Seller disclosing poss hets

[BalloonzForU]

The subject of whom did this is old news, as most of us know who we were talking about. We have been assured that they are not selling any Bells poss het tremper and they have been proven out of their breeding stock.

As far as the eclipse there are some eclipse/snake eyes that were proven last year not to be het tremper, so they could in fact start mixing those into the Bells without fear, as I'm sure there are some doing it. It's believed the eclipse/snake eyes are linked to the stripe line not the Tremper albino gene.

 

[okapi]

The subject of whom did this is old news, as most of us know who we were talking about. We have been assured that they are not selling any Bells poss het tremper and they have been proven out of their breeding stock.

Oh. Im new here but I have stumbled on that persons bell line when looking around at different breeders geckos and prices. Its good that they proved them out, Ive been wondering about that for a while now

As far as the eclipse there are some eclipse/snake eyes that were proven last year not to be het tremper, so they could in fact start mixing those into the Bells without fear, as I'm sure there are some doing it. It's believed the eclipse/snake eyes are linked to the stripe line not the Tremper albino gene.

Patternless stripe line gave rise to the first eclipse, but those patternless stripes were all also tremper ablinos. Then those were outbred to all kinds of things and the hets bred togeather producing the first nonalbino eclipses. But all of those would be at least 66% het tremper. I am glad that some breeders are taking the time to prove out het status before breeding the eclipses to another albino strain. But what I was afraid of is people jumping the gun and breeding a Raptor strait to a bell and then breeding those het bell, tremper, and eclipse offspring togeather to get bell eclipses. Id love to see the Eclipse gene expressed in all three strains of albino, but im just afraid that some people will rush it then wonder why breeding their bell Raptor to a bell only produces more bells half of the time, and so on...

 

[BalloonzForU]

Patternless stripes, come from crossing a stripe x reverse stripe, and I believe they are Red Strips in the RAPTOR, and there are plenty non albino or non tremper line Red Stripes out there. Many are bread to RWs and Bells already, as the case with Jeremy Letkey's Rain Red Stripes, a Red Stripe Rainwater Albino, which I have three of.


Example of my original concern: I got a female SHTCTB 66% poss het Tremper. I never bred her with a Tremper to prove her out. However all her offspring were sold with the understanding that the mother had not been proven to carry or not carry the Tremper albino gene. I'd hate to have some one breed one to a Bell or RW and it turn out to be het Tremper, as I would hate to be sold a leo and not be told about something like that.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Well, I bred a 'possible' het RAPTOR to another 'possible' het RAPTOR, and got RAPTOR babies. Boy, am I glad the breeders I got them from told me they were 'possible' hets!

 

[BalloonzForU]

Awesome!!!!

 

[Jayyoung]

I think the seller should share every bit of knowledge they have about the genetics behind the animal they are selling.

 

[Jenna4Herps]

I voted a definite yes. If one plans on breeding and selling their offspring, it is the responsibility of the breeder to keep as accurate of records as possible regarding the offspring they produce in their breeding projects. Disclosure to the buyer, even if the seller isn't sure, is part of being an ethical business person as well as being responsible to the breeding community. And if they aren't sure about the genetics, they should disclose that information as well.

Having said that, with many different gene pools generating from the same lines, no matter how far back the generations go, I'm sure that it may be impossible to know the complete history of what the previous breeder did unless it is also truthfully disclosed down to the next breeder. Surprises are bound to happen now and then and it is possible that the seller was unaware of a recessive trait hiding in the offspring sold to the buyer. But with accurate recording keeping and truthful disclosure, "surprises" will not happen as often and unintentional inappropriate breeding will be lessened.

A buyer can only know what they are told by the seller of the genetics and it all comes down to ethical breeding and business practices to prevent "mistakes."

 

[SteveB]

How many offspring do you need to produce to "prove" an animal is not het for a trait? And what are you labeling the resulting offspring as until you have "proved" the parent is not het?

 

[WftRight]

However how small the percentage is, the animal could still be 100% het if parents were never disproved, which can take time to do.

I don't know how things are in the leopard gecko world, but in the ball python world, this statement reflects a misunderstanding of probability and genetics.

The gene either exists or doesn't exist in an animal. If the gene exists, the animal is het. The percentage doesn't indicate some gradation of the gene. The percentage indicates the percent probability that the animal has that gene.

