Super Zeros/Stingers and how this morph works.

[OhioGecko]

The normal-het-supers are what made me so confused, that's why I contacted Thad to ask about this morph. I keep checking his available page and getting confused, but I want to get some zeros and supers from him, so I'm trying to figure our what I'll be getting.

Mel, this is a crazy morph and doesn't act like any other gecko morph. It took me a while to get my head around it also. And I still think there is more to this gene then any of us know. Here is what I would do depending on your intent.
1. If you want to breed this gene to genetically prove it out: Breed a Super Zero/Stinger and breed it to a gecko that is guaranteed not to have any patternless in it. You will get all 100% non-hets that you can breed back the Super Zero/Stinger the next year.

2. You want to produce a lot of zeros/stingers and some supers: Breed a Super Zero/Stinger to a visual Zero/Stinger 100% het Super Zero/Stinger. You will get about 50/50 Supers to visuals

3. You want to produce some zeros/stingers and a couple of super stinger/zeros: Breed Zero/Stinger to Zero/Stinger.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

The comment you commenting on is the release from JMG. Jeff would have to give you his breeding #'s to tell you why he came up with this conclusion. I have seen/heard of whole snake clutches producing all visuals or all non-visuals from simple recessive morphs so I understand what you are asking here. I do also believe that there is more to this gene than we understand at this point.

It will be interesting to see it all play out with additional breeding trials and when more breeders have them in their collection to work with. I also believe there is something more to these genes than just your typical recessive or co-dom and that's why these results have been so unique.

All of my 100% het Supers that look normal came from Super Zero x Normal breeding. All of my Stinger/Zero 100% het Super Stinger/Zero came from 100% het (non-visual and visuals) x Super Zero/Stinger. For me it did not matter the clutch, but the mother and her genetics. I contribute this to my male being a Super Zero/Stinger, therefore making all the first generation babies non-visual hets, 2nd generation all visuals or Supers.

Do you think these results are true for everyone? What I mean is are you stating that if someone breeds a Super to any other trait they will not see the typical Zero or Stinger pattern in the offspring, or is this just your results? At this point we have seen Zeros produce more Zeros and Stingers produce more Stingers (AKA het for Super). It would be odd if the Supers never produce the typical Zero/Stinger pattern versus the odds not playing out in favor for visual representations.

-Lee

EDIT: I must have been writing my response while you were writing the post above mine. I'll chalk it up to your results of not produce a single visual out of 30 hatchlings being bad odds, from a visual stand point at least, they all still carry the trait.

 

[OhioGecko]

It will be interesting to see it all play out with additional breeding trials and when more breeders have them in their collection to work with. I also believe there is something more to these genes than just your typical recessive or co-dom and that's why these results have been so unique.


Do you think these results are true for everyone? What I mean is are you stating that if someone breeds a Super to any other trait they will not see the typical Zero or Stinger pattern in the offspring, or is this just your results? At this point we have seen Zeros produce more Zeros and Stingers produce more Stingers (AKA het for Super). It would be odd if the Supers never produce the typical Zero/Stinger pattern versus the odds not playing out in favor for visual representations.

-Lee

EDIT: I must have been writing my response while you were writing the post above mine. I'll chalk it up to your results of not produce a single visual out of 30 hatchlings being bad odds, from a visual stand point at least, they all still carry the trait.

Lee, has anyone else breed a Super Zero/Stinger? I would be interested in their results. Does anyone else not have patternless in their collection? We talked about the patternless allele being compatible with the Zero/Stinger allele.

I would not consider 5 different females and over 30 babies bad odds. I would consider that simple recessive, what other genetic could it be?

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

Lee, has anyone else breed a Super Zero/Stinger? I would be interested in their results. Does anyone else not have patternless in their collection? We talked about the patternless allele being compatible with the Zero/Stinger allele.

I would not consider 5 different females and over 30 babies bad odds. I would consider that simple recessive, what other genetic could it be?

This is the very question why I don't understand why this theory is given as fact.

