# Mack Snow Enigma x TUG Snow



## JamesJ

As both the TUG Snow and the Enigma gene are both dominant im curious as to what this would produce?

50% Mack Snow Enimga's het TUG Snow and 50% TUG Snow Enimgma Het Mack Snow? Or am I completely off the track?


----------



## sam12345

Tug snow is dominant so has no het (invisable form) the same for enigma.
Mack snow is co dom and works with TUG snow to produce supers.

So worst case all of your animals are one copy....

Normals, Enigmas, Mack snows, Tug snows, TUG snow enigmas, Mack snow enigmas, Super snows and Super snow enigmas.
All will be a 12.5% chance and will be single copy.

Im sure gazz will give you the outcome for every possible pairing but it'll give me a headache lol


----------



## gazz

James_and_Hana said:


> As both the TUG Snow and the Enigma gene are both dominant im curious as to what this would produce?
> 
> 50% Mack Snow Enimga's het TUG Snow and 50% TUG Snow Enimgma Het Mack Snow? Or am I completely off the track?


IMO you wouldn't get a Mack/TUG snow coz they react with each other resulting in super snow offspring.IMO they don't gell togerther or over lap each other so you don't get a Mack/TUG Snow but rather a Snow HET Super snow so-(Mack) by definition.So IMO if you breed a Mack snow X TUG snow = Normal/Snow HET Super(Mack)/Super snow.

(1C)Snow enigma X (1C)TUG snow Enigma = .

Normal.
(1C)Enigma.
(2C)Enigma.
Snow HET Super(Mack).
(1C)Snow enigma HET Super(Mack).
(2C)Snow enigma HET Super(Mack).
Super snow.
(1C)Super snow enigma.
(2C)Super snow enigma.
----
(1C)Snow enigma X (2C)TUG snow Enigma = .

(1C)Enigma.
(1C)Snow enigma HET super(Mack).
(1C)Super snow enigma.
(2C)Enigma.
(2C)Snow enigma HET super(Mack).
(2C)Super snow enigma.
----
(2C)Snow enigma X (2C)TUG snow Enigma = .

(2C)Enigma.
(2C)Snow enigma HET super(Mack).
(2C)Super snow enigma.


----------



## sam12345

You've confused me gazz,.
I though TUG and Mack only work together when each parent passes a "snow" gene.

In the cases where one parent would pass a TS gene and the other a Normal gene the gecko would be (het) TS, and the same for MS?


----------



## gazz

sam12345 said:


> You've confused me gazz,.
> I though TUG and Mack only work together when each parent passes a "snow" gene.
> 
> In the cases where one parent would pass a TS gene and the other a Normal gene the gecko would be (het) TS, and the same for MS?


When people have bred 

Mack snow X TUG snow.
Mack snow X GEM snow.
Mack Snow X Line bred snow.

In each case Super snow offspring happpened stright away.So if line bred can give super snow i don't think (1C)/(2C) comes into it in regards to the TUG snow.


----------



## sam12345

gazz said:


> When people have bred
> 
> Mack snow X TUG snow.
> Mack snow X GEM snow.
> Mack Snow X Line bred snow.
> 
> In each case Super snow offspring happpened stright away.So if line bred can give super snow i don't think (1C)/(2C) comes into it in regards to the TUG snow.


So in the case of mack x tug the offspring will all be Super Snows?


----------



## gazz

sam12345 said:


> So in the case of mack x tug the offspring will all be Super Snows?


No you get normals and snows and super snows.


----------



## eeji

sam12345 said:


> Tug snow is dominant so has no het (invisable form) the same for enigma.


dominant morphs can still be het, its just they look the same as **** 

....and het doesn't mean 'invisible' it means different alleles on a gene pair


----------



## gazz

I think a little more research is needed i've just found these.

From a Mack snow X TUG snow is a crips white with black spotted super snow.
However note the EYES i see iris ??.









From a Mack snow enigmaX TUG snow is a crips white with black spotted super snow enigma.
However note the EYES i see iris ??.









