Reptile & Amphibian Forums

How closely related are aberrant and jungle? I think I read recently that someone produced jungles and aberrants from the same breeding so I guess they can't be too far apart??

Anyways, to my main question, I have produced quite a few aberrant babies this year and I'd like to know if there is an odd chance that a jungle might pop out one of these times.

It would probably help my chances to actually breed a jungle in the mix but I don't have a jungle
-----

jungle is a line breed trait. so like in tangerines, some will be hypo, some wont, some will be jungle some wont. i have gotten jungles from normal to normal breeding, but i think its rare.
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at iluvblackfrancis

Many say that jungle is actually a recessive trait and there is some good anecdotal evidence to support that view.

i believe there is a recessive stripe, but not jungle. jungle seems to random to me to be recessive. but there might be.
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at iluvblackfrancis

stripes are jungles

maybe not. thats what i thought, until i heard of a recessive stripe. it aparently breds true, making hets, double hets, and everything.
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at iluvblackfrancis

Exactly and many jungle breeders have been saying for years that true jungles also breed true, jungle jungle always equals jungle. Part of the debate may be from some people calling abberants jungles, which of course won't breed true if they are not true jungles. Or maybe there are some jungles that are a recessive, and others that are just lookalikes (aberrant mock jungles?)I don't work w/ jungles myself, but have been following this debate here for a few years, and have seen breeders say the same thing about jungles as stripes in the thread below. Interesting.

It is impossible for jungles to be a recessive trait as this only occurs in single gene mutations and if jungle were a single gene mutation they would all look alike.

All stripes don't look exactly alike, neither do all patternless or albinos

I personally don't believe stripes are a recessive trait as it is possible to get a stripe by breeding a stripe to a normal with normal parents however rare it may be. Also if you read my post down further it explains how stripes may begin to breed true even if they are not a recessive trait. As for the patternless all patternless have the same genetic mutation but there are other genes that can affect appearance. Think about it no two leopard geckos you have ever seen have looked exactly alike even if they have nearly the same genetic make up this is because there are several factors affecting coloration but when a certain gene gets "turned off" the most of the pigment is either not produced or improperly synthesized. When it comes to a pattern phase where the pigment is jumbled this is not because a gene is switched off and genes do not just appear all leopard geckos have the same number of genes. It is possible that a recessive trait could cause a particular pattern and then other genes could add to it obscuring the basic pattern but it is possible to breed jungles with less pigment together until you get a hypomelanistic gecko proving there is no underlying pattern sorry for the long post but this is hard to explain try reading a few books that give detailed descriptions of how genetics work.

i believe there is both a recessive stripe and a line bred stripe. only because my stripes are obviously line bred, but some people get hets from theres, and it seems like all of their stripes are very alike patterned.
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at iluvblackfrancis

If you breed a stripe to an animal that looks normal and get a stripe, who is to say the normal looking animal wasn't het for stripe? I bred my albino to a superhypo tang carrot and got an albino, does that mean that albinism is not recessive? No, obviously the animal was het for albino and I didn't know it.

I don't even work w/ stripes or jungles myself, but I haven't heard anything to convince me one way or the other on this one, and as I have heard quite a few breeders who have worked extensively with jungles and stripes for many years say they are recessive, I certainly am not going to dismiss that without a compelling scientific reason, which I have yet to hear. I do think it is possible that there are genetically different forms of these morphs though, or that there may be recessive and non-recessive forms (e.g. true jungle/stripe (genetic morph) and abberrant jungle stripe (selectively bred/accidents). There are different genetic forms of albinism, if some or all of the jungle and/or stripe morphs are recessive, who is to day there might not be different genetic strains?

in my previous post I mentioned that the normals parents were normal meaning it could not be het.

Hets look normal, you can't prove they don't carry recessive traits, you can only prove they do.

if you breed several generations of normals you know they are not hets.

A het looks normal, but carries a gene for a recessive trait. Every time that animal breeds, there is a 50% chance that recessive gene will be passed on. Unless the recessive gene meets up with another recessive gene, the trait will never be expressed, but the gene is still there. Let's say the het animal has a baby, there is a 50% chance the animal is het. Let's say it got the recessive gene. That het baby has a baby, there is still a 50% chance that any offspring will carry the recessive gene. And so on and so on, ad infinitum. This is why many rare recessive traits pop up quite unexpectedly in nature. Humans can have an albino baby and have no known history of albinism in their family, the het gene pay have just been passed on for generation after generation, never being expressed until finally it meets up with another het gene and bingo- you get the trait. Which is why two brown eyed parents can have a child with blue eyes.

