# "Giant" Leopard geckos: Genetics vs environment



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Following on from this popular thread (http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/lizards/850672-giant-leopard-geckos-some-interesting.html) I decided to share some of my (well, my own and several fellow enthusiasts) data on the relationship between genetic predisposition and environmental factors, and how this influences adult size.

Over the past 4-5 years, myself and a number of other small-scale (non-commercial) gecko enthusiasts have been taking a closer look at the phenotypic delimitation of “giant” and “super giant” Leopard geckos, with specific focus on a) the influence of genetics vs environment on adult weight and b) trait heritability.

I suspect most people familiar with “giants” will also be familiar with the phenotype delimitation typically quoted by other keepers, namely “Males reach 80-110 grams and females 60-90 grams by one year of age”. My main problem with this as phenotype delimitation is that weight is influenced not only by genetic predisposition, but it is also heavily influenced by environmental conditions. With this in mind, it seemed reasonable to assume that under a constant dietary regime, an underlying genetic predisposition to larger size (weight and/or length) should be visible between “giant” and “non-giant” individuals.

To test the hypothesis that the “giant” phenotype is predisposed to larger weight and/or length that “non-giant” phenotypes, we carried out the following trials:

1) Growth (weight & length) experiments on four categories of males (temperature sexed) with the same phenotype (details below). Each category consisted of 150 mixed “morph”, multiple lineage individuals hatched in three different years. Each individual was housed under identical (constant) conditions, and exposed, from birth to one of three dietary regimes (n=50 per regime) (based on volume and fat content).

Categories:

Non-giant normal – Hatchlings from parents of non-giant origin that weighed between 50 – 80g prior to copulation (both parents).

Non-giant large – Hatchlings from parents of non-giant origin that weighed between 80 – 120g prior to copulation (both parents).

Giant (single copy) – One parent was a “super giant” (1st, 2nd or 3rd generation) weighing between 100-120 (depending on sex), the other parent a ‘normal’ sized individual weighing between 50 – 80g. The “super giant” parent was male in 50% of cases.

Super giant (double copy) – Both parents were “super giants” (1st, 2nd or 3rd generation) weighing between 100-120g prior to copulation.

All parents ranged from 12 months to 5 years.

2) Weight at hatching for 50 individuals per category (delimited above).

3) Total length at 12 months (tip-to-tip), tested for all individuals, under all dietary regimes.

Actually, we recorded quite a bit more than this (data not shown), but it isn’t really essential to the take home message here.

So, Figure 1 shows mean weight at 12 months for all four categories, and all three dietary regimes. What is pretty obvious from looking at the graph, is that there is an effect (a statistically significant one) of diet type on mean weight. This is perhaps unsurprising to most people. What is a little more surprising (although this will depend on how you look at it), is that there is no statistical difference between categories. Or to put it another way, within dietary regimes, “giant” and “non-giant” individuals did not have significantly different mean weights at 12 months.

We repeated these measurements, continuing the same dietary regimes at 18 months (figure 2), and while the absolute values for weight had changed (albeit slightly), there was still no significant difference between categories. There was still a statistically significant difference between dietary regimes however.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

What exactly does this mean? Well, contrary to what we would expect if genetic predisposition played an important role in growth rate, there was no statistically significant difference between categories (“giant” and “non-giant”) in mean weight at 12 or 18 months. This means that what and how much you feed your animal is a key determinant of its adult weight. While there was some fluctuation (standard deviation) around the means, if you feed your animals the same controlled diet, their adult weight will not vary significantly (if all other parameters are equal).

We also have growth rates over time for each category & regime (data not shown), which show that growth rates do not vary significantly either.

In addition to weight, many people feel that “giants” are larger at hatching, and also achieve larger length (cm) as adults than “non-giants”. In figure 3 you can see that again, hatchling weight does not vary significantly between categories. It is worth mentioning at this point, that resource allocation to eggs (by the female parent) can vary largely depending on conditions prior to laying, which could effect hatchling size in other peoples collections (but not here, as parental diet was constant). Also in this graph, you can see that mean length at 12 months (here for dietary regime 3, although all show the same pattern), also does not vary significantly between categories.

This actually poses a little bit of a problem for us. If the phenotype is not constant, and not reproducible, we are not able to test if it is segregating at a single locus (or its mode of inheritance). This, for me at least is not surprising. Knowing a little about genetics, the idea that a single gene could be responsible for weight variation to the extent typically mentioned is to me, preposterous. Genetic variation can influence size and growth rate, but it is incredibly unlikely that this would be controlled by a single locus (I would place the likely number of loci at above 100).

So, what does this mean for all owners of “giant” Leopard geckos? Well, adult weight (and length) is predominantly the product of diet, and is not controlled by a single (simply heritable) locus (even if it was, demonstrating this based on the current phenotype delimitation would be impossible given the evidence here). Size can be influenced by a large number of loci (polygenic), but disentangling this relationship is difficult. Under conditions of frequent inbreeding, achieving a background of homozygosity could theoretically explain why a trait appears to act as a single co-dominant locus, but of course, diet would likely confound this.

I am not saying your animal is not genetically predisposed to be large (it may well be – but not by a single locus). I am not saying you have been mis-sold something, which doesn’t exist, and I am not saying anyone has lied about this ‘morph’. What I am saying, is that based on this evidence, the previously described phenotype is not valid, and as such there is no adequate way to test for segregation of phenotypes. Basically put, weight is a poor phenotype delimiter for this trait (as are hatchling weight and adult length).

In an ideal world of course, I would love to look at “giant” (one copy) and “non-giant” (no copies) off-spring from a single cross, however there is no guaranteed way to do this (and of course, I fully disagree with the idea that this trait is simply heritable). People have mentioned differences in body proportions, but we find no consistent evidence of this.

This leaves one real question, are owners of “giant” Leopard geckos, sub-consciously (or consciously) over feeding their animals to achieve the “phenotype” they desire? I would suspect so unfortunately. Again, I am not casting aspersions, but it is important for all to realize what constitutes a healthy weight/ shape for their animal, and not to feed it until they reach “super giant”.

Kind regards,

Andy


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Many thanks for sharing that data Andy - very informative and indeed 'food for thought'.
I share your views wholeheartedly on this one.....


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

hi 
i have a giant male one copy and a female no copy together at the moment there both the same morph high yellow tremper het blizzard once i get eggs what info do you want me to keep from the babies i did offer on the other thread to get together with other giant owners and do a breeding group to see what we get i still would 

Paul


----------



## Rawwwrchazli (Mar 16, 2012)

That was actually a really interesting read. =]

Thanks for sharing, I bet that was a hell of an experience to get all that data together.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Can only access this via phone at the moment and it wont let me view the graphs. For now I just want to say a big thankyou to Andy for sharing what is a remarkable study. Reading the results via phone isnt easy so I will look forwards to s proper read later. Im sure there are some interesting discussions ahead.
Many thanks Andy.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

an excellent read ~ thanks Andy


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Thank you Andy!
It's the behind the scenes work like this, that people like Andy do that influences the hobby and helps better our understandings in such a wide variety of ways. :no1:

Although I'm not shocked by the overall findings, I am quite surprised to see just how close the mean weights were across all 3 categories were.

For me the biggest food for thought here is something I was talking to a fellow breeder about recently that Andy picked up on.... "Do Giant owners subconsciously over feed their geckos?". Is this having adverse effects on the geckos health? I agree with Andy, unfortunately I think so!

Is the progress we have made in live food rearing, our better understanding of gut loading, and our improved husbandry in the hobby a reason why so many leopard geckos reach 'giant status' now?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

I think you have touched on some good points here Sam. So I address them sequentially:



sam12345 said:


> Although I'm not shocked by the overall findings, I am quite surprised to see just how close the mean weights were across all 3 categories were.


This was a little surprising for me also. One expects (and indeed often observes - albeit anecdotally) that 'large geckos' produce large offspring (and this _is_ happening, but to a pretty small extent). However there is generally a great deal of difference in both parental and offspring environmental variables which could play a role. Of course, I am sure that any number of people could find exceptions (huge geckos or very small ones) but it would appear that, in general, diet is key. Again, resource allocation to eggs can make a big difference to hatchling weight, but this does not by default mean the individual will be bigger as an adult.



> For me the biggest food for thought here is something I was talking to a fellow breeder about recently that Andy picked up on.... "Do Giant owners subconsciously over feed their geckos?". Is this having adverse effects on the geckos health? I agree with Andy, unfortunately I think so!


This is something we have spoken about before, and it is still a problem. In general, weight seems to be used as a proxy for health, this is a bad idea. We still desperately need a quick, efficient way of assessing appropriate body mass in captive animals...



> Is the progress we have made in live food rearing, our better understanding of gut loading, and our improved husbandry in the hobby a reason why so many leopard geckos reach 'giant status' now?


Don't get me wrong, I certainly think there is a selectively bred tendency towards larger geckos (in comparison to WC for example, or captive animals 10 years ago) across the whole captive population, but certainly our husbandry practices have got significantly better, which undoubtedly affects the efficiency of nutrient transfer, and ultimately affects size and health.

Andy


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

I just thought I would add a link to a paper (http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_5/Issue_3/Gauthier_Lesbarreres_2010.pdf) which demonstrates not only the impact of diet on growth rate and body mass, but also the phenotypic expression of several fitness related traits (head width, head length and tail width).

While they did not use "giant" lineage geckos, the effect of diet on morphological traits other than simply mass is very relevant here.