Web site.
Love Geckos


----------



## MrMike

Maybe (just a guess), but If TUG and Mack are different flavours of the same gene, then solid eclipse eyes only develop in homozygous mack snow, but het mack and TUG still creates the "super snow" patterning?


----------



## gazz

MrMike said:


> Maybe (just a guess), but If TUG and Mack are different flavours of the same gene, then solid eclipse eyes only develop in homozygous mack snow, but het mack and TUG still creates the "super snow" patterning?


Maybe ? but here a nother spanner a super snow from a Mack snow X Albey's LB snow.(Pure black eyes).


----------



## MrMike

gazz said:


> Maybe ? but here a nother spanner a super snow from a Mack snow X Albey's LB snow.(Pure black eyes).


My head hurts......


----------



## gazz

MrMike said:


> My head hurts......


Tell me about it :lol2:.Personally it's MY beleaf that my these LINE BRED snow are maybe are doninant.In that someone though they was line breeding when in fact they are breeding dominant to dominant giving the affect of line breeding.I think there are only Co-dom(Mack) and dominant(TUG,GEM,and so called LINE BRED).

What about just having.

Snows(GEM,TUG,?LB?).
Snows dom-HET super snow(Mack)
super snow.

Wouldn't that be nice and esay.

Super snow X Super snow = super snow.

Snow X Snow dom-HET Super snow = Normals/Snows dom-HET Super snow.(maybe a lower % of super ?)

Snow X Snow = Snows/Normal or all Snows.

Super snow x Snow dom-HET super snow = Snows dom-HET Super snow.

Snow dom-HET Super snow X Snow dom-HET Super snow = Normals/Snows dom-HET Super snow.(you get your 25% of super ?)

ETC'ETC'ETC


----------



## MrMike

gazz said:


> Tell me about it :lol2:.Personally it's MY beleaf that my these LINE BRED snow are maybe are doninant.In that someone though they was line breeding when in fact they are breeding dominant to dominant giving the affect of line breeding.I think there are only Co-dom(Mack) and dominant(TUG,GEM,and so called LINE BRED).
> 
> What about just having.
> 
> Snows(GEM,TUG,?LB?).
> Snows dom-HET super snow(Mack)
> super snow.
> 
> Wouldn't that be nice and esay.
> 
> Super snow X Super snow = super snow.
> 
> Snow X Snow dom-HET Super snow = Normals/Snows dom-HET Super snow.(maybe a lower % of super ?)
> 
> Snow X Snow = Snows/Normal or all Snows.
> 
> Super snow x Snow dom-HET super snow = Snows dom-HET Super snow.
> 
> Snow dom-HET Super snow X Snow dom-HET Super snow = Normals/Snows dom-HET Super snow.(you get your 25% of super ?)
> 
> ETC'ETC'ETC


That would work, and would part explain what we are seeing. I think you should buy me a pair of each snow example for me to test your theory :whistling2:


----------



## gazz

MrMike said:


> That would work, and would part explain what we are seeing. I think you should buy me a pair of each snow example for me to test your theory :whistling2:


I wonder if Dominant snow's are carrying a dormant gene for super snow. that can only be opened/Express by a **** type gene(preasant in mack snow or super snow).I used caputal a small letters in the example.


TUG/GEM/?LB?-sS
Mack-SS.

(1C)sS X wild = (1C)Snow-sS & wild.

(2C)sS X Wild = (1C)Snow-sS.

SS X wild = Snow-SS & wild.

SS X SS = wild & Snow-SS & (25%Super snow).

sS X SS = Wild & Snow-SS & (14.5%Super snow).

SS X Super = Snow-SS & (50%Super snow).

sS X Super = Snow-SS & (25%Super snow).

Super X Super = Super.

Do you think somthing like this is possible.And could mack be another type of dominant gene rather than Co-dominant.


