# Scaleless Beardie



## Zak (Jan 7, 2008)

Bearded Dragons and other Creatures

Was just browsing their site and came across that. Personally i think its vile but its really nice to see the breeders sit back and think about the welfare of an animal prior to breeding it because im sure people would love scaleless lizards (oh the irony) and hence there would be a demand.


----------



## georgieabc123 (Jul 17, 2008)

theres nothing wrong with leather backs not having as many rough scales dosent hinder them ......i dont think so anyways :blush:


----------



## weelad (Jul 25, 2006)

they look descusting as do scaless snakes


----------



## georgieabc123 (Jul 17, 2008)

are they bred to be like that and is it like forcing them to have a deformity ??? sorry i dont know to me they just look like beardies:lol2:


----------



## georgieabc123 (Jul 17, 2008)

eww soorry to double post but i scrolled down to have and now i know what your on about it looks like a frog ..........:werd:


----------



## weelad (Jul 25, 2006)

georgieabc123 said:


> eww soorry to double post but i scrolled down to have and now i know what your on about it looks like a frog ..........:werd:


 :lol2::lol2:


----------



## Smaug85 (Nov 27, 2008)

Silkbacks look pretty interesting


----------



## Coal And Ciller (Apr 27, 2008)

The Leather back Looks like one of thoose hairless dogs.

I Can see the look a like:lol2:


----------



## DiLam (Mar 30, 2008)

i saw these a while back, i dont really like them leatherbacks are ok but silk just look weird!


----------



## purpleskyes (Oct 15, 2007)

Coal And Ciller said:


> The Leather back Looks like one of thoose hairless dogs.
> 
> I Can see the look a like:lol2:


Arent those Cats???

I dont like the scaleless lizards they look very werid and if something is born with a deformity like that it shouldnt then be continued to be breed from to make money.


----------



## luke123 (Apr 13, 2008)

they werent born with a deformity like that, they were made just like any other morph of lizard. i havent read up about them since i hear of them a few months ago but then they found out that because they dont hae the scales that too much uv could damage them because they dont have the uv protective scales on their backs...


----------



## Coal And Ciller (Apr 27, 2008)

Purpleskyes the are hairless dogs. I first saw these in the discover dogs at Crufts.


----------



## spend_day (Apr 10, 2008)

the silkbacks look ugly kinda like this http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/10/05/294252/ugliest.dog.sam.release.jpg lol

but the leather backs are ok


----------



## purpleskyes (Oct 15, 2007)

luke123 said:


> they werent born with a deformity like that, they were made just like any other morph of lizard. i havent read up about them since i hear of them a few months ago but then they found out that because they dont hae the scales that too much uv could damage them because they dont have the uv protective scales on their backs...


One was born without the scales which i would could as a deformity seeing as they are meant to have scales and then they continued to breed from it to make more of them. So no scales is detrimental to their health because of the UV, surely that is the definition of a deformity?


----------



## Coal And Ciller (Apr 27, 2008)

Great photo from link.


----------



## luke123 (Apr 13, 2008)

purpleskyes said:


> One was born without the scales which i would could as a deformity seeing as they are meant to have scales and then they continued to breed from it to make more of them.


but they were planned, just like any other morph that is made from any other lizard. its like with leos, in the beginning of making morphs some people might have said "there meant to have spots, the patternless and other morphs should not be bred there deformed" would you agree with them?


----------



## B&WTegu&Beardies (Mar 28, 2008)

luke123 said:


> they werent born with a deformity like that, they were made just like any other morph of lizard. i havent read up about them since i hear of them a few months ago but then they found out that because they dont hae the scales that too much uv could damage them because they dont have the uv protective scales on their backs...


I think sometimes when they are trying for Leatherbacks they get Silkbacks which can't withstand high temperatures and UV exposure which could lead to MBD if they aren't exposed to it, it's a lose-lose situation! I don't know if it's true though but I read it on here.


