Mack Afghan

[DoubleAGeckos]

So this could be a dumb question but how many gens would it take to make a Mack afghan would it be 1 since Mack snow is co Dom?

 

[eric]

There are no dumb questions. Your best bet would be one season. Breeding a Super Snow (Super Mack Snow) x Afghan. Would yield you all offspring being Mack Afghans.

 

[RampantReptiles]

Ok so if you bred an Afghan to anything it would be considered an Afghan? Not like an Afghan cross?

 

[TokayKeeper]

technically it would be a cross. The offspring would be 50% afghan. Think of it like this...

My great grandparents are from Sicily, my grandfather is first generation Sicilian-American. His wife, my grandmother, is german-irish. That makes my mom 50% sicilian and a quarter each of german and irish. All this makes me 25% sicilian, 12.5% german and irish and god knows WTF on my dad's side (that's another story in and of itself).

So technically, IMHO, a morph to be considered afghan and not a cross you'd have to keep breeding into afghans with the hopes of whatever morph you want within that subspecies to be carried over genetically. Over time you'd get close to a given morph being 100% afghan, but even then it'd still be a cross. At that point would one even be right in just calling it an afghan whatever (insert morph)? That question then even begs the larger question of what defines a species, or in this case a subspecies. Ernst Mayr is probably your best bet when it comes to that series of definitions.

 

[RampantReptiles]

Ok, thats what I thought. Some people are treating these subspecies crosses like they are dominant when it really is not.

Im sorry to hijack the thread here.
So going even further and attempting to confuse those that read this...

Example: Afghan cross X Afghan cross aka
50% afghan X 50% afghan = 50% afghan
Correct? Since half the genes come from the mother and half come from the father you get 25% afghan + 25% afghan = 50% afghan.

So it would be nearly impossible to get back to an original afghan without a lot of crosses with pure afghans.

I think the point of breeding the subspecies into peoples projects is a selling point to declare that their genetics are "stronger" or "insert word/phrase here" because they were outcrossed with geckos that had lived outside the captive bred population.

Not to mention new mutations may arise from these individuals or a variation in coloration you dont normally see with our captive bred "mutts".

 

[justindh1]

If your lucky their blood would be 50% afghan. I have heard others state this but there's no telling exactly how pure these "pure" afghans are but this doesn't mean that they aren't killer animals. They are a spectacular subspecies that has a awesome pattern. The only way to guarantee that they are purely pure would be to know that they we caught or had caught them from their origins in the middle east.

A afghan cross X afghan cross would theoretically give you offspring with various amounts of afghan blood. Who knows exactly what 50% of DNA would be passed. Others can correct me if I am wrong. The genetic may work different. I just look at it as breeding het X het.

 

[TokayKeeper]

think of the percent value as similar to possible hets. What it merely does is tells you somewhere within the lineage, animal x has blood from morph y.

Michelle, if you want to view it large picture (at the chromosome level, not gene level) then yes, 50% x 50% would yield more, in theory 50% afghans. You wouldn't be diluting the afghans' chromosomal influences. However, at a gene or allelic level things may or may not be different. The offspring may receive more genetic influence from one parent over the other.

The crossing to subspecies is pretty much what you state, and less limitedly to the level that various characteristics from the 3 commonly available subspecies present neat results through crossing them into the morphs.

Many take a simplistic view on outcrossing and instantly assume that any outcross equates to an instantly superior animal; even if that outcrossing is doneat keeping a species or subspecies pure. Tony C and Seamus have both recently replied more eptly and eloquently to various similar threads about this exact subject.

 

[eric]

technically it would be a cross. The offspring would be 50% afghan. Think of it like this...

My great grandparents are from Sicily, my grandfather is first generation Sicilian-American. His wife, my grandmother, is german-irish. That makes my mom 50% sicilian and a quarter each of german and irish. All this makes me 25% sicilian, 12.5% german and irish and god knows WTF on my dad's side (that's another story in and of itself).