----------



## JamesJ

Now im awfully confused :Na_Na_Na_Na: I think itll be easier to hatch out any eggs and see what we get :lol2:


----------



## sam12345

eeji said:


> dominant morphs can still be het, its just they look the same as ****
> 
> ....and het doesn't mean 'invisible' it means different alleles on a gene pair


Now if i said that to someone who clearly (no offense to the OP) has no understanding of hets and homos of ressesive dominant and co dom morphs, do you think they would know what i was going on about?

My point was trying to make the OP understand that het for a ressesive gene is infact not visable (hence the word invisable). And although there is a het and **** form of dominant genes there is infact no difference visually.

Gazz has anyone done any breeding of TUG x Gem or Gem x LB etc etc and found no supers have been produced?


----------



## gazz

sam12345 said:


> Gazz has anyone done any breeding of TUG x Gem or Gem x LB etc etc and found no supers have been produced?


Not that i recall or no one brought it to light yet.Though i wouldn't think that they would throw super snow with each other if NON throw super super when bred to there own.It's mack blood line that's the link IMO.


----------



## sam12345

gazz said:


> Not that i recall or no one brought it to light yet.Though i wouldn't think that they would throw super snow with each other if NON throw super super when bred to there own.It's mack blood line that's the link IMO.


Oh yeah for sure it definately seems that way.

Has anyone ever bred TUG/Gem/LB x Mack produced Supers, then crossed to a Wild Type producing "snows" and then test bred what line snow they were?

Or is it known that a Super x Wild Type no matter what line snow produced it always produces Macks?


----------



## arkreptiles

Interesting thread and an issue we were thinking over last year. Hence this year we are mixing a number of snow lines TUG/Mack/Super Mack & Line bred to see what the results might be - we'll keep you posted on the results as first hatchlings are expected in the next week or so (Line x TUG!!).

We've deliberately kept the Enigma gene out of this years Mack breedings as our experience suggests it doesn't always mix that well.


----------



## MrMike

sam12345 said:


> Oh yeah for sure it definately seems that way.
> 
> Has anyone ever bred TUG/Gem/LB x Mack produced Supers, then crossed to a Wild Type producing "snows" and then test bred what line snow they were?
> 
> *Or is it known that a Super x Wild Type no matter what line snow produced it always produces Macks?*


This would be very interesting if true, but proving it out will be nigh on impossible, won't it?


----------



## MrMike

arkreptiles said:


> Interesting thread and an issue we were thinking over last year. Hence this year we are mixing a number of snow lines TUG/Mack/Super Mack & Line bred to see what the results might be - we'll keep you posted on the results as first hatchlings are expected in the next week or so (Line x TUG!!).
> 
> We've deliberately kept the Enigma gene out of this years Mack breedings as our experience suggests it doesn't always mix that well.


Definately looking forward to the results, more the pics though


----------



## arkreptiles

MrMike said:


> Definately looking forward to the results, more the pics though


Will definitely get some pics up!! We suspect however our Line bred Snows are in fact Macks since they proved co-dom last year!! What we are actually trying to achieve quite simply is a clean black and white snow line no matter what strains are in it!!


----------



## sam12345

MrMike said:


> This would be very interesting if true, but proving it out will be nigh on impossible, won't it?


No not that hard, If it was a Gem/tug/LB then obviously mated to Gem/tug or LB would produce GEM/TUG/LB (obviously you'll know what line you were working with at the start). If it was a mack offspring it would produce some Supers no matter what it was mated to, if the findings Gazz has posted are 100% correct.


----------



## MrMike

arkreptiles said:


> Will definitely get some pics up!! We suspect however our Line bred Snows are in fact Macks since they proved co-dom last year!! What we are actually trying to achieve quite simply is a clean black and white snow line no matter what strains are in it!!


Ahh, but they we're bought as Line bred? That seems rather naughty to me....
Either way a white snow is a white snow, not too many of them around.


----------



## gazz

I'm wondering if Mack snow/super snow is Incomplete dominant rather than Codominant and would this better explane how Mack snow/Super snow are produced when crossing snows.