Andy


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I just thought I would add a link to a paper (http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_5/Issue_3/Gauthier_Lesbarreres_2010.pdf) which demonstrates not only the impact of diet on growth rate and body mass, but also the phenotypic expression of several fitness related traits (head width, head length and tail width).
> 
> While they did not use "giant" lineage geckos, the of diet on morphological traits other than simply mass is very relevant here.
> 
> Andy


Andy, I've only had a brief glimpse at the paper, but I look forward to reading it in depth as it looks very informative and detailed!

From what I have scanned so far, the paper also touches on another hotly debated subject.
Which live food source is more beneficial? Obviously the calciumhosphorus ratio aside, mealworms still seem a far superior prey item that crickets.
The fact that this has been undertaken in optimal and equal conditions backs this theory all the more.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

It certainly does Sam. I'm sure many will be surprised about this.

Andy


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

sam12345 said:


> Andy, I've only had a brief glimpse at the paper, but I look forward to reading it in depth as it looks very informative and detailed!
> 
> From what I have scanned so far, the paper also touches on another hotly debated subject.
> Which live food source is more beneficial? Obviously the calciumhosphorus ratio aside, mealworms still seem a far superior prey item that crickets.
> The fact that this has been undertaken in optimal and equal conditions backs this theory all the more.


*nods* having read this paper before it warrants a further read  With regards to mealworms there's also at least one study showing effective ways of gutloading specifically with regards to the calciumhosphorus ratio... unfortunatly most of the papers I have are either in printed or pdf format and it'll take a while to dig out any links (unless Andy already has them : victory
Another thing the study (along with others) touches on is the general age that adulthood is reached as opposed to the 'breeding' weight 


GlasgowGecko said:


> It certainly does Sam. I'm sure many will be surprised about this.


agreed ~ many thanks again Andy for posting this study


----------



## xamydaviesx (Aug 21, 2011)

Interesting read, reminds me off uni days doing studies etc.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Its interesting but my only comment is that it was only for 120 days which doesn`t seem long enough to me to draw any conclusions.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

colinm said:


> Its interesting but my only comment is that it was only for 120 days which doesn`t seem long enough to me to draw any conclusions.


The study in posts 1 and 2 were conducted longer than this from the write up : victory:


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

colinm said:


> Its interesting but my only comment is that it was only for 120 days which doesn`t seem long enough to me to draw any conclusions.


as Sam pointed out the research that Andy was involved in (first and second posts of thread) took place over a far longer period ~ the other study link posted (along with the studies/literature cited in it) shows the relevancy of environment/dietary effects on morphological traits and whilst mass could be argued the study does point to an increase in skeletal developement reflected in longer head length and width


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Exactly I was not referring to Andy`s work as I dont know(or really care too much) about morphs to comment.The point I was trying to make was that I dont think that you can ascertain growth patterns in a study that is only 120 days long.Its a good start but surely you would have to get them to adult size?


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Today is the first chance I have had to sit at the computer to read Andy's (Glasgow Gecko) study properly. It makes fascinating reading. It confirms what many of us suspected, external factors such as diet can play a big part in the production of 'giants'. I think the subject of subconscious or even conscious overfeeding of presumed 'giant' hatchlings is also very significant. 

Andy has a well deserved reputation for producing outstanding work such as this study. I think he deserves far greater recognition for his efforts and the valuable contributions he has made to the hobby. Its a little disappointing that those who expressed such strong belief in 'giants' on the original thread on this topic have failed to at least acknowledge Andy's efforts. Hopefully its just a case they are also busy and will get around to commenting soon.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Mal said:


> Its a little disappointing that those who expressed such strong belief in 'giants' on the original thread on this topic have failed to at least acknowledge Andy's efforts. Hopefully its just a case they are also busy and will get around to commenting soon.


Nail on the head :whistling2:


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

quote. Its a little disappointing that those who expressed such strong belief in 'giants' on the original thread on this topic have failed to at least acknowledge Andy's efforts.

well i did try to comment but as i got no reply to my offer of using my pair that i have already breed i thought i leave you lot to it , its funny that all the negative posters all jump on this data for one i would like to have seen photo of the off spring as most of us giant owners say there is a size difference between normal and giant babies i will see as soon as i have some eggs hatch will post some pics of the babies then i will put together my own data and see what we get


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Actually your original point (the offer of collecting data from your animals), is covered in the first post, and so I didn't see a need to really reply. There is NO way to distinguish "giant" from non-giant offspring when the hatch (differences in weight and/or morphological variation is not seen). In fact, the results of this study clearly show there is no way to distinguish them at any stage under identical dietary regimes.

I'm not sure what pictures would add, when the quantitate data is very clear.

Andy


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Andy apart from diet do you feel that enclosure size would have any bearing on adult size?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

It's an interesting question Colin. Of course, in this trial, all enclosure sizes were uniform (so i don't have any quantitative evidence to back up any claims I'm afraid) but, conceivably yes. The reason I say this is that enclosure size _could_ affect behavior patterns which in terms could alter volumes of food consumed (although this probably works in both directions).

What would your feelings be on this Colin?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I dont keep Leopard Geckos anymore,but with the species I keep I certainly feel thats the case.

Many times I have had a young Phelsuma escape in my room,and whilst there is probably adequate free range food for them they dont get fed as intensively as the caged ones.But the escaped ones always grow quicker and larger.I know this isn`t scientific but I certainly feel that its the case.

I suppose its the old goldfish in a bowl syndrome.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Well exactly. Anecdotally, I know my _Phelsuma_ hatchlings (mainly larger species) do exhibit different growth rates based on vivarium size, but again, this isn't scientific.

They also eat as greedily as Leopard gecko hatchlings...


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

I have only just seen this thread and won't be able to read it fully until later. Firstly, thanks to glasgow for taking the time to post it.

One thing I noticed as I skimmed over the thread is a theory that breeders feed presumed giants more than presumed normals. This is absolute tosh and has been plucked from thin air as far as I can see. I count individual food items into my hatchling's tanks and every hatchling gets the same amount. the tanks are also of a uniform size and they only stay in them for 6-8 weeks.

I also cant accept being told that what I've seen with my own eyes is wrong. Giant hatchlings are easily distinguishable from normals. I don't care how many degrees someone has, I take what I've seen for myself over what I am told any day!


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

geckograham said:


> I have only just seen this thread and won't be able to read it fully until later. Firstly, thanks to glasgow for taking the time to post it.
> 
> One thing I noticed as I skimmed over the thread is a theory that breeders feed presumed giants more than presumed normals. This is absolute tosh and has been plucked from thin air as far as I can see. I count individual food items into my hatchling's tanks and every hatchling gets the same amount. the tanks are also of a uniform size and they only stay in them for 6-8 weeks.
> 
> I also cant accept being told that what I've seen with my own eyes is wrong. Giant hatchlings are easily distinguishable from normals. I don't care how many degrees someone has, I take what I've seen for myself over what I am told any day!


This really doesn't have anything to do with degrees (although, you're right, I do have a few). This 'study' is completely unbiased, and conducted with a relatively large sample size (in total, 600 geckos. 300 of which were from "giant" lines). Not only are the results robust, but also tested statistically (which takes out all guess work and feeling), and so I am quite happy with them.

I am completely unaware of any other similar studies which could support the claim that "giants" do achieve larger size under controlled dietary conditions, and unfortunately anecdotal evidence, really isn't so useful in this case.

I do not doubt you see larger hatchlings, or different growth rates. No one is saying this is not true. However, in this study, on a number of different lines, there was no significant difference between "giants" and "non-giants". This means that the phenotype delimitation is not accurate (and in fact is controlled by the environment), and therefore it is not testable to see if there is a 'genetic' component. As far as I am concerned, this makes it impossible to suggest that this trait is simply heritable (let alone acting codominantly).

Andy


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> One thing I noticed as I skimmed over the thread is a theory that breeders feed presumed giants more than presumed normals. This is absolute tosh and has been plucked from thin air as far as I can see. I count individual food items into my hatchling's tanks and every hatchling gets the same amount.


So because you do this, it means that its not possible that any one else in the leopard gecko breeding community has ever over fed a leo and passed it off as a giant, thus creating a catastrophic chain of events that have in turn ruined the reputation of the morph?



geckograham said:


> the tanks are also of a uniform size and they only stay in them for 6-8 weeks.


So after this time other factors can start playing a part in the growth of hatchlings?



geckograham said:


> I also cant accept being told that what I've seen with my own eyes is wrong. Giant hatchlings are easily distinguishable from normals. I don't care how many degrees someone has, I take what I've seen for myself over what I am told any day!


Like I said in the original thread, we bred "Giants" and had our line from a breeder who imported some of the first ever "Giants" from Ron. Our gecko was a grandson of the original "Giant" geckos.
I too was convinced that the morph was as advertised, and the line did consistently produce huge offspring. I looked out for the "tell tail signs", the elongated body, longer snout, longer limbs. 
What changed my mind.... I decided to keep back a corking gecko who by these signs was a Giant. It grew to 56 grams. : victory:


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

well photo of all the babies at birth would of shown any size difference between normal`s and giant off spring ,and photo of the babies over the time of the study would of also shown any size gain on all of the babies so just sticking a load of numbers up does not mean its correct or wrong but until i see a group of giant normal babies myself and don't see a difference i will still say giant morph does excise


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> well photo of all the babies at birth would of shown any size difference between normal`s and giant off spring ,and photo of the babies over the time of the study would of also shown any size gain on all of the babies so just sticking a load of numbers up does not mean its correct or wrong but until i see a group of giant normal babies myself and don't see a difference i will still say giant morph does excise


BUT, what is also being said is that 'Normal' geckos produce a massive range of sizes in hatchlings. I have had 1g and 5g gecko babies from the same parents. Size difference is irrelevant in proving whether there is a single gene pair in play regarding the larger geckos we see. Nobody is arguing the fact that leos come in different shapes and sizes, we're showing a degree of doubt around what causes it. Andy's 'load of numbers' is actually scientific data, not just ooh loook my geckos big aint he................


