This i not pos! Question for Genetic freaks

[paulnj]

It's common knowledge that Super snow x WT make 100% snow, so this can not be the case unless a mutated gene is present in the cross as BOAH states.

I think sperm retention is what happen due to odds of probability alone.

 

[supperl]

My englisch is not good enought for the post but if a SS can produce a normal, these 2 are the only ever produced normals from a SS (as far as I know) and that is a bit curious I would say.
From all pairings I heard of the SS always gives a Snow so if you theorie is right, how come their has never been a Normale from a SS before? I mean if someone has hatched a Normal from a SS he would 100% sure posted it somewhere because of the fact he had thought on something else right?

BTW Geckohut from your theorie, is it pos if you breed an Albino to a Normal and produce normals that are not het for Albino? It´s the same thing.

 

[Baoh]

Pay attention? Don't attempt to brush me off with your lame quote. Obviously they aren't part of the SNOW GENE or they would be white, an albino isn't an albino unless there is NO black pigment. A snow means WHITE instead of yellow. Even MS babies start WHITE then develop their YELLOW hue later in life. Just because it came from a SS DOES NOT mean that you cannot have a normal baby. So you can understand:

Codominance
In codominance, neither phenotype is recessive. Instead, the heterozygous individual expresses both phenotypes. A common example is the ABO blood group system. The gene for blood types has three alleles: A, B, and i. i causes O type and is recessive to both A and B. The A and B alleles are codominant with each other. When a person has both an A and a B allele, the person has type AB blood.

When two persons with AB blood type have children, the children can be type A, type B, or type AB. There is a 1A:2AB:1B phenotype ratio instead of the 3:1 phenotype ratio found when one allele is dominant and the other is recessive. This is the same phenotype ratio found in matings of two organisms that are heterozygous for incomplete dominant alleles.

This is why you have produced nomal leos. They aren't a NEW morph niether are they mutants. They simply are normals nothing more.

Read harder, then.

 

[GeckoHut]

I am not going to get dragged into an argument. You are right a SSxWT will always produce snow. Unless the SS is het for WT which then combines with the Normal allele producing...? They don't look like any MS EVER produced. So congrats you have a new morph. I look foward to seeing them later in life as well as some possible offspring. Good luck with your endeavor!!

Homozygous Super Snow(CD),
x
Homozygous Normal(D),



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100% Het. Super Snow(CD), Het. Normal(D),



d trait you marked as Dominant (homozygous
and heterozygous forms look alike)
c trait you marked as Codominant (homozygous
and heterozygous forms do not look alike)

 

[GeckoTrouble]

Are the females 100% female?
As in one could be a male which would take the Snow out of the picture

 

[paulnj]

you can't have het WT (normal) . That would be like calling the mona lisa het canvas

 

[GeckoHut]

Sorry everyone thought I knew what I was saying apparently not

 

[paulnj]

I was making a joke out of my reply. Wild type is basicly the canvas all morphs are derived from. My intentions are not to make anyone look foolish, but to keep the info correct and pass on the knowledge I was taught.

 

[Khrysty]

I was making a joke out of my reply. Wild type is basicly the canvas all morphs are derived from. My intentions are not to make anyone look foolish, but to keep the info correct and pass on the knowledge I was taught.

I was amused by the joke And this IS an interesting find. I want to see a project or two sprout from these guys so we can figure out exactly what happened with them.

 

[GeckoHut]

No offense taken. I was lead to believe that a WT is on a different allele strand than say a SS. So I thought that the erroneous unpaired WT allele in the SS could in fact bond with the female WT's allele strand thus producing the aforementioned offspring. I would rather be corrected now than look foolish later!! Helped alot when you used that analogy Paul kinda made it a clearer picture. Thanks!!

 

[Baoh]

you can't have het WT (normal) . That would be like calling the mona lisa het canvas

Technically, if you have a Mack Snow, it is both "het" WT as well as het MSS, simply because there is a heterozygous genome with two differing copies, one of which is whatever the WT allele is and the other being the MS mutant version. As I know you know, that 25% homozygous WT result coming from an example of a MS x MS pairing is due to this phenomenon. WT x MSS yields 100% MS, where the MS animal would be heterozygous as a rule due to the differing copies of the gene and not just the MS trait being expressed. Hence, going back to the MS x MS pairing, you get 50% heterozygous (for both gene variants, technically) animals, 25% homozygous WT animals, and 25% homozygous MSS animals. So, by strict definition, hets from the MSS x WT cross are hets for both traits. We just commonly refer to the "deviant" version and consider the WT default, therefore finding it unimportant to mention.