Here's a Incompete dominant table below for snapdragons that looks to be the same outcome as Mack snow/Super snow.In the table below the snapdragon flowers if you have the (White)as ****-super snow/(RED)as wild/(PINK)as het-mack snow.So would Incomplete dominant make more sence for the mack snow/Super snow reaction to other snows.


----------



## MrMike

gazz said:


> I'm wondering if Mack snow/super snow is Incomplete dominant rather than Codominant and would this better explane how Mack snow/Super snow are produced when crossing snows.
> 
> Here's a Incompete dominant table below for snapdragons that looks to be the same outcome as Mack snow/Super snow.In the table below the snapdragon flowers if you have the (White)as ****-super snow/(RED)as wild/(PINK)as het-mack snow.So would Incomplete dominant make more sence for the mack snow/Super snow reaction to other snows.


That definately does follow how mack snow works, but how is this different to codominant?


----------



## sam12345

MrMike said:


> That definately does follow how mack snow works, but how is this different to codominant?


Yeah ive got the same outlook on it.
That diagram just shows how we know mack snow works... co dominant?


----------



## gazz

MrMike said:


> That definately does follow how mack snow works, but how is this different to codominant?


From a Incomplete dominant cross of a RED flower to a WHITE flower.
Here is the HET of that cross a like solid PINK.









From a co-dominant cross of a RED flower to a WHITE flower.
Here is the HET of that cross a like PINK/WHITE pied.









Found this if it explains it ok.

*Codominance and Incomplete Dominance 

Question - What is the easiest way to teach students the
difference between codominance and incomplete dominance? They
always confuse them.
---------------------------------------
Codominance - A form of inheritance in which both alleles 
are equally shown. 

Blood typing is a great example.
AB blood is the codominant relationship between the A protein and B 
protein both expressing themselves completely.
AO (type O allele means there is no protein), A is dominant and you 
see type A phenotype.
BO is the same except you see the B phenotype. Type O is recessive.

Incomplete dominance - A form of inheritance in which the 
heterozygous alleles are both expressed,
resulting in a combined phenotype. 

The one example that most books 
give is seen in some flower colors.
A red and a white allele gives pink. If it were codominance, you 
would see the red and white colors.
Incomplete dominance is most commonly found in plants.
*


----------



## arkreptiles

gazz said:


> *The one example that most books *
> *give is seen in some flower colors.*
> *A red and a white allele gives pink. If it were codominance, you *
> *would see the red and white colors.*
> *Incomplete dominance is most commonly found in plants.*


This very simple quote probably explains best the common misconception of the meaning of the terms as most people in the hobby understand it!!

Consider all the 'double co-dom morphs' produced in the Royal Python world! These would be the 'Pink' flowers referred to above.


----------



## LoveGeckos.com

I can confirm that the eyes in both pictures posted by gazz on page one in fact have solid black eyes. I guess it's just the lighting in the images.

I have other pictures of both the geckos, I will try and dig them out and get you a better eye shot.


Cheers
Andy


----------



## gazz

LoveGeckos.com said:


> I can confirm that the eyes in both pictures posted by gazz on page one in fact have solid black eyes. I guess it's just the lighting in the images.
> 
> I have other pictures of both the geckos, I will try and dig them out and get you a better eye shot.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Andy


That's good to know.Makes it a little less confusing than it all ready is.Good to know that mack snow X tug snow = super snow solid eyes:2thumb:.


----------



## MrMike

gazz said:


> That's good to know.Makes it a little less confusing than it all ready is.Good to know that mack snow X tug snow = super snow solid eyes:2thumb:.


Yay!!!!!!


----------



## nuanreptiles

Just couple days ago we hached two super snow (solid eyes) from mack snow x phantom. 

So defenitely tug x mack does produce super snows but how would those super snows act when you breed them with normal? 

I'm just thinking that they both carry mack and tug snow genes so basically out come would be like 
25% normal
25% mack snow
25% tug snow 
25% super snow

Or do these genes merge somehow, cancelling tug snows dominance and out come would then be all snows?


