The Giant Debate???

[SaSobek]

Maybe that's the problem. For unsuspecting buyers thinking they've got one thing and then finding out its something else. I could be wrong but these "bigger breeders" need to be held countable for there claims.

IMO that is an ethics thing not a genetic thing. This is about the genetics of this not the ethics of a "bigger Breeder".

 

[OhioGecko]

Has anyone taken an 10.5 - 11 inch supposed giant and proved that it wasn't? I don't know MR. T nor have I never spoke with him. On his website he gave a very descriptive study on this morph and said he proved it out. I'm curious if anyone has proved it not to be? This morph has been around since 2000 so you would think we could come up with one person on these forums that breed an 10.5 - 11 inch giant and didn't get at least 50% giants. Until the data is available this debate will be unresloved.

 

[eric]

IMO that is an ethics thing not a genetic thing. This is about the genetics of this not the ethics of a "bigger Breeder".

Your right Matt, this thread is about genetics of the "giants" not an ethical rant! which has nothing to do with genetics! IMO I believe that we all wouldn't be having this debate over the Genetics of the "Giants" If they were what was originally found to be true, which directly relates to ethics.

That's it I'm finished no more for me, sorry If I've upset any one it's just a simple hobbyists opinion!

 

[nevinm]

matt, eric i have just read everything that has been said from my last post. this is soooo frustrtating to me, because i have one main argument that is not being adressed. all the people that dont believe in this line are doubting and doubting and doubting, but when i bring up an valid argument no one has anything else to say back. matt, you basicly backed up eveything i had to say and i appriciate it very much and what you said about my self. thank you. i believe its common sence to see the giants were reliased in a time where the average gecko was only 50-60 grams as i said, and one thing i didnt mention as you did matt was the whole issue on leangth. 8" long and 90 grams is compleatly diff from 11" long and 110grams.

thad, ive been working with giants and super giants for 2 1/2 years now, and all my expericance is pretty conforming. i have produced more animals to prove the line than not prove it.

nev

 

[Paco]

Nevin and Matt. Thanks for all the info and comments. I am here to learns as much as I can and thats why I stared the discussion. I am going to making "Giants" my main projects and I want to be as educated about them as possible. I only have 2 supposed Super giants that I got from Steve at Gecko's ect right now but Giants is mainly what I want to focus on.

For Ron to share that info with you Matt was very cool. That does Not like seem someone who is trying to hide and deceive like so many here think. He is allways happy to share info when I ask. As for his Marketing practice's, all I can do is give the man credit he does a Damn good job. Like it or not. I don't allways agree myself with some things but he is good.

As for the other's that aren't happy with the original findings. Early data can sometimes be wrong and that is not learned until a bit later in the projects development. As long as that data changes and the public knows it should be accepted( you don't have to be happy about it but accept it). If it happens to change again because more findings prove something else out, that's the way it works. We see it all the time with with many reptile morphs and it sucks when it happens, but when you are working with something completely new you can't know everything in advance, because it so new. So to criticize after the fact is very easy because of all the current knowledge you have about the subject. Hind site is 20/20

Also all the bigger breeders who have been working with the Giants lines breedings show very similar findings to to the originators. So where is the issue here.

As for Leos as Big as Giants. It is pretty straight forward to figure out why Leos are getting so much bigger. Matt pretty much gave them all and if you don't seem them as VERY valid points you need to rethink a few things. JMO

I will Agree there are some Honking FAT Leos out there these days. Yes I said FAT.

I am bummed I missed the discussion last night.

 

[nevinm]

there was a discussion last night?

and i really wish someone that does not agree with me or matt would have an argument on why they dont

 

[Paco]

there was a discussion last night?

and i really wish someone that does not agree with me or matt would have an argument on why they dont

I got an e-mail from Matt at around 8:45pm last night saying to joining in the chat room for to talk about giants.

Must have been delayed a bit because the GF time said it was sent at 5:00 or so.:main_huh:

So hopefully we can schedule another chat about giants ahead of time so there can be some people prepared for it.:main_thumbsup:

 

[Gregg M]

My thoughts...