An animal can only be 100% het if one of the parents showed the recessive trait. In that case, one can be 100% certain that the offspring possess that gene. Maybe leos have so many competing genes that an animal can have two copies of a recessive gene and still not show the trait because other traits overwhelm being homo for that gene. Unless that's the case, an animal cannot be 100% het unless one of the parents showed the trait. If one of the parents showed the trait, then by all means, the seller should indicate that trait.

An animal with one het parent and one completely normal parent is 50% het. Assuming equal distribution of genes, each hatchling has a 50% chance of getting that recessive gene from the het parent. Of course, we know that some animals tend to throw more of one gene or another. Some het animals when bred with an animal with that recessive trait will produce a nice majority of animals with the trait. That animal's sperm or egg cells having the recessive gene may just be stronger than the sperm or egg cells without the gene. Another possibility is that the breeder simply got lucky on several occasions.

Even if you breed an animal with unknown parentage to one that has a recessive trait, the lack of recessive trait in the offspring doesn't guarantee that the unknown animal isn't het for the trait. You may have stumbled into the rare probability event that none of the sperm or eggs with the recessive gene from the unknown animal combined to make an embryo.

With that in mind, I don't see any ethical obligation to try to unearth the complete family tree of every gecko including all of the cousins. Imagine that someone calls you and says, "Hey, remember that XYZ that I sold you two years ago? Well, his brother just produced a clutch of hatchlings including some with ABC trait." Are you going to ask for your money back because the gecko might have the ABC gene? Are you going to destroy all of the hatchlings from your animal because they might have ABC? Are you going to try to contact everyone who bought one of your hatchlings to tell them that the hatchling might have ABC? If so, do you offer them a refund and take back the geckos?

I don't blame you for asking about an animal's family tree, and the seller should be honest about what he or she knows. However, I see no obligation for the seller to try to catalogue every possible gene that could be in his animals. I appreciate the genetic artistry that many of you are doing, and I realize that this artistry requires that you know what you have. If I ever get a leopard gecko, I know that I'll want my animal to have a certain look. On the other hand, the most important thing is still to have a healthy animal that takes crickets and worms in one end, puts poop out the other end, and makes funny faces at me from under his or her hide.



Bill

 

[LeosForLess]

How many offspring do you need to produce to "prove" an animal is not het for a trait? And what are you labeling the resulting offspring as until you have "proved" the parent is not het?

i was just wondering the same thing. I have a male 66% het tremper and bred him to a tremper and 0/8 babies are tremper, so idk ill probably still sell it as 66% het, unproven.

 

[Jeremy Letkey]

An animal can only be 100% het if one of the parents showed the recessive trait. In that case, one can be 100% certain that the offspring possess that gene. Maybe leos have so many competing genes that an animal can have two copies of a recessive gene and still not show the trait because other traits overwhelm being homo for that gene. Unless that's the case, an animal cannot be 100% het unless one of the parents showed the trait. If one of the parents showed the trait, then by all means, the seller should indicate that trait.
Bill

Bill, not to nit pik but...
if you genetically prove an animal to posses the gene that it is a possible het for, it is then proven to be 100% het. This can be done without either parent being homozygous for the trait.

If you breed together two het animals, you can produce the visual homozygous form, the possible het form and the normals. Since the possible hets can not be separated from the actual hets. They are all labled 66% hets. If later in a breeding program a 66% het is bred, either to a homozygous animal or to another het and they produce homozygous offspring... presto... now you have a 100% het. That is basic genetics, I'm sure it's the same in BP's. In short with simple recessive traits you do not need a visual albino to reproduce an albino and so on.



Paul, to answer your question. Really you can never prove an animal to be not het (the odds may just be stacked against you). However there is a reasonable assumption after a certain number of offspring. Now what that number is, well that is up to you. After 8 offspring, I would not be comfortable but after 15, more so...



I'm sure that I babbled on way to long and lost my point somewhere along the way. lol

 

[WftRight]

Jeremy,

My point is that giving the percentage is something that should you do only for an animal that isn't proven. To use your example, if you breed two hets, the normal-looking offspring are all 66% hets. If you later prove one of the offspring by breeding, then that animal is a "proven het" or just "a het." Calling the animal "100% het" seems silly. When you have proven the animal by breeding, there's no need to resort to probability or to a probabilistic term. I'm not even fond of the term "100% het" for the offspring of one visual and a normal. These offspring must be hets, so calling them "100% hets" is redundant. The issue may be semantic, but if I really care what I'm getting, I want to know what trait descriptions are based on probability and what trait descriptions can be shown by more certain means. The term "100% hets" would blur those lines.