----------



## gazz

nuanreptiles said:


> Just couple days ago we hached two super snow (solid eyes) from mack snow x phantom.
> 
> So defenitely tug x mack does produce super snows but how would those super snows act when you breed them with normal?
> 
> I'm just thinking that they both carry mack and tug snow genes so basically out come would be like
> 25% normal
> 25% mack snow
> 25% tug snow
> 25% super snow
> 
> Or do these genes merge somehow, cancelling tug snows dominance and out come would then be all snows?


IMO i think all the snows from a Mack X TUG breeding will be codom snows(Mack) so 100%HET Super snow.So IMO you wouldn't get any dom snows(TUG).So the super snow offsping from a Mack X TUG are standed (Homozygous)-super snow.

However this is somthing thst really needs test breeding.


----------



## LoveGeckos.com

Just for your info we have breed two TUG/Mack Super Snows together this year, and so far we have ended up with.

More Super Snows and also a TUG Snow (could be Mack?), so I am currently thinking the following :-

TUG/Mack Super Snow x TUG/Mack Super Snow = 

25% Mack Super Snow 
50% TUG/Mack Super Snow 
25% TUG Snow 

This still needs to be tested, but at least that's what I think at the moment. So maybe a TUG / Mack Super Snow X Normal will result in :-

50% Mack Snow 
50% TUG Snow 

I have also paired a Mack Super Snow Albino X TUG Trepmer Albino's this year. The hatchling looks very Blizzard like, but Blizzard it is not. I beleive it to be a TUG / Mack Super Snow Albino. It is completly patternless.

It is strange though, solid black eyes, not even deep red ... hmmm .. is the TUG part playing with the eyes? 

I am really exicted how this little fellow will turn out, I will add a picture when he grows on a bit.

I also cannot wait until my TUG Snow Bells hatch  
Cheers


----------



## gazz

LoveGeckos.com said:


> TUG/Mack Super Snow x TUG/Mack Super Snow =
> 
> 25% Mack Super Snow
> 50% TUG/Mack Super Snow
> 25% TUG Snow


American breeders HAVE got normal offspring from a Dominant snow(GEM/TUG) X Codominant snow(Mack) breeding.

I'm going with if you breed a dominant snow to a codominant snow this makes all the snow offspring codominant(HET Super snow).Though this needs to be test bred to me it just seems logical.


----------



## LoveGeckos.com

I agree, but my example was TUG/Mack Super Snow x TUG/Mack Super Snow - not TUG Snow x Mack Snow.

I have had many normals from TUG X Mack.

Cheers


----------



## gazz

LoveGeckos.com said:


> I agree, but my example was TUG/Mack Super Snow x TUG/Mack Super Snow - not TUG Snow x Mack Snow.
> 
> I have had many normals from TUG X Mack.
> 
> Cheers


But you would get NO! normals from a super snow to super snow breeding.You'd only get snows and super snows.


----------



## LoveGeckos.com

Exactly just as I put in my post, maybe my wording isn't that clear.

Heres what I think


*TUG Snow (Heterozygous) X Normal*
50% Normal
50% TUG Snow

*TUG Snow (Homozygous) X Normal*
100% TUG Snow

*TUG Snow (Heterozygous) X TUG Snow (Heterozygous)*
25% Normal
50% TUG Snow (Heterozygous)
25% TUG Snow (Homozygous)

*Mack Snow X TUG Snow (Heterozygous)*
25% Normal
25% TUG Snow 
25% Mack Snow 
25% TUG/Mack Super Snow 

*Mack Snow X TUG Snow (Homozygous)*
50% TUG Snow 
50% TUG/Mack Super Snow

*TUG/Mack Super Snow X Normal - I guess you are saying 100% Mack Snows?*
50% Mack Snow
50% TUG Snow

*TUG/MAck Super Snow X TUG/Mack Super Snow - I guess your saying 100% Super Snows?*
25% MAck Super Snow 
50% TUG/Mack Super Snow 
25% TUG Snow 

*TUG/Mack Super Snow X Mack Super Snow - guess your saying 100% Super Snows?*
50% Mack Super Snow 
50% TUG/Mack Super Snow


----------



## arkreptiles

gazz said:


> But you would get NO! normals from a super snow to super snow breeding.You'd only get snows and super snows.


