The Giant Debate???

Sunrise Reptile

SunriseReptile.com
Messages
3,520
Location
New Haven, IN
Lets test my theory will someone lown nevinm or myself some angramainya or fuscus and we can breed them to or supposed macularius and see what happens:D

I know there's humor intended here. But on a more serious note, we don't even know if such an outcross would produce viable offspring because in fact we don't know if this is the true basis of the Giant genetics. All speculation at this point.
 

nevinm

Moyer's Monsters
Messages
2,584
Location
bethlehem PA
zach outcrossing would indeed change the animals. but you have to realize that would be over several generations. im already working on getting an angramainya to do this with, no one in the US has any. and fuscus just arent available to the public. there arent even any WC ones. but what im getting at is that outcorssing them would absolutly make them more prolific and breedable at a younger age. but your looking at atleast 3 - 4 generations after the first breeding. thats alot of time that i do plan on putting into my project. 2 years to raise the first generation, than if your lucky 20 months for the next, and hope you can just by about 4 months at a time, so 14-16 months for the 3rd gen, 1 year for the fouth generation, and so on and so on. those a couple years or out crossing, and test breeding and raising animals to the full size as possable to make sure the massive gene of the agrumainya is sticking with the outcrossed babies........
 

nevinm

Moyer's Monsters
Messages
2,584
Location
bethlehem PA
I know there's humor intended here. But on a more serious note, we don't even know if such an outcross would produce viable offspring because in fact we don't know if this is the true basis of the Giant genetics. All speculation at this point.

maurice, i agre your right, it is all speculation. everything you guys hear from me in these posts are what makes the most logical sence to me (if its infact not a fact already).
 

spykerherps

-sssSpyker ExoticSsss-
Messages
1,966
Location
WA
I keep desint records but do not to my knowledge own any giants/ never bought a gecko as a giant.that's not to say their isn't "giant genes"in any of my collection This year My biggest
male (eclipse het raptor)80grams and 10"
biggest female tangerine 80grams 8.5"

in 98 -2000 averaged 7.5- 8.5" 55-65 grams
hard to pin point what is causing the differences many factors, husbandry techniques, blood lines, out crossing feeding regimens. like I believe you said Nevin over the course of generations in captivity animals tend to get bigger.

Also
my hatchlings all average 4 grams at hatch even in 2002 with my first hatch I have twice had 6 gram hatchlings and never have I recorded a 2 grams hatchling. rarely 3gs
Hatch Numbers
2008 - 4
2007 - 114
2006 - 82
2005 - 60
2004 - 41
2003 - 23
2002 - 8

Hope this helps Nevin
 
Last edited:

Gregg M

Registered Member
Messages
3,055
Location
The Rotten Apple NYC
but what im getting at is that outcorssing them would absolutly make them more prolific and breedable at a younger age. but your looking at atleast 3 - 4 generations after the first breeding.

What makes you believe this Nev??? It could happen in the first generation offspring... I do not see anything to suggest what you are saying to be any more solid than what I just said... Either way, it needs to be tested out... Dont worry Nev, eventually the giant morph will be figured out my friend...:main_thumbsup:
 

Brhaco

New Member
Messages
127
Location
Boerne, TX
As hesitant as i am to disagree with Gregg, whom I greatly respect and count as a friend, in this instance I have to demure. First I will list a couple of things I KNOW to be true:

Number one, Ron does not have any specimens of either fuscus or andramainya at his facility (further he maintains, and I believe him, that he never has). All the giants and most of his other morphs (including ALL Tremper albinos!) arose from a single wild caught sire ("Bubba").

Second, not just Ron, but several large breeders nationwide (including folks working with anywhere from dozens to many hundreds of breeder giant/supergiant animals) all continue to maintain that their own breeding results indicate a codominant mode of inheritance for this morph. Are all these breeders involved in some kind of "conspiracy of greed"? I guess it's possible, but likely?

Now for my own mere OPINION: Based on my own limited experience, I can say that i can walk into the hatching room and pick out the newborn giants from a distance. They are notably distinct from tne normals in size and proportions.

I believe (again just opinion) that the reason for confusion is a combination of factors. The first is size overlap. All three size "morphs"-normal, giant, and supergiant-can easily overlap in size (i.e., a large, heavily fed normal might be larger than a small or lightly fed giant, while a small super might end up smaller than a very large giant).