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

As an outsider the evidence looks pretty conclusive to me.I dont see that Andy had any axe to grind here.If the geckos are measured and weighed throughout the study period photos would not help. He has done a study with enough individuals of different"types" with different feeding regimes over a long enough period to make it pretty evident to me.

Would I be right in assuming that the people who dont agree are selling Giants?


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

funny its the same old people that take every thing that said negatively about giants but as soon as myself or anyone else say anything for the giant morph were told that the other is right and were wrong , so tell me why my giant male is larger in always to my other male that is not a giant and there both the same age both fed the same things.

as i said i will see for myself once i have babies from my pairing then i will feed all of them the same and see what we get


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

no i am not selling giants i just happen to have one


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Big Red One said:


> BUT, what is also being said is that 'Normal' geckos produce a massive range of sizes in hatchlings. I have had 1g and 5g gecko babies from the same parents. Size difference is irrelevant in proving whether there is a single gene pair in play regarding the larger geckos we see. Nobody is arguing the fact that leos come in different shapes and sizes, we're showing a degree of doubt around what causes it. Andy's 'load of numbers' is actually scientific data, not just ooh loook my geckos big aint he................


and also at birth its the size as in head, legs, body length etc the weight's of them only come into play at 6-12 month and a over fed gecko would not look like a giant does i would of said


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> and also at birth its the size as in head, legs, body length etc the weight's of them only come into play at 6-12 month and a over fed gecko would not look like a giant does i would of said


An over fed/over weight gecko would also not look like a large "in proportion" gecko.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> and also at birth its the size as in head, legs, body length etc the weight's of them only come into play at 6-12 month and a over fed gecko would not look like a giant does i would of said


A couple of weeks ago I hatched a really long limbed massive hatchling. It doesn't mean anything.... It's just bigger than the 'norm'

As for negativity, it's you who's getting defensive, some of us are just trying to explain our viewpoint. Once you can tell me with 100 percent certainty what makes a leopard gecko a 'giant' I may start to see your viewpoint. Until then I will reserve my right to feel that there is no discernible single genetic trait at play, if that is of course ok by you.......


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

This is just going around in circles! We all know that normal leos can have large hatchlings, this does NOTHING to disprove ANYTHING! Any species produces larger than average offspring but that is a different thing entirely. We are talking about breeding large geckos by design, not just breeding normals and hoping for bigguns!

I also struggle to see how over feeding can produce anything like a giant. The gecko may weigh enough but will just look fat. There is a difference between Vitali Klitschko, who is huge and me, who is fat!


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> This is just going around in circles! We all know that normal leos can have large hatchlings, this does NOTHING to disprove ANYTHING! Any species produces larger than average offspring but that is a different thing entirely. We are talking about breeding large geckos by design, not just breeding normals and hoping for bigguns!
> 
> I also struggle to see how over feeding can produce anything like a giant. The gecko may weigh enough but will just look fat. There is a difference between Vitali Klitschko, who is huge and me, who is fat!


Okay forget about the debate that followed Andy's study results.
The point that should be being discussed and focussed on is the results themselves.

The study was conducted using constants in the 3 categories and using both "Giant" and "Non Giant" hatchlings. In my eyes it doesn't matter what side of the debate I'm on you can't argue with the conclusion drawn from the results.

The argument for "Giants" is... They are bigger and longer at birth and throughout their growing lives into adulthood.
However the results of the experiment states their is no significant weight or length difference between these "Giant" and "Non Giant" offspring.
Using a basic knowledge of science and leopard geckos we should be able to understand unless these geckos have the exact same internal masses (i.e. muscle, fat, tissues, organs etc), the said characteristics would make them heavier. 
This is not the case, and therefore I think its fair to say the conclusion drawn is if you still want to class these geckos as "Giants" based on the traits you describe you cannot distinguish this as hatchlings.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Big Red One said:


> A couple of weeks ago I hatched a really long limbed massive hatchling. It doesn't mean anything.... It's just bigger than the 'norm'
> 
> As for negativity, it's you who's getting defensive, some of us are just trying to explain our viewpoint. Once you can tell me with 100 percent certainty what makes a leopard gecko a 'giant' I may start to see your viewpoint. Until then I will reserve my right to feel that there is no discernible single genetic trait at play, if that is of course ok by you.......


well i would take Ron tremper knowing a bit more about the subject than most you do ,
ok as Graham said were going in circles maybe someone should ask Ron trempers thought on it


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> well i would take Ron tremper knowing a bit more about the subject than most you do ,
> ok as Graham said were going in circles maybe someone should ask Ron trempers thought on it


I'm not interested in Ron Trempers thoughts.
He came up with the 'genetic giant' and marketed it, he's hardly going to say its a lie is he? He's also come up with other morphs which people have doubts over, Ron Tremper is a pioneer in leopard gecko breeding and apparently a very nice man, it doesn't make him correct about everything he's ever put his thoughts too......

Andy's data points to there being nothing discernably different to 'giants' and normals in the long term. 
If you want to believe in the single gene theory behind big Leos then fine, I personally don't.....


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Big Red One said:


> I'm not interested in Ron Trempers thoughts.
> He came up with the 'genetic giant' and marketed it, he's hardly going to say its a lie is he? He's also come up with other morphs which people have doubts over, Ron Tremper is a pioneer in leopard gecko breeding and apparently a very nice man, it doesn't make him correct about everything he's ever put his thoughts too......
> 
> Andy's data points to there being nothing discernably different to 'giants' and normals in the long term.
> If you want to believe in the single gene theory behind big Leos then fine, I personally don't.....


but every one that thinks your way is correct but anyone that does not is wrong


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

What strikes me as odd is that despite the fact that I have put forward a lot of data, from a long term study (which is also pretty conclusive), people are still arguing that "in their opinion, it is not so". Please, anybody, put forward evidence and a reasoned argument that would counter any of this data.

Again, I am not saying anyone has lied, but there is no quantitative evidence for the existence of "giants", and most certainly no evidence for its heritability. The fact that the phenotype cannot be delimited (at all) is evidence enough I think.

Andy


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> but every one that thinks your way is correct but anyone that does not is wrong


Sorry - but how do you work that one out ?

I've just said earlier that if your own belief is in giants, then fine. How does that equate to 'I'm right and you're wrong'?

All I am saying is that there is both anecdotal and fact based reasons to feel that whatever causes larger than average leopard geckos is not limited to a single gene pair acting co-dominantly as has been claimed.

You are the one that keeps 'going round in circles' and saying that you don't see any way other than there being a giant gene at play. Unless you get some photos.....


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Big Red One said:


> Sorry - but how do you work that one out ?
> 
> I've just said earlier that if your own belief is in giants, then fine. How does that equate to 'I'm right and you're wrong'?
> 
> ...


i get it from that every one that thinks like you do you agree with and you don't agree with anyone that think like i do so think we better agree to disagree on the subject.


----------



## MP reptiles (Dec 30, 2010)

I have to say this is very compelling evidence to anybody! and i dont understand how people are still arguing A great study there done very very precisely and with a lot of care! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, its the kind of thing I would be expecting to see in a leopard gecko book that you have to pay for!


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Is there any data included of all of the test geckos? Maybe the "normals" included we're only just short of giant proportions themselves! BRO says he has non giants producing large hatchlings. Is everything known about their bloodlines? Seems like a massive amount of data to collate that!

I have a brother who is a professor at Liverpool Uni, he has degrees in things I can't pronounce too and I always remember a conversation I had with him about how opinions formed prior to an experiment or study have a big effect on the findings. Something else to think about...


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Categories:
> 
> Non-giant normal – Hatchlings from parents of non-giant origin that weighed between 50 – 80g prior to copulation (both parents).
> 
> ...


The answer to your question is in the first post.

For the record, I am not quite a professor, but I am a scientist at the University of Zurich. This was undertaken with sound experimental design (albeit a simple one). The data is very clear. I can add further statistical outputs to verify what I am saying, but it essentially not adding anything. I also (along with the other members of the team) had no opinion either way as to a desired outcome. I find it a little bit low to question whether these results have been obtained without bias however.

I also have morphometric measurements for various traits, which basically show exactly the same patterns. Again, I could add this data here, but to be honest, it isn't needed, and I have considered submitting this for publication.

Andy


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Thats not a bad job,I thought that all of you geneticists studied pea plants or fruitflies.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

MP reptiles said:


> I have to say this is very compelling evidence to anybody! and i dont understand how people are still arguing A great study there done very very precisely and with a lot of care! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, its the kind of thing I would be expecting to see in a leopard gecko book that you have to pay for!


 
^^ this!

many thanks for sharing Andy.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

But where did all of those geckos come from, I am assuming they weren't all under the same roof?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

colinm said:


> Thats not a bad job,I thought that all of you geneticists studied pea plants or fruitflies.


Actually my day-to-day job is a bit less glamorous (this study was done at 'home'). I actually work on several model systems... none of them interesting!



geckograham said:


> But where did all of those geckos come from, I am assuming they weren't all under the same roof?


Again, this is all detailed in the first post. These came from multiple (relatively - as truly independent lines would not be possible) independent lines, and were housed in 6 different places. Why would this matter?

