Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Ok, I kind of understand the jag gene however im trying to get something straight so any information is highly appreciated.
The Jaguar gene is a co-dom/dom gene and should eventually produce a super correct? So is the super a leucistic? or a super red hypo or the banana?

The Jaguars produce so many different kinds of Jaguars, how could you really even predict the outcome for the jaguars clutches?
-----
Pat
"You keep WHAT in your freezer?" "Mice. And rats. If that bothers you, I can call them 'cows' instead."

1.2 Water Pythons (Liasis Fuscus)
1.1 (100% het albino Clark Strain) Retics
1.1 Coastal Carpet Pythons
.1 Nhandu Chromatus
.1 Pitbull Wolfe mix

Nothing is agreed upon across the board.
Jags reliably produce Jags, but everything else is up to debate.
To my knowledge, most keepers think that the leucy is the homozygous form.

Drop me an email if I can help.
-----
Ben Team
Mark Davis
New Paradigm Herpetoculture
Captive Bred Morelia
404-438-2135
chondro776@yahoo.com

All the evidence points to Jaguar being a co-dominant mutation, with the "super" form being a leucistic.

Everything else is just speculation at this point. For example, there have been lots of breedings over the past 12 seasons and the "hypo" or "red hypo" Jaguars have not proven to be genetic (in the traditional sense). Many breeders have abandoned using the "hypo/red hypo" terminology, as those terms tend to imply a separate genetic mutation.

>>Nothing is agreed upon across the board.
>>Jags reliably produce Jags, but everything else is up to debate.
>>To my knowledge, most keepers think that the leucy is the homozygous form.
>>
>>Drop me an email if I can help.
>>-----
>>Ben Team
>>Mark Davis
>>New Paradigm Herpetoculture
>>Captive Bred Morelia
>>404-438-2135
>>chondro776@yahoo.com
-----
----------------------------------
Anthony Caponetto
www.ACreptiles.com

I still see these terms a bunch...although I did absolutely notice from your website that you and I were on a similar page.

I have argued against these terms for a while (and we have animals that would easily be considered 'hypo' so the distinction would absolutely benefit us were it true).

(Granted this animal also had a tiger parent, which is a bit of an x factor, however, I doubt that many would argue her 'hypo' status).

I would love to see this, and other silly claims about Jaguar lines regarding normal siblings, go away this year.
-----
Ben Team
Mark Davis
New Paradigm Herpetoculture
Captive Bred Morelia
404-438-2135
chondro776@yahoo.com

I have been undecided as to the terminology as well. I can truly understand and comprehend both arguments that red hypos/hypos exists, and the same for the other side. I tend to lean more upon the explanation that they are HIGHLY variable, and since the Jag gene does, in fact, effect color development it tends to further enhance the colors on some and not so much on others. There is no doubt they should be graded accordingly, but the term "hypo" implies predictable genetic trait, when in fact it seems to be random, and highly variable.

I do know that the jag gene effects, at random, any and all offspring, including siblings. Some of the sibs that come from Jag breedings are absolutely phenomenal. It just seems to be so unpredictable. I guess that is what makes it fun. You truly do question what the result of every breeding will be.

I'm not going to get sucked into this subject like I have in the past, but yes.

Most breeders, especially in Europe (the one's working with Jags the longest), have abandoned that terminology because of all the confusion.

What defines a "hypo" or "red hypo" is a matter of personal opinion and what's more, there is no genetic basis. That being said, most people feel it's misleading to assign distinct "morph" labels to them.

It's so confusing that the only ones really using the terminology to describe their hatchlings are people who've bought directly from Jan Eric.

I know people who have bought a "hypo" Jaguar from him and then had him tell them that their babies aren't "hypos". I also know people who've bought "hypos" and then had the breeder tell them a year later that it's probably not a "hypo" after all.

If it's that confusing and that hard to tell what is and what isn't a "hypo", then do they really deserve a distinct name?

I'm not totally convinced either way, but it doesn't look good. The "super red hypos" and "super hypos" make me want to believe, but it's a little odd that only one breeder can produce them (even though Jaguars have been around since 1994).

I think most people realize that it just boils down to pretty Jaguars and not-so-pretty Jaguars.

>>
>>I still see these terms a bunch...although I did absolutely notice from your website that you and I were on a similar page.
>>
>>I have argued against these terms for a while (and we have animals that would easily be considered 'hypo' so the distinction would absolutely benefit us were it true).
>>
>>
>>(Granted this animal also had a tiger parent, which is a bit of an x factor, however, I doubt that many would argue her 'hypo' status).
>>
>>I would love to see this, and other silly claims about Jaguar lines regarding normal siblings, go away this year.
>>-----
>>Ben Team
>>Mark Davis
>>New Paradigm Herpetoculture
>>Captive Bred Morelia
>>404-438-2135
>>chondro776@yahoo.com
-----
----------------------------------
Anthony Caponetto
www.ACreptiles.com

All I need to be convinced that the hypo terminology is valid is a list of definitive traits (ideally a set of polar character states) and a confirmed pattern of inheritance.
So far, no one can provide this.

And as for the supers, they look very cool, but as was said in another thread on this topic- many juvie carpets can look very light as hatchlings....

Where are all these 'supers' now? I haven't seen any pics of them as they have matured. Now, I don't keep my 'ear to the ground' quite as much as you perhaps, so maybe I have just missed them.

-----
Ben Team
Mark Davis
New Paradigm Herpetoculture
Captive Bred Morelia
404-438-2135
chondro776@yahoo.com