Secondly, many working with strains of geckos they believe to have no relation to giant lines may in fact be mistaken-many generations have passed since the introduction of the giants, and they have been quite broadly distributed and interbred into most lines.

But it's always worthwhile to do test breedings-so breed away, I say! But I personally think more should be putting effort into selectively breeding giants for ever larger size-I'd love to see a well-proportioned, legitimately 200 gram leopard gecko!
 

OhioGecko

Mod Squad Member
Messages
2,949
Location
Sterling Ohio
Secondly, many working with strains of geckos they believe to have no relation to giant lines may in fact be mistaken-many generations have passed since the introduction of the giants, and they have been quite broadly distributed and interbred into most lines.

I believe I have one of these right now. I currenlty have offspring from 3 different females that have similiar results to proving that it is a giant. :)
 

paulnj

New Member
Messages
10,508
Location
NJ USA
I have sold atleast 50 "giant line" animals without mentioning the words "giant tremper" this year due to not growing them to adult size and being sure they were indeed giants.

I fully believe Brad myself because my breeder who threw 2 "normal sized" animals, could possibly just be a very large giant bred to a "Super giant" that hatch 2 small "giants" that I sold too early to get the full patential from.

Sadly, I have very few giant line animals anymore due to project reconfigurations, so no scientific data from me this coming season ;)
 

Golden Gate Geckos

Mean Old Gecko Lady
Messages
12,730
Location
SF Bay Area
I believe (again just opinion) that the reason for confusion is a combination of factors. The first is size overlap. All three size "morphs"-normal, giant, and supergiant-can easily overlap in size (i.e., a large, heavily fed normal might be larger than a small or lightly fed giant, while a small super might end up smaller than a very large giant).
I guess this is where I am getting confused.
 

OhioGecko

Mod Squad Member
Messages
2,949
Location
Sterling Ohio
I guess this is where I am getting confused.

Marcia, throw out the weight factor on full grown adults to determine giants. Length should be the detrmining factor if there are not records of the Leos first year. If you have the records from the Leos first year Ron has a good description on his website:

"Genetically predisposed to become large in size. These giant-sized leopard geckos have two classes called Giant and Super Giant. Giant: Males reach 80-110 grams and females 60-90 grams by one year of age as typically seen in the heterozygous state. The largest Giants are called Super Giants: Males are over 110 grams and females over 90 grams by one year of age as typically seen in the homozygous condition. They can be any pattern or color. Unless both parents are known Super Giants there are no visible ways to tell a Giant from a Super Giant until 10-12 months of age."

If there is not any records of that first year than I believe if you have a 10 1/2 + inch Leo that produces larger than normal offspring, than it is safe to say it is a possible giant. Once that is determined the Leo will need to be proven out just like any other morph.

I do agree that more info on hatchlings, weights, and lengths during the first year would help identify the "Giant" line. But if a breeder doesn't identify their animals as a giant than the next breeder is going to have to prove out their purchases. I've seen this in the forums with Mack Snows, RAPTORS, and other hets. This all falls back to documentation of the original breeder. If even a het is left out of a description then that het could show up 3 generations later unexpectedly.
 

Golden Gate Geckos

Mean Old Gecko Lady
Messages
12,730
Location
SF Bay Area
I believe if you have a 10 1/2 + inch Leo that produces larger than normal offspring, than it is safe to say it is a possible giant.
OK, then my confusion is the word "possible" giant. According the the definition of GIANT, especially if length measurements are not defined, I can say that I have non-giant geckos that reach the weight range described w-a-a-y before they are a year old... in many cases, as early as 6-8 month of age.
 

Gregg M

Registered Member
Messages
3,055
Location
The Rotten Apple NYC
As hesitant as i am to disagree with Gregg, whom I greatly respect and count as a friend,

Same here Brad...

I am glad you posted... You would certainly know better than I and just about anyone here about what RT has had and is working with now...

This is just what I was thinking... This is just what I was thinking... Seemed logical to me... But hey, I cant always be right and friends cant always agree.... LOL
 

OhioGecko

Mod Squad Member
Messages
2,949
Location
Sterling Ohio
OK, then my confusion is the word "possible" giant.