Andy


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Actually my day-to-day job is a bit less glamorous (this study was done at 'home'). I actually work on several model systems... none of them interesting!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so for you to say the giant morph does not exist and is only down to feeding and how it grown from a baby by the breeder can i ask have you sent this data to Ron Tremper himself as he was the founder of this morph have you looked at the birth records of that first giant that was hatched from two normal size parents mosses was 34g in 2 months and 140g in a year. all i can take from your study is you are saying that the breeder over fed geckos to make them bigger to sell them at a higher price to make money


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Madhouse5 said:


> so for you to say the giant morph does not exist and is only down to feeding and how it grown from a baby by the breeder can i ask have you sent this data to *Ron Tremper himself as he was the founder of this morph have you looked at the birth records of that first giant that was hatched from two normal size parents* mosses was 34g in 2 months and 140g in a year. all i can take from your study is you are saying that the breeder over fed geckos to make them bigger to sell them at a higher price to make money


No offence but I find that statement quite petit, which suprises me from your other posts?


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

in what way , the data says that there was no difference in the breeding group across the babies and that the giant morph does not exists what else can be the out come


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Madhouse5 said:


> in what way , the data says that there was no difference in the breeding group across the babies and that the giant morph does not exists what else can be the out come


 
You are totally fine to beleive what you wish I wasn't attacking that, I just had a problem with the way the post came out or maybe the way I read it? I would have expected a better argument already considering what has already been said. 

I am just pointing out considering your other posts around the forum I did find it quite petit with, what has already been debated and discussed and I find it a poor way to try and counter what this thread is about as already said Ron isn't going to sit there and say he lied is he, although I could be wrong, who knows right


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

yeah maybe your right i could of put it better just been thinking maybe to much think i should not take things personally, thanks


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

Madhouse5 said:


> yeah maybe your right i could of put it better just been thinking maybe to much think i should not take things personally, thanks


 
Well I still like you, just not that post


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

lol that's good then


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> so for you to say the giant morph does not exist and is only down to feeding and how it grown from a baby by the breeder can i ask have you sent this data to Ron Tremper himself as he was the founder of this morph have you looked at the birth records of that first giant that was hatched from two normal size parents mosses was 34g in 2 months and 140g in a year. all i can take from your study is you are saying that the breeder over fed geckos to make them bigger to sell them at a higher price to make money


I think you are missing the point. If you cannot delimit the phenotype (and it it very clear that we cannot), you can make no inference whether there is any heritability (of course there is no concievable way this could be simply heritable anyway).

Of course I have no problem showing RT the data in its final format. Why would I? It is very clear, and stands up to scrutiny without problems (unlike the information he has given about this 'morph'). I very much doubt he has this type of data, but would be happy to see it if he does.

One questions, how can a codominant morph arise from two normal parents?

I make no claims that he over fed, or any suggestion that he did anything just to make money. I am saying there is only environmental differences that are creating difference in size and body shape. I can understand that you are upset about this, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Andy


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

sorry i just don't see the point of your study apart from trying to prove that RT made it all up! when you get down to the bottom of it that's all the outcome can be there no medical reason , there not like its going to make caring for leo`s any different the whole study for me is to discredit the man and that why i think its floored.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

quote One questions, how can a codominant morph arise from two normal parents?

i could be wrong but it could be a super of both parents he could of got lucky as you know most of the morph are early breeders getting lucky putting morphs together not knowing what they will get in the outcome that's one of the things that make this hobby so cool the expectation of not knowing what your going to hatch out


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> sorry i just don't see the point of your study apart from trying to prove that RT made it all up! when you get down to the bottom of it that's all the outcome can be there no medical reason , there not like its going to make caring for leo`s any different the whole study for me is to discredit the man and that why i think its floored.


I don't know Andy personally, but I really doubt that the guy has enough time on his hands to hypothesise, conduct and collate all this data, just to prove Ron wrong, and I think you're clutching at straws now.
None of the people (including myself) that see flaws in the mode of inheritance advertised, are out to mar Mr Trempers hard earned reputation. I assure you of that.

I have no doubt that Ron's original line kicks out big offsprings, most of which reach his credentials for "Giants". I have no doubt that the morph seemed to act the way he described when released (theres actually a bit more into it here because, I believe it was first released as a dominant... But someone please correct me if I am wrong because at present I can't find anything on this). But... I assure you it would be very unusual for a single pair of genes (i.e. the ones described to act in a co dominant manner) to affect size in a leopard gecko. Thats without the muddying of the original "Giant" line, by money makers, people who don't understand genetic outcomes and people who identify "Giants" well before they meet Ron's specified criteria.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

i not clutching at anything i am stating a fact that there is no point to this study as the only outcome is to prove that the giant morph does not exist so there for trying to prove Ron wrong, other than that i cant see were this is going


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> i not clutching at anything i am stating a fact that there is no point to this study as the only outcome is to prove that the giant morph does not exist so there for trying to prove Ron wrong, other than that i cant see were this is going


So effectively what you are saying is there are no point in studies,research or investigations where the results could be controversial or upset someone?


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

I would also like to know what the reason was for carrying out this study in the first place. I'm starting to spot holes in it, the "test subjects" we're scattered all I've the place and I am assuming that the were cared for and measured by numerous different people. There is no way of knowing if all of the constants remained constant! Also, when Glasgow decided to enter the discussion on my original thread he did so in an aggressively condescending manner, suggesting he may indeed have an "axe to grind".


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

ok i am new to genetics in leo`s but i dont know what the parents of mosses was a cb pair or a pair of wc lets just say they was wc no one know what genetics are at work as i said it could of been pure luck he put together two with this one gene that made a super format of them both that was a giant bit like in royal pythons when BHB first got that pinstripe back in the 90 they had no idea what it was going to do oh god did it make them what they are today


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

is there any other reason for this study , is there a medical reason No , is this going to change they way leo`s are breed No, is this going to prove out a new animal that the giant in fact is not a leo just another type of gecko No so what is the point of it


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> I would also like to know what the reason was for carrying out this study in the first place. I'm starting to spot holes in it, the "test subjects" we're scattered all I've the place and I am assuming that the were cared for and measured by numerous different people. There is no way of knowing if all of the constants remained constant! Also, when Glasgow decided to enter the discussion on my original thread he did so in an aggressively condescending manner, suggesting he may indeed have an "axe to grind".





Madhouse5 said:


> is there any other reason for this study , is there a medical reason No , is this going to change they way leo`s are breed No, is this going to prove out a new animal that the giant in fact is not a leo just another type of gecko No so what is the point of it


Is this really the line this thread is going to go down?


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

what line that , that you sheep just follow this guy don't dispute his data or the thoughts behind the reason of this study in the first place like we do in the end the only outcome of this is to discredit the morph there no other reason


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> what line that , that you sheep just follow this guy don't dispute his data or the thoughts behind the reason of this study in the first place like we do in the end the only outcome of this is to discredit the morph there no other reason


Exactly that line! Lets leave the insults out of it shall we?

Look at the original thread, I had exactly the same mind set then as I do now.
Regardless of what a very respected member of the herping community, who has conducted numerous studies posts.

You forget, I bred "Giants" and witnessed the outcomes not happening right in front of my very eyes. Have you bred "Giants" or are you a bit miffed because you've just bought some and were hoping to breed?
As geckograham says.... 


geckograham said:


> I also cant accept being told that what I've seen with my own eyes is wrong.


Also why would the location of the geckos have any effect on the results if the constants (i.e. the food items, gut loading regimes and environmental factors such as enclosure and heat) were the same? We aren't talking a number of degrees north or south.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Come on guys, you're getting pretty pathetic now, and it's doing you no favors.

If you choose to believe unsupported speculation over clear quantitative evidence, that is fine. It says something about your reasoning, but it makes no difference to me. Each person that reads this is free to make up their own minds, as is only right. Until further data is made available, this will remain one of, if not the best source of information to address this question.

As for an "axe to grind" and "what is the point", really? Yes, this data clearly suggests that the morph delimitation is incorrect. I carried out this study because I wanted to know (the only reason any one ever questions anything). I don't know RT. I've had no dealings with him, and have no "axe to grind". Why would I? Even if I did, what would it matter? Unless you are sinking low enough to suggest the data is manipulated?

Really, these ridiculous arguments are doing more to harm your cause than help it.

Andy


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

i have a giant and i am breeding yes that not what i am getting at i don't care what i get from him he just my BFG i have no axe to grid at first it was more of the fact that i have a giant and seeing with my eyes the vast difference of him to my other males of the same age i was fighting his corner in the first post by Graham, then this one started up and you all jump on this study as gospel we are merely asking the reason for it


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Come on guys, you're getting pretty pathetic now, and it's doing you no favors.
> 
> If you choose to believe unsupported speculation over clear quantitative evidence, that is fine. It says something about your reasoning, but it makes no difference to me. Each person that reads this is free to make up their own minds, as is only right. Until further data is made available, this will remain one of, if not the best source of information to address this question.
> 
> ...


no we are just asking why the study in the first place as it make no difference to you apart form what i have stated before


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> i have a giant and i am breeding yes that not what i am getting at i don't care what i get from him he just my BFG i have no axe to grid at first it was more of the fact that i have a giant and seeing with my eyes the vast difference of him to my other males of the same age i was fighting his corner in the first post by Graham, then this one started up and you all jump on this study as gospel we are merely asking the reason for it


Would you question my reasoning if the results showed what you wanted and/or expected?