----------



## luke123 (Apr 13, 2008)

ive read that leather backs and silk backs are like the mack snow and super snow of the beardie world, and that a silk back is the super form of the leather back, so a silk back bred to a normal would give 100% leather backs...this is just what ive read. and they may be in the wrong order


----------



## Tur7le (Sep 28, 2008)

Breeding them like that will definatly have issues with i.r reflectance, giving them issues with thermoregulation but they're in a controlled environment so I imagine they're fine provided a decent thermal gradient and choice of cover. Can't see them doing too well in the sun though.


----------



## HadesDragons (Jun 30, 2007)

purpleskyes said:


> One was born without the scales which i would could as a deformity seeing as they are meant to have scales and then they continued to breed from it to make more of them. So no scales is detrimental to their health because of the UV, surely that is the definition of a deformity?


Originally just the leatherback (het form) was discovered. When bred to a normal, 11 / 18 babies showed the reduced scalation (close enough to 50%), suggesting it was either dominant or co-dominant in inheritance:

Dettagli servizio

Two leatherbacks were then bred together to determin whether it was dominant or co-dom, giving 5 with no scales (silkback), 11 with reduced scales, and 6 with normal scales. This pretty much perfectly fits the 25%-50%-25% patter you expect when crossing two animals het for a co-dominant trait. Had it been dominant, you'd have expected around 75% leatherback, 25% normal and nothing else. The fact that silkbacks hatched shows that there is a homozygous "super" form:

Dettagli servizio



luke123 said:


> but they were planned, just like any other morph that is made from any other lizard. its like with leos, in the beginning of making morphs some people might have said "there meant to have spots, the patternless and other morphs should not be bred there deformed" would you agree with them?


I wouldn't say they were "planned" as such - a single baby hatched out with what turned out to be "single gene" reduced scalation. That was luck. The beardie was then bred to an unrelated normal to try to prove out the genetics of it. That was intentional, but they had no idea of the results. Finally to determine whether it was dominant or co-dom they crossed two leatherbacks. Again, intentional but with no idea of the results. 

It's not something like Blood Red or Citrus that was intentionally bred towards over many generations - it literally happened overnight. Beardies with reduced scalation are not unheard of, but generally either don't get trial bred to see if it's an inheritable trait, or they are trial bred and the trait turns out not to be inheritable.



luke123 said:


> ive read that leather backs and silk backs are like the mack snow and super snow of the beardie world, and that a silk back is the super form of the leather back, so a silk back bred to a normal would give 100% leather backs...this is just what ive read. and they may be in the wrong order





B&WTegu&Beardies said:


> I think sometimes when they are trying for Leatherbacks they get Silkbacks which can't withstand high temperatures and UV exposure which could lead to MBD if they aren't exposed to it, it's a lose-lose situation! I don't know if it's true though but I read it on here.



Luke's correct - leatherback is just the het form of silkback. Whereas some het forms (e.g. het albino) are indistingushable from non-hets, leatherback is distinct from a normal beardie, much like the mack snow gene in leos, or the pastel gene in royals. As it's co-dominant, the homozygous ("super" in the case of a co-dom) form looks different to both the het and the normal. In something like an Enigma leo, which is dominant, both the het and the **** form look the same. The fact that het is different to normal, which is different to **** - along with the inheritance ratios - shows that it's co-dominant.

As for the UV intensities, it's something that will take time to figure out. Luckily most of the silkbacks currently in existence are in the hands of some of the most experienced beardie breeders in the world who will be well-equipped to deal with the mutation, and who may be able to figure out the optimal conditions for keeping them. I know the Dachiu's silkback (Ruby - one of the original five hatched in Italy) has been loaned out to various other reptile centres / breeders in the US. This should help them in figuring out the best way to look after them, and perhaps help them to make a decision on whether it's a morph they want to continue to work with or not. As it's such a change (both in appearance and possibly in care), I think keeping the numbers highly restricted is a good thing for now - it allows the people who are perhaps best qualified to make decisions about the morph to make them, rather than throwing them out into the public domain for your average Joe to experiment and guess with.


----------

