# Hypo (Leopard geckos)



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

It seems to be agreed (over here anyway) that Hypo is not detemrined by the number of spots, but rather the restriction of spots to the banded areas of the Leo. As below...



















Now, I've had a few hatchlings which have come from a Stripe and a Hypo parent. As the banding has "moved" into a stripe, and the spots are still restricted to the striped area (which would be banded in non-stripe Leos) does this still count as Hypo in your opinion? I assumed it would, as the Leo is epxressing Hypo traits, but with other traits changing the phenotype of a typical hypo. Examples below...




















All opinions welcome


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

Nice Hypo types: victory: Yep if the spot follow the banded and stay within there Hypos. Hypo is Dominant, And has a uniformed pattern of spots in bands. The only time the amount of spots have any relivents is when it come to super hypo. Spots of body in bands = Hypo, No spots on body = Super hypo.

Like this statment below is so wrong, 


leopardgeckowiki said:


> The general rule for to make a Hypo rather than a High Yellow is 10 or less spots on the back of the gecko.


Why ?, Well Hi-yellow and Hypo are two totally differant traits. Hi-yellow is nothing more than back ground color, And nothing to do with spots what so ever. And the fact that 10 spot make a Hypo and 11 make a Hi-yellow is just laughtable.


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

Cheers Gazz, that was my thinking as well. Was just having a robust discussion via email with someone "who has been keeping Leos longer therefore knows more".

I did try to explain the term peer reviewed when looking through Wikis, but it fell on deaf ears I suspect


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

I am not convinced that 'hypo' is simply dominant, or perhaps more correctly, I think there could be a mixture of two or more things happening. For example, I fully agree with the 'type specimens' shown above, however erroneous spots, not within the dark banding, are very common in 'hypo' individuals. This suggests one of several things:

1) While being a dominant trait, it is influenced by other traits (polygenic).
2) Trait expression varies in strength
3) Multiple independent origins of the same phenotype
4) 'Paradox' spotting

There are likely others also...

What do you think? What explanations do you have for these 'almost hypo' individuals.

Andy


----------



## nuttybabez (Jul 21, 2007)

I would call those hypos Mike


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I am not convinced that 'hypo' is simply dominant, or perhaps more correctly, I think there could be a mixture of two or more things happening. For example, I fully agree with the 'type specimens' shown above, however erroneous spots, not within the dark banding, are very common in 'hypo' individuals. This suggests one of several things:
> 
> 1) While being a dominant trait, it is influenced by other traits (polygenic).
> 2) Trait expression varies in strength
> ...


I have been thinking about this in relation to Super hypo for a while. It is accepted (on RFUK at least) that Super hypo is a polygenic reduction of spotting on top of a dominant hypo gene. My thoughts is, as there are so many Super hypos about, there is no evidence that these actually carry the Hypo mutation. Could Super hypo individuals simply be expressing a polygenic spot reduction?

As for Hypos with erroneous spotting outside the banded areas, I'm unsure, but it definitely is very common. I know some individuals express a Jungle patterning which can be hard to determine as adults, which may make it seem that the spotting is outside the typical banded areas.

Forgive my ignorance if this is wrong, but could it not be a polygenic increase in spotting on top of Hypo which causes these erroneous spots to appear? Thus still making the individual genetically Hypo?


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

nuttybabez said:


> I would call those hypos Mike


Cool, thanks : victory:


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

MrMike said:


> As for Hypos with erroneous spotting outside the banded areas, I'm unsure, but it definitely is very common. I know some individuals express a Jungle patterning which can be hard to determine as adults, which may make it seem that the spotting is outside the typical banded areas.


I'd say that the odd spots out side the banded area, For example dorsal tracking in hypo's is *Paradox* spotting. I mean Hypo is spot reduction by restricting the the spot to the banded areas. And Blizzard and Patternless is NO spots yet they still get spots bleeding through, So a Hypo having spots bleeding through can be expected. Like it does in Blizzards and Patternless.

Paradox hypo, A Hypo with dorsal track line.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Paradox spotting it is, but it would be interesting to know why (the eternal question...). Personally I am of the opinion that there are multiple genes interacting here which is affecting expression of 'spot absence' in the light bands (which I think is a better way to put it. It seems strange describing the type specimen by a trait unaffected by the mutation). There are clearly other factors also at work (perhaps environmental) which dictate when these spots appear. For example, I have a blizzard that has gained a single spot per year for the last 3 years.