I went into this with no preference. It was not to "prove" anyone "wrong", nor was it to prove anyone right. The results are what they are. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Andy


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> i have a giant and i am breeding yes that not what i am getting at i don't care what i get from him he just my BFG i have no axe to grid at first it was more of the fact that i have a giant and seeing with my eyes the vast difference of him to my other males of the same age i was fighting his corner in the first post by Graham, then this one started up and you all jump on this study as gospel we are merely asking the reason for it


But the reason for it makes no difference?
The main point myself and others have tried to get across is....
It is very unlikely that size in leopard geckos can be affected by a single gene pair working in a co dominant manner.
Your gecko likely has a number of different gene pairs working together to make him larger than average. It's the same with humans, and once you grasp this concept I think you would perhaps look a little different and say okay big leopard geckos exist but their size isn't inheritable through co dominant genetics.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

why is asking the reason for the study doing me harm or is it more that i have hit the nail on the head that there is no point to this at all as the outcome does not prove anything for the same reason you say Rt data is wrong so could your be so i dispute your reasons for doing it , i have asked all the others on here many a time if we can put a breeding group together and see what we get from it but funny none of the disbelievers wanted to


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Would you question my reasoning if the results showed what you wanted and/or expected?
> 
> I went into this with no preference. It was not to "prove" anyone "wrong", nor was it to prove anyone right. The results are what they are.
> 
> ...


your missing my point , if your study had come back in anyway there still no point to it as it does not do anything except discredit the giant morph so that why i say its floored sorry that my take on it


----------



## Tombo46 (Aug 5, 2010)

Andy has conducted a scientific study as a scientist. It interests him and those involved. What more reason does he need? There is no greater cause for the study. It was done purely out of interest (from what I can gather).

People do seemingly "pointless" things all the time but what's pointless to you may not be to someone else.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

sam12345 said:


> But the reason for it makes no difference?
> The main point myself and others have tried to get across is....
> It is very unlikely that size in leopard geckos can be affected by a single gene pair working in a co dominant manner.
> Your gecko likely has a number of different gene pairs working together to make him larger than average. It's the same with humans, and once you grasp this concept I think you would perhaps look a little different and say okay big leopard geckos exist but their size isn't inheritable through co dominant genetics.


why can the giant not be a super of two co-dom adults , the same as tall people tend to breed other tall offspring there no reason why a large gecko can breed large offspring same its all part of the wonderful world of breeding


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't think there is any getting around the fact that we have a 'post count mafia' fawning over this guy because he uses flowery language and has a clutch of degrees. I just think the conditions may not have been as controlled as is being made out. As for sinking low enough, one of the conclusions of this study seems to be that giant breeders feed some geckos more than others in an attempt to "make" a giant. For me, you have to sink pretty low to start throwing that accusation around!

And ALL studies being conducted just because "I wanted to know"? What a load of :censor:!

I'm going to leave this thread alone now because it's clear that Glasgow is god around here so this whole thing has become pointless.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> why can the giant not be a super of two co-dom adults , the same as tall people tend to breed other tall offspring there no reason why a large gecko can breed large offspring same its all part of the wonderful world of breeding


Well done you've got it without even realising it.
Tall people TEND to produce tall people, but it doesn't act in a co dom manner, there are numerous genes at play.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Well, I for one 'give up'.

Clearly questioning and reasoning are no longer allowed. I'm off to make up some more lies.......


----------



## Tombo46 (Aug 5, 2010)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Would you question my reasoning if the results showed what you wanted and/or expected?
> 
> I went into this with no preference. It was not to "prove" anyone "wrong", nor was it to prove anyone right. The results are what they are.
> 
> ...





geckograham said:


> I don't think there is any getting around the fact that we have a 'post count mafia' fawning over this guy because he uses flowery language and has a clutch of degrees. I just think the conditions may not have been as controlled as is being made out. As for sinking low enough, one of the conclusions of this study seems to be that giant breeders feed some geckos more than others in an attempt to "make" a giant. For me, you have to sink pretty low to start throwing that accusation around!
> 
> And ALL studies being conducted just because "I wanted to know"? What a load of :censor:!
> 
> I'm going to leave this thread alone now because it's clear that Glasgow is god around here so this whole thing has become pointless.


Just to put it out there Graham...and I wouldn't usually say this but...I don't really get on that well with Andy (Glasgow Gecko) and couldn't really say I like him (on the Internet of course, I probably would in person like I do most people) so believe me when I say I trust his study as well as his advice. I have turned to him for advice on a few occasions and have always found him very unbiased in his response.

Sorry Andy! Had to say it to put my point across...I'll buy you a pint if you're ever at Hamm to say sorry


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

sam12345 said:


> Well done you've got it without even realising it.
> Tall people TEND to produce tall people, but it doesn't act in a co dom manner, there are numerous genes at play.


i know how gene work but the first giant could of been a super ? there for once breed to another leo gave a 50% chance of the offspring being giant to then breeding them back again made the super form again


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> I don't think there is any getting around the fact that we have a 'post count mafia' fawning over this guy because he uses flowery language and has a clutch of degrees. I just think the conditions may not have been as controlled as is being made out. As for sinking low enough, one of the conclusions of this study seems to be that giant breeders feed some geckos more than others in an attempt to "make" a giant. For me, you have to sink pretty low to start throwing that accusation around!
> 
> And ALL studies being conducted just because "I wanted to know"? What a load of :censor:!
> 
> I'm going to leave this thread alone now because it's clear that Glasgow is god around here so this whole thing has become pointless.


Lol....
I say again... the people posting in this thread, also posted the same feelings in the other thread, no change since Andy got involved.

I think if you had a good understanding of genetics you would see where the mode of inheritance theory comes from.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> i know how gene work but the first giant could of been a super ? there for once breed to another leo gave a 50% chance of the offspring being giant to then breeding them back again made the super form again


Homozygous co Dom x non co Dom = 100% co Dom
Have a read of how genetics affect size in humans, apply it to leopard geckos and then post back.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

sam12345 said:


> Homozygous co Dom x non co Dom = 100% co Dom
> Have a read of how genetics affect size in humans, apply it to leopard geckos and then post back.


ok lets go down that road ok two tall people breed and they tend to make other tall people but also if a tall man breeds with a short female there a 50% chance that they will have a tall person or a short person so as we dont know the gene of the parents of mosses how do we now that one of them was not a giant say female so would not look so big like most of the males do and this is why he got what he got


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

ok just to point out my reason for disputing the reasons for the study i have no problem with anyone doing a study for the better of the hobby, but i just think its rude to post a study that disputes another person finding without first giving that person the right to read it first before you put it out in the public domain and i just did not see the point of it as as you asked i think if the finding was the other way round this would not be on here as in the same case there still no point of it .

just my thinking sorry if it upsets others that not my intention 

Good luck


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

This is one of the reasons RFUK has lost so many good members. Discussion, in fact dam good discussion is turned into a scrap.
There is no need for insults. 
The evidence is pretty compelling from a tightly controlled study by a highly respected and extremely knowledgable member. Cripes, you dont get a position at Zurich University unless your amongst the best of the best. To question Andys inttegrity and motives is down right insult.
No one is attempting to discredit anyone including Ron Tremper.
Andy didnt just toss the study into the arena on a whim. He even says that he brought the publication of the results forwards.....why ?
The can of worms was opened on the other thread by GeckoGraham. Andys input is non biast 100% kosher controlled study exploring the same subject as the previous thread.
If people dont carry out studies such as this we will become sheep. If every new morph, every new product or bit of equipment was simply accepted on the word of the person marketing it the hobby will not only be in a mess, it wll fail to move forwards.
The results from Andys study speak for themselves. Its fine to cjallenge his findings, in fact for the good of the hobby its better if people do challenge such studies. However the challenge should take the form of an equally accurate, honest controlled study. Until such a study takes place no one can dispute Andys results with any accuracy.


----------



## funky1 (Jun 18, 2008)

I stopped reading this thread at about the 4th page.....usual reasons!!!!

However, just wanted to say a big `thank you` and to give a big pat on the back to Andy for all the hard work, time and effort he`s put into this study. As previously said, he has no axe to grind with anyone, nor - as far as I`m aware - any particular affiliation with/to anything `Giant` line orientated so has been totally impartial in order to get honest results: to get such an in-depth study published, and shared, with every single hobbyist on RFUK should be seen as a coup, and opportunity to further enhance our understanding of how certain lines/genes (even a slight insight into `marketing` perhaps?!) work. I`ve read nothing in/into the results that would suggest this is anything other than a veritable godsend to genuine enthusiasts.

Personally, season after season I`ve found it quite eye opening over the last 15 or so years to see how the general body shape, and overall size, of Leos has changed - the sleek, perfectly proportioned, wolverine featured reptiles (perfect stalking/hunting machines which is exactly what they are or should be) that previously made up the majority, seem to be a distant memory, and have been replaced by bulbous, sluggish pets. Don`t get me wrong - that isn`t a criticism of anyone who feeds their Leos well (as they should be), offers a varied diet and wants to give their cherished pets every opportunity to sate it`s appetite, BUT, it`s a fine line between doing the best for your Leo, and possibly being cruel (absolutely unintentionally) by being overly kind through overfeeding. 

As far as breeding goes - again solely on a personal level - I`ve found it very, very difficult to have the same kind of success with Leos that are anything more than a little overweight, compared to perfectly proportioned females. I think as anyone who`s ever owned, and handled, a genuine WC will vouch for...it`s far, far harder get one to overeat consistently or have their body mass index be out of sync` as it goes against the grain of their very nature. 

Nature over nurture - as the results suggest, it seems nurture has played a bigger part in the more recent evolution of Leopard Geckos than most ppl realised.