Hi, we've put together this year the following:

Mack Snow Het Tremper x Phantom and have have 'tremper snows, mack snow het trempers, het trempers and hypo snows - no super snows yet!

JMG Snow x TUG and so far appear to have offspring that look like the JMG Snow, again no Supers and no TUG's and no normals yet. The offspring so far do look extremely nice with much reduced yellow.

Mack Super Snow x TUG - hatchlings still awaited from this pairing so watch this space!!


----------



## gazz

LoveGeckos.com said:


> Exactly just as I put in my post, maybe my wording isn't that clear.
> 
> Heres what I think
> 
> 
> *TUG Snow (Heterozygous) X Normal*
> 50% Normal
> 50% TUG Snow
> 
> *TUG Snow (Homozygous) X Normal*
> 100% TUG Snow
> 
> *TUG Snow (Heterozygous) X TUG Snow (Heterozygous)*
> 25% Normal
> 50% TUG Snow (Heterozygous)
> 25% TUG Snow (Homozygous)
> 
> *Mack Snow X TUG Snow (Heterozygous) IMO 25%Mack,/25%Normal,/50%Super snow.*
> 25% Normal
> 25% TUG Snow
> 25% Mack Snow
> 25% TUG/Mack Super Snow
> 
> *Mack Snow X TUG Snow (Homozygous) IMO 25%Mack,/25%Normal,/50%Super snow.*
> 50% TUG Snow
> 50% TUG/Mack Super Snow
> 
> *TUG/Mack Super Snow X Normal - I guess you are saying 100% Mack Snows?:2thumb:*
> 50% Mack Snow
> 50% TUG Snow
> 
> *TUG/MAck Super Snow X TUG/Mack Super Snow - I guess your saying 100% Super Snows?:2thumb:*
> 25% MAck Super Snow
> 50% TUG/Mack Super Snow
> 25% TUG Snow
> 
> *TUG/Mack Super Snow X Mack Super Snow - guess your saying 100% Super Snows?:2thumb:*
> 50% Mack Super Snow
> 50% TUG/Mack Super Snow


Regardless of the dominant snow being [1C](Heterozygous) or [2C](Homozygous).I think the codominant influance counteracts dominant.


----------



## gazz

arkreptiles said:


> Hi, we've put together this year the following:
> 
> Mack Snow Het Tremper x Phantom and have have 'tremper snows, mack snow het trempers, het trempers and hypo snows - no super snows yet!
> 
> JMG Snow x TUG and so far appear to have offspring that look like the JMG Snow, again no Supers and no TUG's and no normals yet. The offspring so far do look extremely nice with much reduced yellow.
> 
> Mack Super Snow x TUG - hatchlings still awaited from this pairing so watch this space!!


JMG snows that they sell a codom snows are Mack snows.


----------



## LoveGeckos.com

gazz said:


> JMG snows that they sell a codom snows are Mack snows.


I totally agree  I wish everyone would either call them codom snows or Mack Snows. If it's not confussing already @-)


----------



## nuanreptiles

Thank you for clearing me up. I think I'll have to keep them for myself them for next season.

Here's pics of them


----------



## arkreptiles

gazz said:


> JMG snows that they sell a codom snows are Mack snows.


Indeed they are!!! However we retain the 'name' purely to distinguish between JMG's line and 'ordinary' mack snows since JMG line have much reduced black in them (at least the line we now have do!) - part of our plan to create a line that (as far as is possible) eliminates the yellow in Macks.

Our Mack Snow het Tremper x Phantom also produced our first Super Snow yesterday too - doesn't look like the hypo got transferred though.


