seen any difference in temp sexing ratios... If there really is something to this it can have something to do with the fact that snows MAY be a subspecies more so than just a morph... Again I have bred out plenty of snows and all that I have hatched, hatched as they were incubated for with a hot female and a cool male or two. No more than any other morph I have bred out...

Gregg, that has been my experience with the mack snows as well. What I incubate for, I generally get - with the occasional exceptions in every morph. :main_yes: