Tokay Morphs...

oli

New member
I'm not really sure that you should be falsely advertising animals as double hets when you yourself (or anybody else for that matter) has not proven out the leucistic gene as being (simple) recessive. It is misleading and incorrectly labeled as a double heterozygous, so you may want to consider editing your posts accordingly. I ended up with a 1.2 of your DH for powder blue x leucistic tokay geckos and feel misled. I did not purchase them from you directly, I traded a friend for them who had just relayed the information on them that he had received from you. So I went into the trade believing and not even questioning the association of these geckos being DH's. I take responsibility for not having fully researched and spoken to enough people about these genetics, but I just have never heard of a situation like this. Being that I was truly interested in the leucistic part of the genetics I don't think I would have acquired these animals if I had known the information that I do now. I really hope that you are correct in your assumption in regards to the leucistic genes as I would really love to incorporate these genetics into my colony. And listen, I'm not attacking you I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not saying you maliciously coined them DH's to sell them for more, or that you purposefully misrepresented them as you may very well believe yourself that they are double hets. That being said, until the genetics are proven, more information should be disclosed on the actual facts and not just speculation.
 

thehotchik1000

New member
Well I am sorry you feel that way Oli...
What I do know is the the animals that I "coined" dh's are bred from a pb male x a Lucy female. Every time I sold any of those babies (the dh's) I represented them as accurate as possible. I've always told my customers:
1. Offspring of a Lucy female x powder blue male
2. No the Lucy part is not proven yet.
3. No we don't know if that trait is simple recessive or more complex

I don't know what you traded for them, but I beleive my pricing to be fair.

Every single person and there arent many that have received dh's from me( I can count them on one hand). From the start, right out of the gate, have been given the facts not speculation.
What I do know, is in genetics the babies receive 1/2 of each parents chromosomes. This is why I bred two visual parents together. Do we know exactly how the Lucy part works... No! Did I want to give other folks the chance to play around with it? Yes! I beleive that I as a breeder have been totally upfront and honest about this project. I know my pricing is fair, and That is the chance one would take playing with hets. Especially on a "newer" project. If you would like to pm/email me more details about whom traded you, when you traded, pics of the animals you received, I can either confirm or deny that those particular animals came from me and my breedings. If I can confirm those animals came from my breeding of the Lucy x pb I would tell you the same as I told my other customers whom purchased those babies from me. Just as everyone whom has inquired/purchased them have been.
I Have ALWAYS been available for people to come get information DIRECTLY from me. I don't understand how you would feel misled unless you did talk directly to me. I unfortunately don't know what was said to you, and what information was relayed. But I as the person who bred these animals have full confidence. I have also TOTALLY understand when someone didn't not want to purchase from me and/or participate in the project because the Lucy gene was still unproven.
Thanks,
Morgan
802-498-7124
Homegrownscales@live.com
Feel free to email or call me directly if you wish.





Check out what's new on my website... www.Homegrownscales.com
 

oli

New member
Thanks for the detailed explanation thehotchik100, I appreciate it. And like I said, I'm not blaming you or accusing you of anything as I did not get the animals directly from you. Nor do I have any qualms with your prices, ethics, motivations, or whether or not you are up front with your customers about disclosing the exact nature of the breedings/offspring. That is not what is in question here. What is being exposed here is the issue of associating the leucistic trait with being (simple) recessive. Is the leucistic gene simple recessive in ball pythons, yes. Is it simple recessive with leopard geckos, indeed it is. But does that automatically mean that it is the case in tokays? I would expect it to be, but like you mentioned, tokay geckos genetics can be more complex than just co-dominant or simple recessive. Therefore it is not appropriate to call the progeny hets. This term is loosely being thrown around now, just look at it on this forum as well as others. It's just not the correct term. End of story. No need to take it as a personal attack, that's not what this is all about. This is a discussion, and I'm just looking to get some personal information, nothing more. I am aware that there have been several others that have bred leucistic tokay geckos, but none of them has confirmed that there is any relation to a recessive trait. They may have proven that it is not a (co)dominant trait, but that doesn't automatically toss it into the recessive or simple recessive category. That's all I'm saying. Terms that are obviously not fully understood are being slung around in the gecko community, and I'm just trying to bring that into the light and get a better understanding on what exactly is going on with these genetics. I'm no geneticist or geneaologist, I just have a desire to produce a leucistic tokay as I have seen a massive leucy tokay at the Hamm reptile show and from that day forth have been kind of infatuated with them. So I apologize if I came off negatively.
 

thehotchik1000

New member
I understand completely what you are saying.
I didn't take it directly as negative but perhaps the "false advertising" got me off in a defensive mode. The way I see this is simple. I've had this pair pb x L breeding for 3 years straight. With breaks to insure the female stays healthy. But no other male until now has been in the cage with her.
I have explored many options with the Lucy's
1. Them being high white Calicos
2. Co Dom trait
3. Simple recessive trait
4. Complex recessive trait