----------



## MrMike

arkreptiles said:


> Our Mack Snow het Tremper x Phantom also produced our first Super Snow yesterday too - doesn't look like the hypo got transferred though.


The hypo could be there, the Supersnow "covers" it.


----------



## LoveGeckos.com

arkreptiles said:


> Hi, we've put together this year the following:
> 
> Mack Snow Het Tremper x Phantom and have have 'tremper snows, mack snow het trempers, het trempers and hypo snows - no super snows yet!


Hi Nick

Hope all is well 

What are you basing the Mack Snow het Trempers on? Could they not be TUG Snow het Trempers? Until further test breeding is done, how can you be sure? 

Do they not work together when both Snows pass on the snow gene?

If the Mack gene wasn't passed on, is it not possible that the TUG gene is?

I understand Gazz's theory, although I am still sitting on the fence.

It is all very interesting though.

Cheers


----------



## arkreptiles

Hi hope you are well too - we'll have to catch up at one of the shows.

We're sitting on the fence a bit too as this is only the second year we've mixed them.

We're keeping all the crosses for further breeding. We're just making assumptions at the moment!!! As you say, all very interesting!

We must say the 'Snow' Tremper produced from MSHT x Phantom is displaying very 'phantom like' characteristics so could be Phantom - we're planning on putting him back to a Phantom next year to see if it produces any supers - if not we will be fairly sure it's a Phantom!!!

If it does produce supers then the cross has 'cleaned-up' the 'Tremper Snow' quite considerably, likely due to the hypo influence if it is proven to be present.

Ultimately what we are trying to achieve is a cleaner 'snow' line regardless of whether it's TUG Snow or Mack Snow - or even if it turns out into a mix of the two - only time will tell - all very experimental at the moment and lots of fun - also producing some suprises too - we seem to have produced a reverse stripe phantom - again successive breeding needs to be done to check it isn't just some random pattern that has come out.

The Phantom eyes are also quite interesting, generally being a greyish colour but some seem to be almost green. Would be interesting to hear what others are getting.....



LoveGeckos.com said:


> Hi Nick
> 
> Hope all is well
> 
> What are you basing the Mack Snow het Trempers on? Could they not be TUG Snow het Trempers? Until further test breeding is done, how can you be sure?
> 
> Do they not work together when both Snows pass on the snow gene?
> 
> If the Mack gene wasn't passed on, is it not possible that the TUG gene is?
> 
> I understand Gazz's theory, although I am still sitting on the fence.
> 
> It is all very interesting though.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## gazz

arkreptiles said:


> Our Mack Snow het Tremper x Phantom also produced our first Super Snow yesterday too - doesn't look like the hypo got transferred though.


Is the phantom a (TUG)Talbino snow HYPO ?.Not all are there's a lot a (TUG)Talbino snow being sold as phantoms.But even so super snow hides the hypo influance so even though is doesn't expess hypo.It could very esay throw hypo offspring.


----------



## arkreptiles

gazz said:


> Is the phantom a (TUG)Talbino snow HYPO ?.Not all are there's a lot a (TUG)Talbino snow being sold as phantoms.But even so super snow hides the hypo influance so even though is doesn't expess hypo.It could very esay throw hypo offspring.


It is a 'real' Phantom girl!! We obtained our original group from TUG and this is one of the best girls we produced last year - very 'hypo!'. We'll be keeping the Super Snow so it will be interesting to see its offspring.


----------



## purpleskyes

MrMike said:


> Ahh, but they we're bought as Line bred? That seems rather naughty to me....
> *Either way a white snow is a white snow, not too many of them around*.


Thats is very true I am extremely happy my TUG has held her white and she is 11 months. Although she is small for her age, has a kink in the tail and abit of a funny eye.



















I need to get some better pictures in natural day light so you can see how white she actually is.

Anyone else's TUG's seemed small than normal?


----------



## pigglywiggly

my two TUG`s are a very nice size, my male is one of my biggest leos


----------