There have been others that have bred a Super Zero/Stinger but I am unsure/unaware of the pureness in the sense that the Patternless influence is out of question. The point I have been bringing up throughout this thread is a simple as this; how can a Zero/Stinger be bred to a Normal or any other various morph and still see visual examples produced within the first breeding, yet a Super Zero/Stinger cannot? I'm going to call it bad odds. It has been witnessed over and over again that a Zero ("het super") bred to any other morph will produce distinctly different offspring, very unlike of a simple recessive. I highly respect both JMG and your opinion on this matter but one cannot simply dismiss something as apparent as these results as fact, there is something greater going on. Genetics aren't as simple as recessive, dom, or co-dom.

I hope this makes sense, it's late, please make it apparent if I don't.

-Lee

 

[OhioGecko]

Lee,

I don't know anybody else who has breed the Super Zero/Stinger besides JMG and myself. If you do, please state who they are and get them to post their results or supply a thread/link to their results. Until then I will go by the results that I have actually seen. In this industry there are a lot of people that claim to produce stuff they haven't and they cannot produce any evidence to back up their claims. I have shown pictures and given results. I would be happy to see some from the nay sayers!

I have talked to other breeders that thought the gene was co-dom, but they were breeding zero/stingers to het patternless. You cannot prove the gene out by breeding it to patternless or patternless hets.

This gene is a simple recessive, but I also think there is more going on with it then that. We will find out as we breed it into other morphs and get more breeders working with it.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

Lee,

I don't know anybody else who has breed the Super Zero/Stinger besides JMG and myself. If you do, please state who they are and get them to post their results or supply a thread/link to their results. Until then I will go by the results that I have actually seen. In this industry there are a lot of people that claim to produce stuff they haven't and they cannot produce any evidence to back up their claims. I have shown pictures and given results. I would be happy to see some from the nay sayers!

I have talked to other breeders that thought the gene was co-dom, but they were breeding zero/stingers to het patternless. You cannot prove the gene out by breeding it to patternless or patternless hets.

This gene is a simple recessive, but I also think there is more going on with it then that. We will find out as we breed it into other morphs and get more breeders working with it.

I agree, many people have false accusations of what they truly have. Either way, my most basic question and disagreement with this entire situation is because of breeding a Zero or Stinger to any other normal or morph and still producing visual examples. Simple recessive traits do not and will not do that. That is a co-dom or dom trait. Until that basic genetic question is answered I refused to believe it is a simple recessive and believe there is more to it than is understood. Even with your thought pattern that every animal that has produced visual results is somehow from a het Patternless, how can one refuse the drastic differences seen that Whiteout Zeros look completely different than Whiteout 100% het Patternless?

This is one of the many reasons I am looking forward to working with this trait. My entire line is from a wild caught Zero that David Deem has and produced visuals with. I will have multiple animals produced this year from that line, it will be an exciting time to see the results first hand.

 

[OhioGecko]

Who produced these zeros from ???? x Zero? Again, if there is no documentation or proof then how can it be said it happened? If you can provide that information then I might agree with you. Without it, I'm going to go by a proven record that I have shared. Simply stating that other people have and ignoring facts that I have provided, well...... I don't know what to say. We can just keep going in circles here.

It is great you got some zeros to work with. I would make sure your breeding stock has no patternless in it. If it does, you will get co-dom like results, meaning Zeros/Stingers and Patternless. If they are not het for patternless you will get no zeros/stinger or super zero/stingers. Now with that being said, time will tell

I know you have some other nice fattie projects going on also. I wish you the best this upcoming season! I'm really interested in what you produce this year from the zero/stingers. I will post my updates in this forum and I hope you will also. Maybe we can figure out the extra genetics "that we both agree on" together.