So technically, IMHO, a morph to be considered afghan and not a cross you'd have to keep breeding into afghans with the hopes of whatever morph you want within that subspecies to be carried over genetically. Over time you'd get close to a given morph being 100% afghan, but even then it'd still be a cross. At that point would one even be right in just calling it an afghan whatever (insert morph)? That question then even begs the larger question of what defines a species, or in this case a subspecies. Ernst Mayr is probably your best bet when it comes to that series of definitions.

Totally agree! Great point!

 

[im faster]

Did you pick up a afghan?

 

[eric]

Ok, thats what I thought. Some people are treating these subspecies crosses like they are dominant when it really is not.

Im sorry to hijack the thread here.
So going even further and attempting to confuse those that read this...

Example: Afghan cross X Afghan cross aka
50% afghan X 50% afghan = 50% afghan
Correct? Since half the genes come from the mother and half come from the father you get 25% afghan + 25% afghan = 50% afghan.

So it would be nearly impossible to get back to an original afghan without a lot of crosses with pure afghans.

I think the point of breeding the subspecies into peoples projects is a selling point to declare that their genetics are "stronger" or "insert word/phrase here" because they were outcrossed with geckos that had lived outside the captive bred population.

Not to mention new mutations may arise from these individuals or a variation in coloration you dont normally see with our captive bred "mutts".

Michelle, E.m afghanicus is a dominant (wild type) trait but when bred to another morph you'll get 50% Afghan blood in the offspring, hence the Afghan cross concept. When breeding afghan cross x afghan cross you increase the amount of Afghan genes. But like stated before the amount of Afghan will never ever be pure. Imo, Afghan and other sub crosses are stronger due to the new line that was crossed in. I look at it as adding more or replacing branches on their genetic tree. People are making this out-crossing concept way more difficult than what it is.

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

Michelle, E.m afghanicus is a dominant (wild type) trait but when bred to another morph you'll get 50% Afghan blood in the offspring, hence the Afghan cross concept. When breeding afghan cross x afghan cross you increase the amount of Afghan genes. But like stated before the amount of Afghan will never ever be pure. Imo, Afghan and other sub crosses are stronger due to the new line that was crossed in. I look at it as adding more or replacing branches on their genetic tree. People are making this out-crossing concept way more difficult than what it is.

This is true...about them being a stronger blood line. In order to produce all these morphs we have today we had to inbreed for many years to accomplish and evolve them into what they are today.

As for subspecies...I think they are VERY mislabeled and have already lost their true merit. Example : Afghan x eclipse = afghan cross het eclipse. At no point of time should ANY gecko that stems from this pairing be labeled as an Afghan...they will ALWAYS be Afghan crosses. If you breed an Electric to a normal...are those electrics. NO! they are crosses. I like some of these subspecies but I would never get one because I believe they have already been tainted and the market on them superseded the true value of a pure line (which was never worked with enough as WC, which could have unearthed a new genetic mutation). Just MHO on the matter.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Look at it this way. Assuming that the sub-species we currently work with (E.afghanicus, E. macularius, E. fasciolatus, E. montanus, etc.) are wild-types. These are undiluted, 'default' genes. Morphs want to return to their natural state, and that's why we inbreed for color and pattern (or lack thereof)... to prevent this from happening to our unspotted, orange morphs. It may not be dominant by any textbook definition of a dominant genetic mutation, but all it takes in many cases is to breed a 'morph' with a wild-type, and years of line breeding disappear in the first generation! LOL!

 

[artgecko]

When breeding afghan cross x afghan cross you increase the amount of Afghan genes.

I don't agree. You would only increase the amount of Afghan genes (alleles) if you selected for the certain Afghan traits.

If you wanted to increase the Afghan influence, you should breed the Afghan Cross to a pure Afghan.

To make a true Mack Afghan, you should cross the Mack Afghan crosses back to pure Afghans, select the Mack Snow offspring and repeat the cross back to pure afghans. After several generations you would have diluted out the non-afghan chromosomes.

 

[eric]

This is true...about them being a stronger blood line. In order to produce all these morphs we have today we had to inbreed for many years to accomplish and evolve them into what they are today.