I do know that this particular female is not co Dom. As I also feel like she is not calico. That is based on what I have seen in her offspring as well as the traits I see in her.
What I see is left is sr or cr. I labeled them hets because I feel like especially coming from a visual that gene is there... But that is also why I inform people and price them accordingly.
I am also by no means a genetics expert either which is why It's been important to me to follow through on this project. Tokay gecko genes are interesting. The Lucy gene has been my favorite as well and I think just like some Bp lines are not compatible some tokay lines are not compatible. All tokay Calicos aren't compatible so why not Lucy?
This is the first year that I have been able to put one of her sons in to breed with her. Eggs should be hatching somewhere in between now and February. So we shall see. I think what comes from the dh x Lucy pairing will be exciting no matter what. This is why I also keep the forums updated as much as possible.
Feel free to keep in contact with me, or as I go along I will keep gu informed.




Check out what's new on my website... www.Homegrownscales.com
 

oli

New member
I will definitely keep in touch with you as I'm very interested in what you will produce with the mother to son cross! Hey, what would it prove if the mother to son cross produced leucistics, but the offspring of the leucyxPb did not produce leucistics? I'm assuming that this would fall into the category of complex recessive somehow, but how would that hash itself out in a punnet square? I tried to read a reptile genetics book, but after the 4th page I had no idea what the literature was getting to most of the time lol. Maybe I'll pick it up again and give it a second chance. The tokay's definitely motivate me to get a better understanding of genetics in general.
 

thehotchik1000

New member
Actually the son (dh) is the f1 offspring of the pb x L. If we got L's out of this breeding it would be sR. I have not gone 2 gens down as of yet. I wanted to start from the beginning and work my way in. I do Have 2nd gens being hatched, but it'll be about 6months before any males are ready. If the breeding dh1 x L doesn't provide L's I would go for a 2nd gen male to her. And I would consider that cR I guess. The reason I'm doing that is in case this (dh x L) doesn't prove I'd like to see if it skips a generation.
I personally would love to see some tiny white babies come out.


Check out what's new on my website... www.Homegrownscales.com
 

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
This is a great topic and very informative. Thank you guys/gals for acting like adults and keeping it civil. It's amazing how much more information you can get across on a forum when people act like adults instead of acting like trolls! We're all working towards the same goal with these various tokay morphs...to get these genetics figured out. It's going to take us a while, but each season we've all gotten a little closer. And sharing this info helps everyone. I expect that next season we are going to see a lot of results from a lot of us here. And if we're lucky, maybe even some newly created morphs as well.
 

oli

New member
No, it's understandable, but I don't think you understood my question lol. It's all good though, this conversation is almost better off for an actual verbal conversation. I just typed, then erased the question I had because somehow I could not word it correctly in order to be comprehensible. I guess time will tell, but the visual leucy breeding to her offspring will tell a lot about what is going on. It would really throw me off if that breeding produces leucy's when 2 PBxleucistic offspring bred together will not produce them. Of course there is a much greater chance of hitting the nail on the head with the visual leucy breeding to her offspring, rather than just 2 of her sibling offspring being bred together, but under normal recessive genetics both will do the trick eventually. So now you've thrown in a new curve ball with the every other generation theory ;) Interesting...
 

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
Oli, if you think that's confusing, try figuring out the genetic outcome for my current project of
Green Granite (calico x calico) x (calico x calico)!
Who knows what kind of crazy stuff is going to come out of that pairing.

Just the results from the calico double hets should produce:

=1/16 Homozygous (visual) for both calico A and B (super calico)

=2/16 het. calico A/homo calico B

=1/16 homo calico B

=2/16 het calico B /homo calico A

=4/16 double-hets for calico A and calico B

=2/16 het calico A

=1/16 homo calico A

=2/16 het calico B

=1/16 normal

Then, you add in the Green Granite genetics too, and it simply makes your head spin as to what the outcome might be!!!
 

thehotchik1000

New member
Yes.... I did the same thing with my last post. Write something and then delete. Write delete. Arg.
With doing the dh x dh. Sure theres the chance (if we assume tokay genetics are "normal") bc of the pb in the dhs there's also a chance of getting a Lucy-powderblue. But bc they lay two eggs at a time that could take forever.
I Have somewhere around 30 eggs cooking from a dh x dh. And we'll see. The worst part is the waiting game.
There's 4 eggs cooking with the dh x L. Hopefully, bc I'm bringing the dh back to the visual parent I'll get some great results (in "less" time?) lol


Check out what's new on my website... www.Homegrownscales.com
 

Logie Bear

New member
Wow hotchick, you've got some lovely babies there! Are the DH's and the visual powder blues that you are producing related, or from 2 different bloodlines? I really hope you are successful with the lucy line-breeding. Does anyone even know if lucy's come out of the egg patternless or develop into their colors over time (like a calico)? Its all very exciting. :3
 

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
For whatever it's worth, everyone that I've talked to that have bred llucy x lucy, the babies did not come out as lucy. They looked like normals. THis could mean that A) it's not simple recessive. Or B) the morph develops over time or C) perhaps the lucys weren't compatible (although I find that a harder pill to swallow).
 

billewicz

New member
I believe that Morgan and others here in the US have been very vocal about the as yet unproven genetics on Calico and Leucistic Tokay. It has been fodder in the Morph forum here for some time.