I agree, many people have false accusations of what they truly have. Either way, my most basic question and disagreement with this entire situation is because of breeding a Zero or Stinger to any other normal or morph and still producing visual examples. Simple recessive traits do not and will not do that. That is a co-dom or dom trait. Until that basic genetic question is answered I refused to believe it is a simple recessive and believe there is more to it than is understood. Even with your thought pattern that every animal that has produced visual results is somehow from a het Patternless, how can one refuse the drastic differences seen that Whiteout Zeros look completely different than Whiteout 100% het Patternless?

This is one of the many reasons I am looking forward to working with this trait. My entire line is from a wild caught Zero that David Deem has and produced visuals with. I will have multiple animals produced this year from that line, it will be an exciting time to see the results first hand.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

I'm going to see if David can post his results from his wild caught line for you to see. I look forward to seeing what you produce this year as well, with everything you've got going on over there it should be an exciting year for you. I will definitely keep everyone updated on my breeding progress.

The results provided are why I feel like there is more to this than a simple recessive and it's why we continue to discuss in circles. How can one explain the results of the Hidden Gene Zero if it's a recessive trait?

I'm going to quote JMG's website on their results: "The original hidden gene was a wild collected fat tail that didn't look far from a normal but had gravelly pattern and some nice contrast. We bred it to some normals and kept the offspring back to start a new project to see if anything would come of the new odd looking fat tail. As we bred the offspring back to each other and back to the original parent we did not see any real difference in the babies other than some had nice highlights and a few had gravelly looking background color. We actually dismissed the project as just being a nice looking line bred trait and gave up on them. We took the offspring from our breeding's and bred them to some nice zeros in our collection. After a few eggs hatched we seen a really intense crazy patterned zero that developed into a strikingly ghostly looking zero with a ultra wide stripe down the back. As more eggs hatched from the group we produced a few other zeros that ended up having extra wide stripes, hazy bright colors, and distorted body pattern. We realized the new zeros we were hatching came from the project we gave up on and mixed into the zero breeding group. What was strange was how these new fat tails when combined with zeros resulted in producing such crazy looking bright ghostly looking fat tails when they have very little orange on them. Since the new trait that has such a big influence on zeros and stingers does not look like anything real special and it doesn't look far from a normal we decided to refer to the project as hidden genes."


A recessive gene would not be able to be paired to another morph and see a visual animal within the first pairings. It's results like this that make be believe otherwise.

Who produced these zeros from ???? x Zero? Again, if there is no documentation or proof then how can it be said it happened? If you can provide that information then I might agree with you. Without it, I'm going to go by a proven record that I have shared. Simply stating that other people have and ignoring facts that I have provided, well...... I don't know what to say. We can just keep going in circles here.

It is great you got some zeros to work with. I would make sure your breeding stock has no patternless in it. If it does, you will get co-dom like results, meaning Zeros/Stingers and Patternless. If they are not het for patternless you will get no zeros/stinger or super zero/stingers. Now with that being said, time will tell

I know you have some other nice fattie projects going on also. I wish you the best this upcoming season! I'm really interested in what you produce this year from the zero/stingers. I will post my updates in this forum and I hope you will also. Maybe we can figure out the extra genetics "that we both agree on" together.

 

[Fatal_S]

From that JMG quote, what if the hidden gene is dominant and just allelic with zeros? As in Zero is dominant, hidden gene is dominant, patternless is recessive, and they're all allelic? Would that make any sense? And where does the super (recessive) fit in then?

I love this thread, it's awesome but also very confusing.

 

[OhioGecko]

From that JMG quote, what if the hidden gene is dominant and just allelic with zeros? As in Zero is dominant, hidden gene is dominant, patternless is recessive, and they're all allelic? Would that make any sense? And where does the super (recessive) fit in then?

I love this thread, it's awesome but also very confusing.

No it would not make sense. If it was dominant than 50% of all babies would show the trait from a zero breeding.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

No it would not make sense. If it was dominant than 50% of all babies would show the trait from a zero breeding.