I don't think that the above matters much for common speech, though.

 

[Baoh]

So I thought that the erroneous unpaired WT allele in the SS could in fact bond with the female WT's allele strand thus producing the aforementioned offspring.

We are discussing this in the context of the same locus/position.

Stypical = MS gene as we know it
Sbusted = possible dysfunctional MS gene variant
WT = obvious

Stypical,Sbusted (at gamete level) x WT,WT -> Stypical,WT (Mack Snow as we know it to be) and/or Sbusted,WT (freak baby that may look like WT)

That's the hypothesis, anyway.

The really cool thing, which is what I was saying before about an interesting project is what happens when the following genotype exists:

Stypical,Sbusted (at zygote level)

Sbusted,Sbusted (at zygote level)

That's what Supperl should be interested in and is for sure what I would be interested in. I'm not saying this would create a lemon Super Snow morph. It might look like total crap or nothing special at all. I'm saying it would be a really neat opportunity to achieve the creation of something new with diligent pairing and good luck.

Assuming this isn't some human error or retention issue. I know Thorsten is confident, which I understand. I know *ALL* of my pairings. I only trust this sort of thing 100% when I'm the one handling it, though. I've had geckos mate while crawling on my shirt as I sat at the computer. If they were on my back and I was not the type of person to pay attention, you can imagine how something so goofy could create a mix-up. That's just an example to illustrate how easy a mistake can be made by even the most honest person.

My logical mind says the probability is greatest of being an oops. My emotional heart hopes this is something new and awesome for Thorsten and/or his friend.

 

[Gazz]

Maybe a broken super snow ?.Throws normal HET Super snow.Instead of Snow HET Super snow.If they are influanced by snow of any type.Maybe breed them to gether you may get a freak super snow(With yellow not very snow but:main_thumbsup:sweet).

Very doutbful but they maybe a case of parthenogensis ? you never know.We don't know for sure wheather leo's can or can't do this.Though rare it has happend in some other reptile cases.Maybe one of the females lay these before the male got jiggy with her.

Example.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061220_virgin_births.html

 

[snared99]

I guess im not understanding why we can throw out the possibility of sperm retention? The father there is a SS and neither baby appear snow, so what did this girl breed to in the prior year/years?? Sorry if i had missed this if it was said earlier.

 

[ajveachster]

I guess im not understanding why we can throw out the possibility of sperm retention? The father there is a SS and neither baby appear snow, so what did this girl breed to in the prior year/years?? Sorry if i had missed this if it was said earlier.

From what was posted earlier the only male has been with the females is the one in the current group. The only way it could be sperm retention would be if the sperm was retained from over 3 years ago.

 

[Gazz]

I guess im not understanding why we can throw out the possibility of sperm retention? The father there is a SS and neither baby appear snow, so what did this girl breed to in the prior year/years?? Sorry if i had missed this if it was said earlier.

There virgin females.This male the super snow is there first and only.

 

[paulnj]

the SS is an 06 or 07 and is the only msle to ever be with those females so Thorsten told me. I agree that retention is the logical explanayion, hence my "HUH?" now.

 

[supperl]

I wouldn´t have posted it if I saw the pos. that old sperm was the point or eggs haven been mislabled or anything like that

From what I was told these were raised at her's(the females) and the SS was the only one ever been breed to them including the fact all babies yet were Macks or SUper Macks makes the thing crazy.
Sadly no realy notes on former clutches with parents and hatched morph have been made.
I would love to know if their were clutches from SS*SS with one SS and one MS or things like that.
I saw a Gecko on a german show I would bet 500 bucks it was a SS but that guy told me it was a normal never seeing a Snow so I thought maybe something like that but this can only be proofed if the SS*SS pairign also produced Macks and than again she must have had sooo damn much luck to have 3 years no normal

EDIT: It seems like the 2 have both complete black eyes.

 

[Baoh]

Please, please, please make sure they are kept and grown to maturity.

 

[paulnj]

Or ship them to me in september