There is no way to PROVE any normal looking animal is not het for a trait except via genetic testing.

What I still don't understand, is why so many people who are breeding tremper patternless albinos say that the chances are much less than one would expect statistically. More like 1 in 2,000 when breeding double hets than the expected 1 in 16. I tend to suspect this is just bad luck because I don't know of a known genetic mechanism that can interfere with the process, and tremper PA Trenmper PA does always yield Tremper PA. Or perhaps some people are mistaking PA's for reg patterless, they can be hard to tell apart. But then that is another discussion altogether.

sure you can by breeding the P generation to the F1 generation or the F1 generation to the F2 generation and this is how almost all captive breed geckos are breed except for offspring of the original P generation.

Sorry, no offense, but that's just plain wrong. However you are free to believe whatever you like.

You can show it is UNLIKELY that an animal is a het, you just can't prove it... it is POSSIBLE to breed two hets together and never get the recessive trait expressed

i believe you can prove it isn't het actually. ive heard of tests a vet can do to check, but i heard they cost a TON of money. i heard this in the BP forum.
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at iluvblackfrancis

Of course you can prove via genetic testing, expensive it would be I imagine

I actually prefer to talk to someone with a different point of view you can't learn anything if people just agree with you. I'll also admit I can see your point while you will never be one hundred percent sure I feel that that the chance of all of the normals with normal parents who were breed to stripes and made stripes are hets is so small that it can be almost entirely dismissed. Also since there is a 50% chance in het to het breeding the gene will be passed down this means that after only five generations of breeding the offspring the chance of an individual gecko being het is only 1 in 64 and if only one of the original parents was het the fifth generations offspring would be 1 in 1024.

intresting. just bad luck? thats what i thought, because some people have gotten even better ratios then 1/16. i never thought it was hard to tell a PA from a patternless, and i think that anyone who has enough experience to breed such expensive morphs should be able to too, right?
-----
your head will collapse, but there's nothing in it, and you'll ask yourself, "where is my mind"

if you have AIM, IM me at iluvblackfrancis

I don't think Trempers are as hard to breed as 1 in 2000 as this is the ratio given for blazing blizzards and there are many more Tremper PA's available. No one is officially selling Blazing blizzards but I think some probably have been sold quietly. I also think when a few people didn't get patternless albinos they decided it was harder than it actually is. I have never heard these odds from a large breeder and I have only heard them from small breeders who never actually produced one.

The Blazing Blizzard still raises the same question though, even if trempers PA's arent as difficult to produce as reported. Do you know of a genetic mechanism that would explain why the chances would be 1 in 2000 for Blazing Blizzards? I havern't heard a scientific explanation yet of why that might be the case, and I find it perplexing. I don't work with Blizzards either though.

I don't fully understand epistasis but from what I've read it can mask alleles, so if you breed an albino with a blizzard and epistsis occurs the offspring will not actually be doubl hets as the second allele in both genes is suppressed. This can also only suppress one allowing you to get albinos or blizzards that had both albino and blizzard parents but are not hets.

I've never heard of that, I'll look into it. Thx !!!

In most animals with a patterning to their fur/skin.. no two patterns are ever alike...despite sharing the same genes. Its like fingerprints, each person's fingerprints are unique...or ALMOST unique. Same difference in this case... each gecko will have its own "pattern"

I didn't mean to start a whole new thread on genetics since there was one yesterday,
lol I just wanted opinions on my chances of getting a jungle where I'm producing so many aberrants vs 1 or 2 normals.
thx!
-----

Here is the basic guideline that I use when defining morphs:
www.ss-leopardgeckos.com/phases.html
Also, I have a "designer" breeding group consisting of one true jungle male complete with broken neck-band and broken tail rings, one high-contast fully striped female from her head to the tip of her tail, and one hypo-tangerine striped/jungle with broken neck-band and marbled tail. Literally ALL of the offspring produced from this group have some form of aberrant patterns...

"You say 'to-mah-to' and I say 'to-may-to."
-----
Marcia McGuiness
Golden Gate Geckos
www.goldengategeckos.com

All I was wondering was if anyone popped the odd jungle baby from constant aberrant hatchlings.
lol i didn't mean to start a big debate, but its good to get people talking about things. Makes you work your noggin a bit
-----