Great read Andy - very interesting topic and seems to answer a lot of questions that many of us already had in the back of our minds. :no1:


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

Firstly let me say that I do not know GlasgowGecko apart from occasional posts on here. I'm not interested in Leo genetics, nor do I understand them. 
I read the report merely because I like to expand my knowledge about all subjects. Like myself, it appears Andy (GlasgowGecko) strives to gain knowledge from factual studies rather than just what people think they heard or know. I am willing to listen to all arguments, but tend to take more interest when there is evidence that proves or disproves an argument. I had no thoughts about whether the Giant leo is fact or fiction before reading the evidence. I have had many beliefs that over the years have changed due to researching. Many of those beliefs were based on what I read on some website or forum that had been written by who knows who. 



Madhouse5 said:


> sorry i just don't see the point of your study apart from trying to prove that RT made it all up! when you get down to the bottom of it that's all the outcome can be there no medical reason , there not like its going to make caring for leo`s any different the whole study for me is to discredit the man and that why i think its floored.


What possible benefit would there be to GlasgowGecko to do a study just to discredit someone else? Saying you think this study is "flawed" just because you can't think of a reason for it is, well, flawed.



geckograham said:


> I would also like to know what the reason was for carrying out this study in the first place. I'm starting to spot holes in it, the "test subjects" we're scattered all I've the place and I am assuming that the were cared for and measured by numerous different people. There is no way of knowing if all of the constants remained constant!





geckograham said:


> I don't think there is any getting around the fact that we have a 'post count mafia' fawning over this guy because he uses flowery language and has a clutch of degrees. I just think the conditions may not have been as controlled as is being made out. As for sinking low enough, one of the conclusions of this study seems to be that giant breeders feed some geckos more than others in an attempt to "make" a giant. For me, you have to sink pretty low to start throwing that accusation around!
> 
> And ALL studies being conducted just because "I wanted to know"? What a load of :censor:!
> 
> I'm going to leave this thread alone now because it's clear that Glasgow is god around here so this whole thing has become pointless.


In a scientific study carried out by a well respected university about something like this, there is absolutely no point in making things up. Why would they? If the study had been carried out by a major Ron Tremper competitor then I can see a reason for doubting, but as Andy is not a competitor there no reason to clutch at straws.



Madhouse5 said:


> ok just to point out my reason for disputing the reasons for the study i have no problem with anyone doing a study for the better of the hobby, but i just think its rude to post a study that disputes another person finding without first giving that person the right to read it first before you put it out in the public domain and i just did not see the point of it as as you asked i think if the finding was the other way round this would not be on here as in the same case there still no point of it .
> 
> just my thinking sorry if it upsets others that not my intention
> 
> Good luck


As Andy didn't have any reasons to set about discrediting RT, I'm sure if the results had gone the other way he would of made them public just like this. And thinking it's rude to post factual information? Would you have preferred he lied and said the opposite? 

There seems to be a lot of unfounded accusations and abusive comments flying at Andy with little or no evidence to back them up. As for calling people names like "post count followers" and "sheep", that is fairly childish and doesn't exactly instil any confidence in your claims, on the contrary it actual only makes it appear that you only want to believe what you want to hear.

I would say to the posters that are out to discredit this study, go and do a scientifically controlled study using independent people and then you would have suitable evidence if the results are different to this one

I for one, found this study fairly interesting and has taught me a few things that may be useful to me in the future. It also exercised some brain cells: victory:


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Andy, your post above is excellent and adds a mature unbiast view to the whole thread. Thankyou for your input.

I really am appalled by some of the childish behaviour. Andy GG is not a God although he is a Mod. He is also a highly respected scientist who has used his own time to carry out quality research on various themes for the benefit of the hobby we love and more importantly tthe animals we care about. As a research scientist, no matter where or what subject he researches, if he published flawed, manipulated, deceitful, inaccurate or biast results he would place his professional credability at risk. I think certain members on here should be making apologies for their gross disrespect to someone who has done more for the hobby than the majority of members on here. Its behaviour like this that has driven many experienced keepers and breeders away whilst making the forum a laughing stock.

I also find the remark of post count mafia highly offensive. The members that is directed at have spent hours on here and accrued high post counts through the considerable efforts they have gone to in helping people or promoting positive welfare based reptile keeping. Quite frankly the response by some is shameful. It is what people would expect to find in a school yard, not on an open public forum where the majoriy of members are able to demonstrate some level of maturity.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

I would add that I hope a Mod other than GG enters into this and brings an end to the unnecessary unpleasantries.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

andy007 said:


> Firstly let me say that I do not know GlasgowGecko apart from occasional posts on here. I'm not interested in Leo genetics, nor do I understand them.
> I read the report merely because I like to expand my knowledge about all subjects. Like myself, it appears Andy (GlasgowGecko) strives to gain knowledge from factual studies rather than just what people think they heard or know. I am willing to listen to all arguments, but tend to take more interest when there is evidence that proves or disproves an argument. I had no thoughts about whether the Giant leo is fact or fiction before reading the evidence. I have had many beliefs that over the years have changed due to researching. Many of those beliefs were based on what I read on some website or forum that had been written by who knows who.
> 
> 
> ...


so what is this study doing for the hobby, can someone tell me other than trying to show that the giant as a morph is wrong so how that not saying that RT is wrong in his breeding of this morph and that as the study clearly states the size is down to over feeding and not a gene that makes the gecko larger.

i would love to know


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> so what is this study doing for the hobby, can someone tell me other than trying to show that the giant as a morph is wrong so how that not saying that RT is wrong in his breeding of this morph and that as the study clearly states the size is down to over feeding and not a gene that makes the gecko larger.
> 
> i would love to know


It is answering a question that was raised by many keepers and breeders long before GeckoGraham got into a heated discussion about his giant. This does not revolve around yours or Grahams geckos. Its something we have been questioning for ages. Andy brought publication of his results forwards to provide evidence for discussion but did not undertake a study simply to pee off you, Graham and Mr T.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> I would add that I hope a Mod other than GG enters into this and brings an end to the unnecessary unpleasantries.


what unnecessary un pleasantries so its ok for you lot to have a go at someone on here but not for them to give it back the term following like sheep was said by me its not a insult its a term that means to go with the crowd and not have your own mind, that is all i am guilty of.

and to say that this is why people leave RFUK its rubbish more people leave at the start cos of the way some members on here reply to questions for help i seen it myself


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> It is answering a question that was raised by many keepers and breeders long before GeckoGraham got into a heated discussion about his giant. This does not revolve around yours or Grahams geckos. Its something we have been questioning for ages. Andy brought publication of his results forwards to provide evidence for discussion but did not undertake a study simply to pee off you, Graham and Mr T.


but as it directly does reflect on RT breeding of this morph and does question his data dont you think he also has the right to read it first before it made public ?


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Impressive bit of melodrama from Mal there! Laughing stock? I've never heard anything to suggest that. The reason some struggle to see this study as unbiased is probably the way "GG" decided to enter my previous thread on the subject. That was a piece of behaviour unbecoming of a mod.


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> so what is this study doing for the hobby, can someone tell me other than trying to show that the giant as a morph is wrong so how that not saying that RT is wrong in his breeding of this morph and that as the study clearly states the size is down to over feeding and not a gene that makes the gecko larger.
> 
> i would love to know


It appears that you have it set in your mind that the "only" reason this study was carried out was to discredit RT. You need to disassociate RT from this study and see the study for what it is. 
Why does it have to do anything for the hobby? It didn't cost you or I anything, but at least it gives people a substantiated report from which they can base their future projects on. Whether you want to try and discredit the report is up to you, but please come forward with some evidence to back it up rather than accusing Andy of trying to dis RT.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

In all walks of life people challenge, question, critique, evaluate or appraise work, findings or products of others. In most cases the subject in question isnt consulted either before, during or after. One of the core foundations of society is freedom of speach. Andy has said nothing slanderous about RT nor has he set about to discredit him.. He has simply presented independent factual research.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> In all walks of life people challenge, question, critique, evaluate or appraise work, findings or products of others. In most cases the subject in question isnt consulted either before, during or after. One of the core foundations of society is freedom of speach. Andy has said nothing slanderous about RT nor has he set about to discredit him.. He has simply presented independent factual research.


sorry you just don't get it do you, as the only outcome of this study is to discredit RT there is no other way of putting it as there no other reason for it as what other benefit does it have to the hobby can some one tell me that all i have been asking all day


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Madhouse5 said:


> sorry you just don't get it do you, as the only outcome of this study is to discredit RT there is no other way of putting it as there no other reason for it as what other benefit does it have to the hobby can some one tell me that all i have been asking all day


but its research that did not need doing as i relay don't care if the giant morph it co-dom dom or recessive or nothing if you think that way then sell then as what you think they are but it not up to you to tell others that they are wrong


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> sorry you just don't get it do you, as the only outcome of this study is to discredit RT there is no other way of putting it as there no other reason for it as what other benefit does it have to the hobby can some one tell me that all i have been asking all day


Andy didn't know what the outcome was going to be prior to starting it, so how the heck was the point of it to discredit anyone? Or are you saying that Andy fixed the results? 
If the results had shown a clear Giant gene you wouldn't be arguing, but it didn't. It is becoming clear that because it hasn't shown what you want it to show, you are trying to direct attention away from what is fact and on to whether Andy did it out of malice.