Maybe my sensitivity to the semantics comes from doing some causal analysis at work where we look pretty hard at data quality. Probabilities are generally a lower data quality than things that are seen in a microscope or measured with some other device. Using terminology that suggests a probabilistic source for something that I know more certainly means not giving a piece of information all of the weight that it deserves. If my being caught up in this detail offends you, I'm sorry.


Bill

 

[Halley]

I agree that possible hets should be disclosed, but I think there must be some sort of stopping point where you're considered "safe".

To me there shouldn’t really be a stopping point. As I don’t think it should ever get to that. I think that at some point, a breeder needs to test breed, their animals, and find out for sure, especially if they are breeding that same line for many generations.

"25% poss het Tremper" I think it's important as information, not necessarily as a selling point.

I would have to agree with that, I would just really like to know all the genes in my leo.

But I feel that it is safe to assume that most people will not wait for that many generations before they try for their goal.... What are your thoughts everyone?

I really hope somebody would try to prove something out of a line, before breeding it into another line. I would be pretty PO, if I found out my gecko had 2 albino strains in them, without me knowing. If I know, and still bought it, then that is my problem.

How many offspring do you need to produce to "prove" an animal is not het for a trait? And what are you labeling the resulting offspring as until you have "proved" the parent is not het?

Well if you breed a het, to a visual, you have a 50% chance of getting a visual; I would personally like to have at least 6 offspring that don’t express the gene. However if you breed a male to 5 female and have 40 offspring, and the last one comes out tremper (or whatever other gene) then it is still het, but that is very unlikely. So I would say 6-10 would make me fell safe. I have heard stories of a het x visual, with 12 of the 13 offspring just being hets.

 

[Jeremy Letkey]

Bill, I think that you have a good sense of genetics as well as a good understanding of probabilities. I also think that you did a good job in expressing your opinions.
That said it was this single sentence I had issue with.

An animal can only be 100% het if one of the parents showed the recessive trait.
Bill

It is simply not true.

 

[malt_geckos]

I voted yes. It is beneficial to both the seller and buyer to lable things as poss hets IMO. The buyer can be more interested in the animal and also is aware it needs to be proven. The seller may be able to sell the animal for more money since it has the possibility to produce something possibly worth some money. For example an albino Mack snow may sell for more if it's a poss het raptor than it would if it wasn't.

 

[WftRight]

It is simply not true.

My original statement is true.

One can have a proven het that came from two non-visual, het parents. In that case, one would get a het animal from parents that are not visual. On that point, we agree. However, describing that animal as "100% het" would be stupid. The proof of the animal's being het would be in the animal's passing along the gene, and the idea of using the term "100% het" for something proved by a means better than probability is silly.

The only time the term "100% het" makes sense is when an animal is the unproven offspring of a visual. In that case, one can't claim the animal is "proven het" because the animal hasn't passed along the gene, but there is a 100% probability of the animal having the gene. I'd still rather just call that animal a "het" rather than a "100% het" although the latter term isn't too silly in this application.

In any case, I guess there's no point in further discussion.


Bill

 

[Jeremy Letkey]

I'll agree that there is a lot of incorrect terminology used.

I am guilty of it myself.

Although, I promise you that if I sell an animal as 100% het for albino, I will not be asked what the probability of it being het is. If I sell that same animal as het for albino, a dozen people will ask me .... what percent??? LOL

Does that make sense?

 

[dprince]

I'll agree that there is a lot of incorrect terminology used.

I am guilty of it myself.

Although, I promise you that if I sell an animal as 100% het for albino, I will not be asked what the probability of it being het is. If I sell that same animal as het for albino, a dozen people will ask me .... what percent??? LOL

Does that make sense?

I completely agree with Jeremy. I've had the same experience.....if I write it out for people, they don't ask. If I don't, I'll get a zillion questions. Much easier from a breeder standpoint to be very clear about that upfront, quite honestly. :main_yes:

 

[Halley]

Although, I promise you that if I sell an animal as 100% het for albino, I will not be asked what the probability of it being het is. If I sell that same animal as het for albino, a dozen people will ask me .... what percent??? LOL

Well that is good to know. I guess I always assumed if it said het, it would have to be 100% chance of it. That will make selling eaiser though.

 

[LG-Geckos]

if you don´t know all possible hets you can get cool suprises