That aside, it does pose an interesting question about breeding paradox spot hypos. Are you running the risk of developing a non-phynotypic hypo? Potentially...

Andy


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Paradox spotting it is, but it would be interesting to know why (the eternal question...).


Why ? is the question, But i feel it will never be known. We don't know why Blizzard and Patternless have Paradox spotting, What causes them or wheather they genetically pass on hasn't really been teated. We don't know why Blizzard and Snows express what apears to be random iris black out in the eyes more than any other morph, And that there seems to be a degree of genetic pass on with it with in the Blizzards and Snows, I am NOT refering to Super snows.

For example if you breed a Tinted eye blizzard to a Snow, You can expect the Snow offspring to express Tinted eyes, 
But the Normal offspring from the breeding not to express Tinted eyes.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I am not convinced that 'hypo' is simply dominant, or perhaps more correctly, I think there could be a mixture of two or more things happening. For example, I fully agree with the 'type specimens' shown above, however erroneous spots, not within the dark banding, are very common in 'hypo' individuals. This suggests one of several things:
> 
> 1) While being a dominant trait, it is influenced by other traits (polygenic).
> 2) Trait expression varies in strength
> ...


I'd concur with everything you say there Andy, I don't think Hypo acts in a straightforward manner. I have a 'super hypo' enigma hatchling this year from 'normal' patterned Bell x Snow Enigma/'Raptor' origin parents. There's no evidence of Hypo in the direct parents at all, so I can only assume polygenic coming through further back down the line.
Course it could be Enigma throwing it's weirdness in too..



MrMike said:


> I have been thinking about this in relation to Super hypo for a while. It is accepted (on RFUK at least) that Super hypo is a polygenic reduction of spotting on top of a dominant hypo gene. My thoughts is, as there are so many Super hypos about, there is no evidence that these actually carry the Hypo mutation. Could Super hypo individuals simply be expressing a polygenic spot reduction?
> 
> As for Hypos with erroneous spotting outside the banded areas, I'm unsure, but it definitely is very common. I know some individuals express a Jungle patterning which can be hard to determine as adults, which may make it seem that the spotting is outside the typical banded areas.
> 
> Forgive my ignorance if this is wrong, but could it not be a polygenic increase in spotting on top of Hypo which causes these erroneous spots to appear? Thus still making the individual genetically Hypo?


Agree again here Mike - 'tis the way I am starting to see it....


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

I think youve hit the nail on the head with this post. Hypo certainly isnt as straight forward as we think.



GlasgowGecko said:


> I am not convinced that 'hypo' is simply dominant, or perhaps more correctly, I think there could be a mixture of two or more things happening. For example, I fully agree with the 'type specimens' shown above, however erroneous spots, not within the dark banding, are very common in 'hypo' individuals. This suggests one of several things:
> 
> 1) While being a dominant trait, it is influenced by other traits (polygenic).
> 2) Trait expression varies in strength
> ...


1) For sure, you only have to look at the polygenic reduction of the remaining spotting "Super" and striping to see that hypo is easily influenced.
2)Most definitely, hypos vary massively.
3) This is the most interesting, i have now come across 3 different origins of hypo. The first (Ray Hines i believe) was believed to be polygenic.
4) Again quite common, should these examples that have paradox spotting outside of the uniform banding be disregarded as hypos, clearly not because genotypically they are still hypo.



Big Red One said:


> I have a 'super hypo' enigma hatchling this year from 'normal' patterned Bell x Snow Enigma/'Raptor' origin parents. There's no evidence of Hypo in the direct parents at all, so I can only assume polygenic coming through further back down the line.
> Course it could be Enigma throwing it's weirdness in too..


This is something i was thinking the other day.
Has anyone else noticed the amount of hypo and super hypo enigmas popping out of pairings that should produces hypos or supers?


----------



## gazz (Dec 9, 2006)

sam12345 said:


> The first (Ray Hines i believe) was believed to be polygenic.


Ray Hine, Hypo's have always been known as Dominant hypo in Europe and Ghosts that are Dominant in the USA.


----------