I have 5 pairs of Calico to Calico pairings that have all produced normal looking offspring. Until we can line breed these a few generations we are not going to really know but the best guess at the moment is that they are het for each variation of Calico genetics. Would you not call them double hets?


Also, just like breeding Tremper Albino Leopards to Bell Albino Leo's, two of my Calico to Calico pairings has produced nothing. Not even infertile eggs. Another indicator that these may be visual, but not the same exact strain.

Actually, I've started pairing Calico and Leucistic to other very different morphs because it occurred to me that if I ever get a visual from breeding siblings down the road, I'd never know which original Calico parent the gene came from without breeding back to the parents. Again, I see the offspring as het for Calico and het for Patternless Powders. Unless they are both recessive and then you get the percentage of possible het deal, right?

And it gets better. I have what I thought were Leucistic, all white, peach head with black eyes that have developed black spots. I have Calico, same description with a lot more black patches that just keep getting darker to the point they almost look like a Granite. And I've got animals that were thought to be Granite but the area around the eyes and the toes look like a Calico.

The point here is the ever changing dynamics in Tokay coloration add to the genetic challenge.

In a few years we may look back on this and laugh after we have all named a few morphs that we have proven out. But until them the Tokay mystery is wide open for discovery, enjoy!

Michael
 

oli

New member
Yes exactly like you said I would guess that they were hets, but that does not mean that they necessarily are hets. I really don't think that this is too much of a issue to grasp. It may be correct labeling but until we can prove these genetics out it is the incorrect label. If you just want to mis use the term heterozygous out of convenience rather than applying it in the correct scientific meaning of the word it's just incorrect. Even if it was labeled as potentially a double het it would be more appropriate. Not everyone has even read the past discussions on the issue and those folks would just take it as a confirmed simple recessive trait. All we know is what the parents look like, nothing else. Whos to say that this animal isn't a pied animal rather than a leucistic or a calico?
 

billewicz

New member
Shhhh!!! I'm working on the pied vs. "is it Calico or is it pied". And frankly, so far I'm having better luck on the pied.
 

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
I have to kind of agree with Oli on this. I try very hard to refer to calico x calicos as "calico x calico" and not as "double hets". Until it's proven, they arent heterozygous. Just because 2 are bred together, doesn't make them hets. In a co-dom trait for example, there are no hets. It's either visual, or it doesn't carry the gene at all. You have to prove first and foremost that the trait is recessive before you can assume that you can make hets. I'm certainly NOT saying that Morgan (or anyone else) did anything intentionally wrong. But I personally see those offspring as being "powder blue x lucy" OR "het. powder blue (as it's a proven recessive trait) and poss. het. lucy". And, as weird as these morphs can behave (as mentioned by Michael), I think we need to be careful as to how the genetics are presented to people.

A good example of this is crested gecko "morphs". Many (most) of them are not recessive. They're just an extremely variable animal and have the ability to produce many different colors and patterns. But most of them don't breed true and as such, you'll very rarely see anyone refer to a crested gecko as being "het" for a particular color or pattern. That very well could end up being the case for some of these tokay "morphs". Until we prove them, we just don't know.
 

Riverside Reptiles

Administrator (HMFIC)
Just an FYI to everyone, I'm going to merge this thread up to the "Tokay Morph" sticky thread since it applies directly to morphs and I think that the conversation is one that is important to everyone working with morphs.
 

thehotchik1000

New member
Wow hotchick, you've got some lovely babies there! Are the DH's and the visual powder blues that you are producing related, or from 2 different bloodlines? I really hope you are successful with the lucy line-breeding. Does anyone even know if lucy's come out of the egg patternless or develop into their colors over time (like a calico)? Its all very exciting. :3

The Dh and powders are half related I guess. 2 different dh mothers have produced this group of pb bred with a non related pb male. I have a picture that I've been keeping on my phone for a long time now. This is from another forum and I'm sure others have seen it before.
It's a picture of a little Lucy hatchling obviously right out of the egg pure white and gorgeous. I can't remember the name of the breeder or his handle on the forum. Id love to post it but I'd want to Give credit to the person it belong to. I just cant find any of the info. I've been holding on to the pic for quite awhile bc it's my glimmer of sunshine. 😝



Check out what's new on my website... www.Homegrownscales.com
 
Top