Each individual egg would have a 50% possibility of showing the visual trait, not 50% of the clutch. I know that's probably what you meant to say but it's one of the most common mistakes people make when breeding and I just wanted to clear that up. If you get a total of 8 eggs from a dominant pairing 4 of them will not necessarily show the visual traits. Those are odds are for each individual egg, these odds drastically change depending on the genetic traits involved. I see people using this false thought pattern on other forums all too often.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

I was up all last night thinking about this trait. I decided to talk it over with David Deem. David and I came to the conclusion that the only reasonable explanation to the complex is that the Patternless trait has been misunderstood the entire time. What if Patternless was not a recessive morph, but a co-dom? I know the majority of members here are Leopard Gecko people, but thinking in the terms of Ball Pythons, the species that has the most diverse and vast collection of traits throughout the reptile industry, this is the only way to compare that makes sense.

Hear me out... There are numerous traits in the Ball Python world where morphs that produce super forms look completely normal, yet produce supers. There are also numerous morphs that are allelic with each other that end up with nearly the same visual super form. The other difficulty with African Fat Tails compared to Ball Pythons is that Ball Pythons naturally produce drastically varied patterns within normals. This varied nature of their pattern makes it much easier to spot differences in dinker animals. African Fat Tails have a very simple pattern which makes it more difficult to spot subtle traits that we may have been missing this entire time with the Patternless. Even though Patternless are the second oldest trait in the Fat Tail world they are still relatively new to the herp community and the proper identification may have been overlooked, or nearly impossible to identify in their non homozygous form, but with the trained eye may be apparent. Patternless African Fat Tails bred to any other morph may produce nearly normal looking animals, but that doesn't necessarily make them recessive.

I am directly quoting David Deem here and he states: "Many het Patternless animals have what we call "het markers", you know those little "wings" where the back band and front band connect near the belly of the animal. That is a phenotypic difference that suggests that it is co-dom. Not all het Patternless possess this trait but most of them have (from what I've personally seen in my collection and in friends collections), at least some sort of the following; the "Batman" or connecting side pattern, elongated front or rear bands that may or may not connect, or what look like the beginnings of a Stinger pattern. It's very difficult to explain simply with words, so I'll try and get some pictures of examples within my collection."

He has been very busy lately with his schedule but plans to comment directly on this thread during this weekend or before once time becomes available.

Looking at the results, Zeros/Stingers have already produced visual offspring within the first paring. It is simple genetics, if you produce a visual animal in the first pairing it is a dominant, breeding the original animal back to the offspring of opposite sex can potentially prove out a super form, it may take years depending how the odds treat you. Zeros/Stingers have been bred with Hidden Gene, Whiteouts, Caramels, Patternless, and others I may not be aware of, yet produced visual examples of Zeros/Stingers and their combos that were in the pairing. I don't see how it has back tracked into being considered a recessive trait. In most cases visuals have hatched out from the eggs, this would not happen if it were recessive.

Recessive morphs are not compatible with co-dom or dominant traits, there is no way there is an allelic compatibility, if there were I'm sure out of the hundreds of base Ball Python morphs available one would have been discovered. The only reason I can see why you are having the results you have are from either having bad odds, or from having a completely different line of Zeros/Stingers than other breeders are using, such as Urban Gecko, Imperial Geckos, or Shenandoah Reptile. Each one of these breeders have produced visuals when breeding a Zero/Stinger to any other trait normal or visual morph. This is one of the many reasons I'm excited to have numerous animals from the wild caught Zero line David Deem has been producing.

-Lee

 

[OhioGecko]

I was up all last night thinking about this trait. I decided to talk it over with David Deem. David and I came to the conclusion that the only reasonable explanation to the complex is that the Patternless trait has been misunderstood the entire time. What if Patternless was not a recessive morph, but a co-dom? I know the majority of members here are Leopard Gecko people, but thinking in the terms of Ball Pythons, the species that has the most diverse and vast collection of traits throughout the reptile industry, this is the only way to compare that makes sense.

I can understand what you are saying here. We see the same thing in het blizzards and Murphy patternless in the Leopard geckos. The only issue is that there are some that don't display the "het marker" that are hets.