----------



## Salazare Slytherin (Oct 21, 2009)

andy007 said:


> Andy didn't know what the outcome was going to be prior to starting it, so how the heck was the point of it to discredit anyone? Or are you saying that Andy fixed the results?
> If the results had shown a clear Giant gene you wouldn't be arguing, but it didn't. It is becoming clear that because it hasn't shown what you want it to show, you are trying to direct attention away from what is fact and on to whether Andy did it out of malice.


 
Nice sig.
I am enjoying this thread.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I am so glad that I dont collect morphs.If you look on here whether it is Royal Pythons,Leopard Geckos or Crested Geckos it seems to cause more arguments than anything else.

I went to a very respected herpetologist recently who has some very expensive and rare animals.He was most interested though by some £5 Reedfrogs.That says it all to me.

What I am trying to say is that we are in this hobby for the love of herps and does it really matter if you want to believe it or not? If you dont want to believe it thats fine but the please dont try and sell animals that are not what they really are.


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> but its research that did not need doing


Why not? Because it didn't reveal what you would have wanted it too?


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

Salazare Slytherin said:


> Nice sig.


Couldn't resist


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Look, its really quite simple and has nothing to do with discrediting RT. In fact this study could have gone on to endorse Mr T and his Giants beyond any doubt.

Keepers and breeders have for a number of years pondered over the thought that there is more going on with giants than the effect of a single gene. A very clever scientist and herpetologist has looked deeper into the subject and confirmed what we suspected. It wasnt a case of someone thinking what shall we do today...lets diiscredit RT.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

ok i`m done there no point in this any more, maybe i just look at it in the way i would do it myself i would of talk to RT and got his data on how he breed them to start with and even offered him the chance to put some input into this too 

thats just me


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> Look, its really quite simple and has nothing to do with discrediting RT. In fact this study could have gone on to endorse Mr T and his Giants beyond any doubt.
> 
> Keepers and breeders have for a number of years pondered over the thought that there is more going on with giants than the effect of a single gene. A very clever scientist and herpetologist has looked deeper into the subject and confirmed what we suspected. It wasnt a case of someone thinking what shall we do today...lets diiscredit RT.


but relay what has this got to do with someone selling giants as i said if you don't want to sell them as giants don't if you don't want to buy a giant don't if you look at a gecko and think he nice then buy it if you don't like the price or what the sellers putting up for sale then don't , as i said myself i don't care less what the giant is to me he just my big lovely gecko


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

One thing that is missed is the fact RT has never presented any detailed controlled study in the first place. Yes a couple of pages in his morph book. However no indepent studies, no controlled studies fully published. Just because he is Mr T itt doesnt mean he is right all the time.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> One thing that is missed is the fact RT has never presented any detailed controlled study in the first place. Yes a couple of pages in his morph book. However no indepent studies, no controlled studies fully published. Just because he is Mr T itt doesnt mean he is right all the time.


that what i have been saying how can you study something that you don't know how it was started in the first place that is why you need to include RT into it or at most get all his data of how it all started


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Its called independent study. Its common practice in all fields of science.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> but relay what has this got to do with someone selling giants as i said if you don't want to sell them as giants don't if you don't want to buy a giant don't if you look at a gecko and think he nice then buy it if you don't like the price or what the sellers putting up for sale then don't , as i said myself i don't care less what the giant is to me he just my big lovely gecko


Sorry posting by phone so missed this. This thread has no agenda to stop anyone selling or describing any gecko in any shape or form. It is about giving an answer to people who want to know what is really going on with the morph.


----------



## sazzle (Jun 3, 2008)

This has been a great read and huge thanks to Andy for taking the time to do this

My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as a 'giant' maybe there was at one time, however, i'm not a firm believer that this is still the case. Some hatchlings/leos are bigger than others, some grow quicker than others, it's just like humans really. So many variants in size. If you breed 2 large geckos together, the odds are, you're going to get a large hatchling, doesn't mean it's a giant. You see so many 'giants' advertised with various sites and breeders and they have an extra £ attached to them because they're bigger than others.

This is only my opinion and i'm not saying it's gospel x


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

myself i am going to breed my giant and see what come along so for now i will leave it at that


----------



## sazzle (Jun 3, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> well i would take Ron tremper knowing a bit more about the subject than most you do ,
> ok as Graham said were going in circles maybe someone should ask Ron trempers thought on it


Ron Tremper may be knowledgeable but is in no way god, nor is whatever he says gospel, this is like a childish 'my dad is bigger than your dad' comment. People are entitled to opinions, if everyone agreed on the same things, this would be a boring world we live in :lol2:


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

sazzle said:


> Ron Tremper may be knowledgeable but is in no way god, nor is whatever he says gospel, this is like a childish 'my dad is bigger than your dad' comment. People are entitled to opinions, if everyone agreed on the same things, this would be a boring world we live in :lol2:


that works for me too no i was saying that he know more than most of us on the subject that's all and that's my opinion


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Just to lighten things up. Doesnt RT come from Texas? Everythings bigger in Texas


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> Just to lighten things up. Doesnt RT come from Texas? Everythings bigger in Texas


lmao that worked


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2012)

This has been a great thread, and the conversation between OP and Madhouse throughout it has been good - its a very typical struggle between scientific research and people who aren't scientifically minded (please don't take offense at that, the empirical nature of science takes a bit of work to appreciate and understand properly, or it did for me anyway). Empirical evidence like this trumps observational data 100 times over. Sure observational data like you present is essential to our understanding of the world, however its observational data that triggers studies like this, not the other way around. Studies like this, that apply numbers to what we see around us, are often intuitive but thats just the way science is some times! 

In my opinion, studies such as this provide the only real, solid foundations of understanding and we should be doing more of them.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

ok so you all know i`m not scientifically minded now thanks i thought you was not meant to mention that lol


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> ok so you all know i`m not scientifically minded now thanks i thought you was not meant to mention that lol


You may not be scientifically minded but you do have a mind and a passion for your animals and thats what counts. 

These discussions can get out of hand and similar discussions have become very nasty indeed. Once the mud slinging and name calling starts its difficult to keep things on track. However the real discussions aren't targeted at any individual and its best if people try not to take things personally. We can all respect each others views and contributions in a discussion even if we strongly disagree. Everyone should be regarded as equal on here and a lack of scientific or even academic background isn't a bar to participating in discussions. Even if we disagree in the end, we should be able to end the discussion as friends that share a passion for their reptiles. I hope thats the case here.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Except for the views of anyone disagreeing wit GG. Those views are not being respected here.


----------



## JimmyMature (Jan 8, 2012)

A very interesting study and subsequent debate.

However I have a number of reservations, the first is that this is an isolated study. One study (however conclusive) does not prove things one way or the other.

You may remember that last year scientists found something that travelled faster than light, only to have it proven wrong when the data was reviewed.

I'm not saying this study is flawed in any way but for it to have scientific credibility it will have to be reproduced independently and have a full peer review which it does not appear to have yet.



Cheers,


Jim


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

ok i did a re study i looked in my viv and yes he a giant and does not need to go on the Cambridge diet i always wondered why Phils at Cambridge gecko leo`s look so slim


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

geckograham said:


> Except for the views of anyone disagreeing wit GG. Those views are not being respected here.


Another very constructive post 

What I disagree with is people who can't discuss their views without resulting to childish name calling and unfounded accusations purely because they have no real basis for their argument:bash: Look at it this way, if you were reading this thread as a complete newbie who would you believe? The person who has conducted a creditable study or the person who has no constructive evidence?
If you disagree with Andy, ask him about it without resorting to petty allegations.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

andy007 said:


> Another very constructive post
> 
> What I disagree with is people who can't discuss their views without resulting to childish name calling and unfounded accusations purely because they have no real basis for their argument:bash: Look at it this way, if you were reading this thread as a complete newbie who would you believe? The person who has conducted a creditable study or the person who has no constructive evidence?
> If you disagree with Andy, ask him about it without resorting to petty allegations.


What petty allegations? The allegation of over feeding? Or mis-selling? NO WAIT!!! They came from the OTHER side of the debate. You are just another one taking the study as gospel! Yes it is helpful and although nobody seemed to notice, I made sure to thank 'Andy' (if I was a complete newbie, I'd be confused by everyone calling him Andy when that is not his screen name) for taking the time to post it.

Excellent points have been made about the fact that this is an isolated study which has not been subjected to any kind of peer review. At the moment, while it is indeed fascinating, it proves nothing.

FINALLY, what was so constructive about YOUR post?


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

But the study consisted of six hundred geckos over three years,it wasnt a short study with a few individuals.Surely thats a good representation?


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

geckograham said:


> Except for the views of anyone disagreeing wit GG. Those views are not being respected here.


Its hardly worth responding to your posts. You clearly have no intention of being receptive to anything other than your own beliefs. It seems your more intent on argument than reasoned discussion. Why dont you list the reasons why you think GGs study is so wrong and when he gets back to the forum ask him about them. At the moment your coming across in a very immature manner and are rapidly loosing any credability you have for construtive discussion.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Mal said:


> Its hardly worth responding to your posts. You clearly have no intention of being receptive to anything other than your own beliefs. It seems your more intent on argument than reasoned discussion. Why dont you list the reasons why you think GGs study is so wrong and when he gets back to the forum ask him about them. At the moment your coming across in a very immature manner and are rapidly loosing any credability you have for construtive discussion.


If this is your opinion you must be only reading the posts or parts of posts that you want to. You know what you are doing here and so do I. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Tombo46 (Aug 5, 2010)

GlasgowGecko said:


> This leaves one real question, are owners of “giant” Leopard geckos, sub-consciously (or consciously) over feeding their animals to achieve the “phenotype” they desire? I would suspect so unfortunately. Again, I am not casting aspersions, but it is important for all to realize what constitutes a healthy weight/ shape for their animal, and not to feed it until they reach “super giant”.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> .
> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





GlasgowGecko said:


> Andy





geckograham said:


> I made sure to thank 'Andy' (if I was a complete newbie, I'd be confused by everyone calling him Andy when that is not his screen name) for taking the time to post it.