It has to be proven if it is not documented by the previous breeder, therefore the "possible". Or are you talking about breeders listing Leos as "poassible" giants?

According the the definition of GIANT, especially if length measurements are not defined, I can say that I have non-giant geckos that reach the weight range described w-a-a-y before they are a year old... in many cases, as early as 6-8 month of age.

I checked our records from last year and we had three Leos fall into the classification above that are definately not "Giants". All were females and just over the 60g range.

I totally agree with you on the general weight definition of the "Giant/Super Giant". It might have been sufficient in the 1999/2000 but not in todays standards. IMO the morph needs to be described by length/age. I have some 90g Leos that I know for certaint that are not Giants and I have a 90g RAPTOR that is 1 1/2 years old and 10 7/8 long. He could possibly be a "Super Giant" but doesn't have the weight yet. I am holding back all of his offspring to prove him out.

I'm definately learning from this thread and my eyes are being widened in both directions, if that makes any sense. Thanks for your input Marcia!
 

Golden Gate Geckos

Mean Old Gecko Lady
Messages
12,730
Location
SF Bay Area
It has to be proven if it is not documented by the previous breeder, therefore the "possible". Or are you talking about breeders listing Leos as "possible" giants?
Both. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of so-called breeders out ther that have questionable ethics, and something like this might just motivate them to sell large sized geckos as 'possible' giants to make a buck. Then, we have all the folks who purchased those geckos claiming the offspring are 'possible giants... and so on and so on. By the current documented criteria nominclature, I might even have several 'possible' giants... but I know they aren't and would not sell them as such. In today's market with some of the tactics that I am seeing, the 'giants' would be sitting ducks for misrepresentation.

It may seem that I have doubts about the giant being a legitimate morph, but I do believe they exist.... in small numbers. In many ways I feel we are back at square one at proving them, and don't have as much trust in the gecko community as I once had for others to be honest and forthright. Thus my skepticism.
 

nevinm

Moyer's Monsters
Messages
2,584
Location
bethlehem PA
thad, that is the problem. IMO the giant gene leaked into the regular market. imagian how meny ppl got a giant, breed it, and than even sold the geckos that are giants but didnt know it because they didnt know they hatched out a giant. also very few people have spent time on the giants and super giants. imagain what the giants would be to day if people spent as much time on them as mack snows, raptors.... any other morph for that matter. there is not one doubt in my mind that if we did we would have 200-220 gram animals by now

also i dont think your raptor is a super if it is a year and half old. they need to reach that wieght in a year according to RT. I've had 3 animals reach 120-130 in less than a year, IMO those are supers.

marcia..... i agree with you 100%.......
 

OhioGecko

Mod Squad Member
Messages
2,949
Location
Sterling Ohio
It may seem that I have doubts about the giant being a legitimate morph, but I do believe they exist.... in small numbers. In many ways I feel we are back at square one at proving them, and don't have as much trust in the gecko community as I once had for others to be honest and forthright. Thus my skepticism.

Marcia, I agree with you 100%. I purchased two female giants in the past year that IMO are not giants. I purchased them soley on weight and the breeders label without taking the lengths into consideration. I also agree with proving out the "Giants". People that think they have possible giants need to prove them before saying. But.... I believe that if you pruchased a Giant from Ron or Steve then they are actually Giants. If you have a Giant from them and breed that Giant to another Giant or non-Giant then the "possible Giant" term is appropriate.

With all that being said I also would like to see the "Giant/Super Giant" morph description modified to be more specific than just weights. If you simply go by the description than you are going to have people selling non-giants as giants.

Nevin said:
also i dont think your raptor is a super if it is a year and half old. they need to reach that wieght in a year according to RT. I've had 3 animals reach 120-130 in less than a year, IMO those are supers.

The "Giant/Super Giant" description was written before RAPTORS. IMO most RAPTORS seem to get long and lanky and then put weight on after their first year. Not all RAPTORS but most of them. They also tend to stay leaner then the standard Tremper. This is why I thought he could possibly be a Super. To be honest my gut tells me he's a "Giant" if he proves out. Nevin, 3 120-130g . Nice :main_thumbsup:. I'm curious to the lengths on those 3?
 

Visit our friends

Top