Hear me out... There are numerous traits in the Ball Python world where morphs that produce super forms look completely normal, yet produce supers. There are also numerous morphs that are allelic with each other that end up with nearly the same visual super form. The other difficulty with African Fat Tails compared to Ball Pythons is that Ball Pythons naturally produce drastically varied patterns within normals. This varied nature of their pattern makes it much easier to spot differences in dinker animals. African Fat Tails have a very simple pattern which makes it more difficult to spot subtle traits that we may have been missing this entire time with the Patternless. Even though Patternless are the second oldest trait in the Fat Tail world they are still relatively new to the herp community and the proper identification may have been overlooked, or nearly impossible to identify in their non homozygous form, but with the trained eye may be apparent. Patternless African Fat Tails bred to any other morph may produce nearly normal looking animals, but that doesn't necessarily make them recessive.

I have not worked with patternless so I can't personally speak on this. I would be interested to hear back from breeders that have.

I am directly quoting David Deem here and he states: "Many het Patternless animals have what we call "het markers", you know those little "wings" where the back band and front band connect near the belly of the animal. That is a phenotypic difference that suggests that it is co-dom. Not all het Patternless possess this trait but most of them have (from what I've personally seen in my collection and in friends collections), at least some sort of the following; the "Batman" or connecting side pattern, elongated front or rear bands that may or may not connect, or what look like the beginnings of a Stinger pattern. It's very difficult to explain simply with words, so I'll try and get some pictures of examples within my collection."

I don't totally disagree here. The only co-dom morphs we have in AFTs and LGs are Snows and White Outs. They have consistently proven that the heterozygous form is visible 100% of the time. I don't think you can say that about patternless, therefore it's classification as simple recessive.

He has been very busy lately with his schedule but plans to comment directly on this thread during this weekend or before once time becomes available.

Looking at the results, Zeros/Stingers have already produced visual offspring within the first paring. It is simple genetics, if you produce a visual animal in the first pairing it is a dominant, breeding the original animal back to the offspring of opposite sex can potentially prove out a super form, it may take years depending how the odds treat you. Zeros/Stingers have been bred with Hidden Gene, Whiteouts, Caramels, Patternless, and others I may not be aware of, yet produced visual examples of Zeros/Stingers and their combos that were in the pairing. I don't see how it has back tracked into being considered a recessive trait. In most cases visuals have hatched out from the eggs, this would not happen if it were recessive.

What results are you stating here? I have not heard of any Zeros/Stingers produce visual the 1st breeding season, unless they were breed to a patternless or het patternless.

Recessive morphs are not compatible with co-dom or dominant traits, there is no way there is an allelic compatibility, if there were I'm sure out of the hundreds of base Ball Python morphs available one would have been discovered. The only reason I can see why you are having the results you have are from either having bad odds, or from having a completely different line of Zeros/Stingers than other breeders are using, such as Urban Gecko, Imperial Geckos, or Shenandoah Reptile. Each one of these breeders have produced visuals when breeding a Zero/Stinger to any other trait normal or visual morph. This is one of the many reasons I'm excited to have numerous animals from the wild caught Zero line David Deem has been producing.

-Lee

I believe there is hets compatible in some snake. Isn't there an Albino x Pink Pastel, but all babies will be taken over by the albino trait???? Someone help me here David told all of us he breed his Zero to a het patternless. How can you even use that as an example? I think I have stated that het patternless cannot be used to prove this is a co-dom trait in every post. I have not heard of Urban Geckos results. Maybe he would be willing to post his results for us? I also have not seen any pairings or results from Imperial Geckos either.

I really don't mind commenting on this new and exciting morph. I do feel that you are ignoring facts and not listening/reading, just by using David's breedings for an example. David has some nice AFT's and is going to produce some amazing geckos this year. But he breed his zero to a het patternless, this cannot be used to say the morph is co-dom. I can repeat this 10 more times but people will only hear what they want to hear. I breed a Super Zero to 5 females not het for patternless. I produced over 30 babies and none where Zero/Stinger. Just bad odds, really....... It is proof of co-dom because someone got visuals from breeding a zero to a het patternless, really....... What am I to say?