For any newbies that didn't know... GlasgowGecko's real name is "Andy". Just incase you missed it...


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Post Count Mafia strikes again. Don't worry, Mal won't have a go at a fellow mafioso so you can be as petty and unconstructive as you like!


----------



## MP reptiles (Dec 30, 2010)

geckograham said:


> Post Count Mafia strikes again. Don't worry, Mal won't have a go at a fellow mafioso so you can be as petty and unconstructive as you like!


Please stop what is the point in you posting if you are just going to post unnecessary and quite frankly stupid things. Why cant you stop making things petty and personal when quite frankly you are being the petty one. What scientific study have you done?...................... thought as much


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

:censor: this!

What IS the point? It is fine for mafioso guys to say what they like but if a so called "newbie" responds in kind it's 'off with their heads'!

I would ask, what resources do I have to conduct a 600 gecko study for a discussion that started last week?


----------



## MP reptiles (Dec 30, 2010)

geckograham said:


> :censor: this!
> 
> What IS the point? It is fine for mafioso guys to say what they like but if a so called "newbie" responds in kind it's 'off with their heads'!
> 
> I would ask, what resources do I have to conduct a 600 gecko study for a discussion that started last week?


Well I'm a newbie as well ive only been keeping reptiles for 1 and a hlf years....

I dont see the point either your posts are un constructive most of the time and when people take time to reply you just dismiss it immediately. 

You dont have the resources so you should realize how in depth this study was and how much of a good point it puts forward.


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

colinm said:


> But the study consisted of six hundred geckos over three years,it wasnt a short study with a few individuals.Surely thats a good representation?


*nods* considering many published studies consist of far smaller groups over a shorter time frame (often only 6-12 months) Andys study is fairly extensive by any means.
Andy I notice that you also mention having the growth rates over time for each category & regime showing that said growth rates did not vary significantly between samples but for simplification the extra data is not shown ... is it possible that you could email me the relevant details/entire study so I can read it more fully? If it's all due to be published I can wait (just about lol): victory:


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

There really is no need for such unpleasantries on what is actually every interesting thread. Its isnt as stated by someone earlier melodramatic when I say its behaviour like thst displayed on this thread that has turned many experienced keepers away from this forum. This kind of behaviour isnt tolerated on the international forums and it shouldnt be seen as acceptable here. If people cant discuss things without resortiing to name calling and insult it would be better for all if they left the discussion. Disagree with the results pf the studu but please drop the nastyness, it achieves nothing.


----------



## Chris18 (Mar 22, 2009)

All I have to say is that I find the response to this thread very confusing and somewhat desperate from some members...
I find it very weird people will believe a lot of trash on this forum because a breeder says so but when a proper scientific study like this is posted it gets ridiculous replies doubting it?
Personally I love Andy's posts, they do a lot for the hobby and has made me see a few things in a different light when I might not have done otherwise due to breeders telling me things.
A lot, if not all his threads are pretty controversial but I believe they all have truth and meaning behind them.
As for the reason for the study, according to his profile he's a geneticist which makes that enough reason. This debate has been going on a long time so curiosity and closure is a good enough reason for anyone, he just has the means to do it unlike others.


----------



## JimmyMature (Jan 8, 2012)

Regarding the the scientific nature of this study please see my previous post regarding what is required for it to be accepted as a true scientific outcome of a test.

Until they all happen, whilst it seems a very thorough test it needs peer review from other scientists and the methodology to be critically tested.

I don't care either way regarding the outcome, I think the study itself is very inestesting but it's one study. One isolated study does not make it fact.

Remember a study years ago stated that the multiple vaccine for MMR caused autism.....

I expect that GlasgowGecko would agree with this post....

Jim


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Sorry phone locked up. I didnt realise post below was duplicated.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Regarding the results of the study being less than valid unless repeated etc. Its not strictly true. Firstly Andy has only published an outline of the results. However as a professional genetic research scientist I am confident his methodology, analasys and results will be sound. Many studies are published even though the study hasnt been replicated. Peer critique is desirable although not an absolute requirement of validity. Much depends on the nature of the study. In the instance of things such as MMR where the results can have effect on vaccine usage the control is significantly tighter. However a study looking into the giant status of leopard gecko has no effect on the wellbeing of the animal involved. As even the morph creator didnt go to such in depth study it is highly unlikely many other people would be interested in repeating such a mammoth endevour. In fact I doubt many of the various reptile morphs have been given such scrutiny before they weere released..If they had, problems such as the enigma morph disaster would have been avoided.The author of this study has the accademic credential and professional reputation that give adequate credebility for the study to be perfectly valid. Flipping the coin the other way, as few morphs have been evaluated so rigidly, as they are generally released without any significant research being published could it not be argued the findings that result in the animal being morph x are invalid ? In this instance the giant morph was marketed by Ron Tremper but without a full scientific study over a number of years to back it up. Most simply accepted it came from Tremper sp it is acceptable. We could posibly argue that in the absence of peer critiqued and independent research that the morph simply doesnt exist.


----------



## andy007 (May 13, 2008)

geckograham said:


> What petty allegations? The allegation of over feeding? Or mis-selling? NO WAIT!!! They came from the OTHER side of the debate. You are just another one taking the study as gospel! Yes it is helpful and although nobody seemed to notice, I made sure to thank 'Andy' (if I was a complete newbie, I'd be confused by everyone calling him Andy when that is not his screen name) for taking the time to post it.
> 
> Excellent points have been made about the fact that this is an isolated study which has not been subjected to any kind of peer review. At the moment, while it is indeed fascinating, it proves nothing.
> 
> FINALLY, what was so constructive about YOUR post?


Where have I said I have taken the study as "gospel!? I said I found the study interesting and informative.



geckograham said:


> "And ALL studies being conducted just because "I wanted to know"? What a load of !"
> "This is absolute tosh and has been plucked from thin air as far as I can see."


These type of comments, which can only be seen as trying to discredit the study without any evidence to back it up. You obviously have a different opinion to the results shown, or would you have if the study was carried out by a different person??



geckograham said:


> Post Count Mafia strikes again. Don't worry, Mal won't have a go at a fellow mafioso so you can be as petty and unconstructive as you like!


Sounds like that post came straight from the playground, Miss they're all ganging up on me. 

What do you expect to get from members on here, when all you've done is disrespect some respected members? Perhaps you would have got a better response from people had you not set out to belittle the study with comments like the ones quoted above.
If you have an independent non-isolated and documented study of your own that is on the same scale as GlasgowGeckos study then feel free to pop it up


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Wow, you come back from a weeks holiday, and find out you are officially in the "mafia"! I'm not sure whether to be flattered or not... That said, I think surely I'm in the "moderator mafia" and not the "post count mafia".

As has been said by others, if you have specific questions, feel free to drop me a pm (or ask on here). If you think there is a problem, there is a pretty good chance I can clear things up.

As for the suggestion that multiple individuals taking measurements is a problem, I would suggest that this is not the case. While the data is not shown (as it isn't really so interesting, or the main point here), each individual had geckos from each category (and on each regime), and there is no statistical difference between the results they generated. Furthermore all data was kept independently, so no bias (intentional or otherwise) could occur (not to mention that measurements were demonstrated fully, and relatively simple to carry out).

Actually, I feel it was important that this phenomenon was measured over several keepers and several years to ensure the results were as robust as possible. After all, in the long run, to provide effective husbandry, it pays to understand the species (and individuals) you are keeping.

As for publishing, it is an idea I have toyed with, although there is one very clear drawback (and this is not related to methodology). Namely: Who cares? This is not a well known phenomenon. It is restricted to herpetoculture only, and the trait in question is not published scientifically anywhere. That said, it may be possible, we shall see.

I still find the "you're just trying to discredit Tremper" argument a bit perplexing. Again (and hopefully for the last time) I shall say, I think anyone who owns an animal has a right and indeed a duty to understand as much about it as they can. In this situation, I feel it is important for people to realize that diet plays a very important role in the size and growth rate of their animals, and that this clearly overrides any possible genetic effect in this incidence. Regardless of who tells you something, it is important to question. Its easier to answer those questions with data, and none has been forthcoming regarding quantitative proof of "giants" since their development. This meant that some was needed...

Hope this answers most questions...

Andy


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Welcome back Don Andy. I hope you had a good holiday and entertaining read on your return. I suspect a little more interesting discussion to come.


----------



## welshMorphology (Feb 16, 2008)

WOW this was an ace read at 04:10 as I could not sleep and stumbled upon this thread. I have and breed so-called "Giants" but has long been skeptical about their origins and the whole co-dom thing. I sell my offspring as Large Leos from large parents lol. I also believe it is a nature/ nurture debate as my first leo some 17 yrs ago was anything but giant eventhough well fed. 

The only thing that worries me is this: Do the so-called Giants/larger geckos die prematurley due to stress on their bodies, do they mature quicker so depart this life quicker? Is anyone studying anything like this? 

I don't overfeed my "larger" geckos as I'm sure a lot of larger gecko owners don't either. I just want the best for my reptiles as we all do and if their larger size is gonna be more detrimental to theri health and life expectancy then, should we not try to outcross these geckos to smaller more "normal" sized geckos to ensure the best wellbeing for them???


----------