Species... Eublepharis angramainyu...

If you look at the original non-albino giants, they look EXACTLY like the species Eublepharis angramainyu... No question in my mind that this is where the giant gene originated...
This alone would not make it a morph though... As I have said in other threads about genetics, there are such things as locality spacific "morphs" (simple recessive, co-dom, incomplete dom, dominant, polygenic, double recessive)...

For whatever reason a morph or mutation works out better in that spacific locality than the original wild type and the genetics of that morph or mutation flourish and that becomes the dominant animal in that particuler nitch...

Something else that no one touched on is that Eublepharis angramainyu can be a totally different species and not a subspecies at all... This would not be the first time taxonomy was incorrect... Case in point, the East and West African gaboons... They both look almost identical and were thought to be the same species for almost 100 years... Recently they were found to be two totally different species and both have individual full species status...

Is it not possible that a differend species is responsible for the genetic make up of our giants today??? Eublepharis angramainyu can be genetically different enough to be its own species but still be close enough to be intergarded into the captive E. macularius population...

So what happens when you hybridize reptiles... You get the genetics of both parent species but it varies... Some individuals will look more like the other parent species and you will get everything in between... These same traits get carried down to the F2s and then even when out crossed to either parent species these traits will pop up randomly or often... This is especially true if the gentics being passed are double recessive or polygenic...

Just something to think about...

 

[Griesi]

Just a little information: I know two breeders of E. angramainyu. They do not keep them in racks and hibernate them, they are not on a mealworm based diet.
It usually takes a female of this species two, more often three years until they start ovulating and they are not as profilic as E. macularius are.

@Gregg M: Do you know where I could find pictures of the original non-albino giants?

Best regards
Karsten

 

[Paco]

Greg... Good points. I know I did not bring up the Idea of the E. Angramainyu being it's own species but what ever it is, it is what I to believe is responsible for the giants. And we know for sure it is interwoven in the current genetic pool.

I have also brought up the Hybrid theory and what happens several times. You elaborated on it and explained it very well. What can and does happen with the genetics down the road.

So keep the info coming people.

 

[nevinm]

gregg that is increadable and compleatly belieable. i would rather believe what you said that believe that the giants and super giants just do not exist.

nev

 

[Paco]

gregg that is increadable and compleatly belieable. i would rather believe what you said that believe that the giants and super giants just do not exist.

nev

Nevin... There is no doubt that the Giants Exist. We can see them. I think the major problem is there is no set standard for the Giants and what makes a giant, a giant right now.

We have the originators theory and deductions but people don't want to seem to accept them. Because of the original findings and predictions which were not correct, which have changed since then.

So the next step would be to try and define what a Giant is and have the majority of the Leo community try to agree on it.

It might take a few more years for the "Giant" comeback(you like that play on words) but with what is see from the good breeders currently working with them and the further refining we will see in the future. The "Giants" will be "Big" Deal again.

 

[Gregg M]

Nev,
I believe that the giant is a morph of sorts and can be reproduced with some regularity... I just do not think the genetics work the way they are believed to be working... I think it goes a bit deeper and less predictable than it being "co-dominant"....

 

[eric]

We have the originators theory and deductions but people don't want to seem to accept them.

Paco, he was wrong and people spent lots of money on a genetic trait that doesn't apply to his punnet square!
Paco you keep giving the creator way more credit, he screwed up!
Nevin on the other hand is doing it the right way. Nevin's not coming out with breed this to this a get % he is doing the research. Thank you Nevin. And you all will have Nevin to thank when he proves all this out! Not the creator!

 

[Paco]

Nev,
I believe that the giant is a morph of sorts and can be reproduced with some regularity... I just do not think the genetics work the way they are believed to be working... I think it goes a bit deeper and less predictable than it being "co-dominant"....

Gregg... I agree 100% on this issue as well. But that is why I first asked what is someones def. of a Morph? It varies from person to person.