As for subspecies...I think they are VERY mislabeled and have already lost their true merit. Example : Afghan x eclipse = afghan cross het eclipse. At no point of time should ANY gecko that stems from this pairing be labeled as an Afghan...they will ALWAYS be Afghan crosses. If you breed an Electric to a normal...are those electrics. NO! they are crosses. I like some of these subspecies but I would never get one because I believe they have already been tainted and the market on them superseded the true value of a pure line (which was never worked with enough as WC, which could have unearthed a new genetic mutation). Just MHO on the matter.

My afghan crosses are labeled as crosses but when Afghan het eclipse bred to Afghan het eclipse for example, I label them as Afghan Eclipse. I've hatched out enough to know the difference and there are a lot of differences. I'd put up any of my Afghan, Fascio, and Montanus crosses up against any standard morph.

 

[eric]

I don't agree. You would only increase the amount of Afghan genes (alleles) if you selected for the certain Afghan traits.

If you wanted to increase the Afghan influence, you should breed the Afghan Cross to a pure Afghan.

To make a true Mack Afghan, you should cross the Mack Afghan crosses back to pure Afghans, select the Mack Snow offspring and repeat the cross back to pure afghans. After several generations you would have diluted out the non-afghan chromosomes.

I'm sorry, I think there was a misunderstanding the percentage of a Mack Afghan cross x Mack Afghan cross would result in a higher percentage of Afghan than the original crosses. You are correct that breeding Mack Afghan x Afghan would give you even a higher percent.:main_thumbsup:

 

[Gazz]

So this could be a dumb question but how many gens would it take to make a Mack afghan would it be 1 since Mack snow is co Dom?

You'll never get to 100% pure, But you can get a visually pure looking Mack Afghan in about 4 to 5 gen's.

FIRST.
100%pure Mack X 100%pure Afghan = .

(50%/50%)Mack Afghan cross.
(50%/50%)Afghan cross.

THEN.
100%pure Afghan X (50%/50%)Mack Afghan cross = .

(25%/75%)Mack Afghan cross.
(25%/75%)Afghan cross.


THEN.
100%pure Afghan X (25%/75%)Mack Afghan cross = .

(12.5%/87.5%)Mack Afghan cross.
(12.5%/87.5%)Afghan cross.


THEN.At this point they will look like very pure Afghan,
It may give really differant looking super snow.
100%pure Afghan X (12.5%/87.5%)Mack Afghan cross = .

(6.5%/93.5%)Mack Afghan cross.
(6.5%/93.5%)Afghan cross.

THEN.(6.5%/93.5%)Mack Afghan cross X (6.5%/93.5%)Mack Afghan cross = .

(6.5%/93.5%)Afghan cross.
(6.5%/93.5%)Mack Afghan cross.
(6.5%/93.5%)Super snow Afghan cross.

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

My afghan crosses are labeled as crosses but when Afghan het eclipse bred to Afghan het eclipse for example, I label them as Afghan Eclipse. I've hatched out enough to know the difference and there are a lot of differences. I'd put up any of my Afghan, Fascio, and Montanus crosses up against any standard morph.

Eric I wasn't questioning your labeling, integrity, or geckos at all. You are one of the few people who I think is doing it right. I know there are differences but a visual confirmation of a cross can only indicate that the gene is present but not the amount of the subspecies influence is in there. I just think they should all ALWAYS be labeled as a cross...because they are.

 

[eric]

Eric I wasn't questioning your labeling, integrity, or geckos at all. You are one of the few people who I think is doing it right. I know there are differences but a visual confirmation of a cross can only indicate that the gene is present but not the amount of the subspecies influence is in there. I just think they should all ALWAYS be labeled as a cross...because they are.

Sorry if I sounded rough, you're right, I respect your opinion. :main_thumbsup:

 

[Enigmatic_Reptiles]

don't worry about it. I don't get sensitive because someone has a different opinion than myself lol.

Also where about in Oregon are you. I will be visiting my sister in Tangent soon.

 

[eric]

don't worry about it. I don't get sensitive because someone has a different opinion than myself lol.

Also where about in Oregon are you. I will be visiting my sister in Tangent soon.

Good!:main_thumbsup:

I'm located about 15 miles south of Crater lake.