 

[reraver]

They have consistently proven that the heterozygous form is visible 100% of the time. I don't think you can say that about patternless, therefore it's classification as simple recessive.

Whiteout, for example, has an extremely varied pattern, so perhaps patternless could be on the opposite end of the spectrum. In this hypothetical situation, the range of visual different in a "het patternless" is very similar to a wild type, with a range of variation that goes from looking like a normal, to having the bands connected.

 

[Carinata]

Actually, Thad, I bred WC Zero to Whiteout Zero. I produced 2 Zeros, S Whiteout Zeros and 1 Whiteout. I had a Zero het Patternless in my collection that I acquired from Pat Kline. I'll add more later, I just figured I'd try and correct you before - make a big post.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

Thad, you keep stating that I'm ignoring your facts but I am in no way doing so. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying and that's why we continue to go in circles. I am not aware of any hets that are compatible with each other in Ball Pythons. Below what reraver said is what I wrote in my last post. Just because they aren't showing what we would consider visual markers doesn't mean that they don't carry the gene. Zeros are also incredibly variable with their patterns. If you re-read my last post this will all make more sense you.

Whiteout, for example, has an extremely varied pattern, so perhaps patternless could be on the opposite end of the spectrum. In this hypothetical situation, the range of visual different in a "het patternless" is very similar to a wild type, with a range of variation that goes from looking like a normal, to having the bands connected.

Exactly!

Actually, Thad, I bred WC Zero to Whiteout Zero. I produced 2 Zeros, S Whiteout Zeros and 1 Whiteout. I had a Zero het Patternless in my collection that I acquired from Pat Kline. I'll add more later, I just figured I'd try and correct you before - make a big post.

Pictured below are a few examples of David's above mentioned pairings, I received them yesterday. No Patternless was used, I don't why you thought there was.

Zero

Whiteout Zero

Here is a video that Alex from Imperial Geckos made awhile back about Zeros. The results I have talked to him about involved no Patternless animals being used. Hopefully he and others will come on here to share their results. I'm surprised more haven't.

http://youtu.be/SdSyS4TpLtU

 

[OhioGecko]

Actually, Thad, I bred WC Zero to Whiteout Zero. I produced 2 Zeros, S Whiteout Zeros and 1 Whiteout. I had a Zero het Patternless in my collection that I acquired from Pat Kline. I'll add more later, I just figured I'd try and correct you before - make a big post.

Our previous conversation on this forum only talked about your Zero het Patternless you used to breed. You never mentioned two wild caughts. Anybody can see the post here: http://geckoforums.net/showthread.php?86711-Super-Stinger-White-Out&p=721349&viewfull=1#post721349

I would also recommend reading the thread to get the full info.

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

Our previous conversation on this forum only talked about your Zero het Patternless you used to breed. You never mentioned two wild caughts.

I have talked about the wild caught line numerous times throughout this current thread. One of which times was in the post I made last night which is posted below to make it easier to find.

This is one of the many reasons I'm excited to have numerous animals from the wild caught Zero line David Deem has been producing.

 

[OhioGecko]

I have talked about the wild caught line numerous times throughout this current thread. One of which times was in the post I made last night which is posted below to make it easier to find.

Has David posted any results on these?

 

[EverEvolvingExotics]

Actually, Thad, I bred WC Zero to Whiteout Zero. I produced 2 Zeros, S Whiteout Zeros and 1 Whiteout. I had a Zero het Patternless in my collection that I acquired from Pat Kline. I'll add more later, I just figured I'd try and correct you before - make a big post.

Yes, Thad. I posted what he wrote above in quotes. David posted these results last night. I then posted pictures of the actual offspring that I now have in my possession from this pairing. I know you've been insanely busy lately with the new forum upgrade as well as everything you probably have going on day to day. I'd suggest re-reading everything that has been posted from the start of this thread so it will make more sense to you.