I would have to say the genetics do not work the way the are supposed too, because as you stated earlier the mixing of genes and only certain traits are being expressed and not in pure form because of the hybridization of the species. The more pure the species the less Variable the outcomes. Only makes sense when you think about it.

Could it be though that is the closest comparison he has to work with and for simplicity sake he went with something the majority Industry sort of understands and accepts? Not that it's right but it's what happens in this trade.

We all know how genetics terms are miss-used all the time in the trade. So why no now?

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

So the next step would be to try and define what a Giant is and have the majority of the Leo community try to agree on it.

Part of defining and agreeing on this would mean that the morph would need to be legitimized genetically as well. It has already been proven by all the people that originally purchased these geckos that it is definitley not recessive, and so far I have not seen any proof that it is actually genetic by the basic standards of being dominant, co-dominant, or incomplete dominant.

One of the problems is, that since the 'giant' was originally marketed as a recessive morph, people that could not afford their high price-tag bought the so-called 'hets'. These hets were crossed, and 'giants' were crossed with normal sized geckos in order to produce 'giants' and 'hets' without success. So, if there was a true giant, the genetics would have become diluted within 2 generations of crossing them.

There may be some real giants left out there, and if they exist, then they would qualify as a 'Classic' morph that should be preserved and actually tested to prove out.

IMO, the "Giant" was nothing more than a bunch of geckos produced by Moose without correct test breeding, and was nothing more than yet another marketing ploy.

 

[Paco]

Paco, he was wrong and people spent lots of money on a genetic trait that doesn't apply to his punnet square!
Paco you keep giving the creator way more credit, he screwed up!
Nevin on the other hand is doing it the right way. Nevin's not coming out with breed this to this a get % he is doing the research. Thank you Nevin. And you all will have Nevin to thank when he proves all this out! Not the creator!

Eric mistakes happen. Ron should be given all the credit he found the original lines and without him we would not be discussing this issue.

He rushed to get the morph out there before he had all the facts. Hope you never get into ball pythons, you think thats bad take a look at all the failed ball morphs, it happens. People spent SERIOUS money on Ball Morphs that did not pan out. He also Changed his original theories and stated his original findings are wrong. Thats the correct thing to do. It's still not listed as a recessive morph.

Nevin is doing it the right way because He learned from the mistakes of another. Also He is doing what has all ready been done.

Also he is working with someone else's project and trying to refine it.

I am also sure Ron has more data on this one project than you could have on your entire reptile collection. He probably has more giants than most big breeders have Leos in their entire collection.

Look at Nevin comments and results. They are right on with the Creator and Nevin backs them up. So I don't see what your point is.

Just because you don't like the guy and what he has going on, you don't have to take away all the hard work he has done and try and give the credit to someone who is doing exactly what has all ready been done.

Like I said like him or not Ron has done more for this hobby than anyone, period.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

OK EVERYBODY! We cannot be discussing the business practices or ethics of individuals or businessess here on GeckoForums. We can discuss morph debates, but let's leave names out of the context of posts.

 

[nevinm]

so how much proof do i need to show what i am working with? since i assume my word is not good enough, and i understand after what RT has done to the "leo community". i understand a word is not good enough. but i have a super giant that countless people have seen, almost about 11" and 130 grams, and the male from his line that is 11" and 110-115gs. i have breed that super giant to normal sized females and produced all "giant" sized animals as i said befor. with the animals i have, i produced giants and super giants a VERY regular bassis, as i stated befor, fallowing those original "claims".

 

[nevinm]

and paco... i just want to say im not doing anything because ive learned from his mistakes. im doing what i am doing because im 24 years old, ive been in this hobby littarlaly my entire life, and know that when someone screwes up, you need to protect your own butt. thats why im working so hard on this, to save my own name. i didnt need him to screw up to know that what he did was wrong. and also i have a hand in the BP market, also in the bermese, retic, bearded dragon, blood python, and sooo many other markets. its the same with everything. there is just as much contraversy in those markets as what is here right now