# Breeding deformed animals.



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

So I have been thinking about this a lot recently, many of you will know my thoughts on the matter, but I want to hear the thoughts of those that choose to breed, lets call them: non-perfect animals (as deformed may be misleading in some cases).

There are a great number of cases every year, over a range of species where non-perfect animals are produced. I'm talking about minor things such as tail abnormalities in leopard geckos, eye abnormalities in various species, through to medium and more severe deformities such as six toed crested geckos and even limbs missing in certain species.

For those who have animals like this, and have considered breeding them, or have bred them, what is your rationale?

I don't want this to descend into an argument, or to be simply a thread saying "I wouldn't do it!". I really want to know why people do it (as it is their choice).

Andy


----------



## cazzie (Jan 3, 2008)

I think some would breed deformaties, or imperfections because some would consider them cute, if there is a market for things that pull the heart strings of sympathy, they are more likely to be sold, not always first but if you can band up a story suited or fitting to the animal to give it the "Aww" factor then some will do it. Something I struggle to see the logic of, as there may possibly, just possibly be underlaying or invisible problems linked to this sort of breeding, hear defects and what not, though some are perfectly normal just a few abnormalities. 

I wouldnt advise this sort of breeding, if it happens due to natural causes then so be it, but not by selectively breeding animals to get this to happen.


----------



## toyah (Aug 24, 2006)

Sorry, potentially OT: Andy, is polydactyly in crested geckos disabling for the geckos?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Hey Toyah,

This is an interesting question. Firstly I'm unsure as to whether we can consider it as polydactyly in this species, I don't know enough about it in all honesty. In other species it is autosomal dominant, but I cannot be sure that this is the case here.

Having only seen pictures of affected animals, I really can't comment on whether they are disabled in any way, but I know there are people on here that do own some, so perhaps they could answer with first hand experience.

Andy


----------



## POAGeckos (Jul 11, 2008)

I personally will not breed any geckos who were born with a deformity. For instance, I had 2 geckos born 3-4 months ago and the male is perfect, has absolutely no deformities or health problems, but the clutch mate, a female, has a slight under bite, not severe, but enough that if you look at her you can see it. When she was born she was instantly a 'Pet only-Not for breeding' gecko. But I see a lot of other people breeding and encouraging these deformities as though it is a morph. Some other people breed their deformed animals because they want to have baby geckos, but don't want to have to buy new geckos that don't have any problems.


----------



## Lisasgeckonursery (Feb 14, 2008)

I wouldn't breed a gecko if it wasn't perfect, i've taken in a few leos with abnormalities and although they live happily as pets I don't think its worth the risk to breed potentially disabled reptiles. Some may not be lucky enough to find homes as pets or may be bred from which just perpetuates the problem.


----------



## jools (Apr 4, 2009)

I think that the gene pool for certainly some lizards bred in captivity is very small. For that reason I feel it is up to breeders to only breed from the strongest specimens possible to try to prevent genetic abnormalities becoming the norm. As far as non-genetic abnormalities I still would not breed, as has been said by cazzie, you never know if there are also invisible internal deformities.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Hi guys,

Thanks for your replies. As I said, I'm not really looking for people saying they wouldn't breed non-perfect animals, but rather people who WOULD or HAVE bred them, and the reasons they do.

There are a variety of reasons why I would not advise it, but arguably some mutations could have positive fitness attributes. It can be difficult sometimes to suggest reduced fitness for certain characters.

Andy


----------



## Jade01 (Feb 21, 2007)

I don't see the purpose in producing deformed animals knowingly and on purpose.. your only going to cause more harm than good IMO. To the animals and the market.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

I would absolutely never continue to breed if a disabling feature occured. However in scientific studies I can see why breeding to work out what is going on might be worthwhile.

I can only really comment on personal experience about crested geckos.



I would be more concerned with what the trait could potray under the visuals. It may be nothing but since I prefer to err on the side f caution I think if for example any of my hatchlings were born 6 toed I would destroy the rest of the eggs from those parents and retire the parents.

A disabling trait is simply not as simple as a visual.. somethinjg may look fine and not cause outward issues but its what is going on genetically. Who knows in a few generations if further mutated genes will cause more issues that stem from the 6 toe trait in crested geckos.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Just to clear a point up:

IF six-toed crested geckos do represent polydactyly, and is indeed autosomal dominant then ALL carriers will present the six-toed phenotype. This means that it will be obvious which parent is the carrier.

I would not breed them again, BUT I would also NOT destroy the eggs, as you have no way of telling whether the carrier parent is homozygous or heterozygous, meaning there is no guarantee all offspring will carry the mutation.

Andy


----------



## mgdh100 (Jul 29, 2008)

Not that I would breed abnormalities myself, there is a question to be considered. Are you/ we being a hypocrite’s if we own/ breed any sort of human modified species such as a dog? Considering not one breed of dog around today exists due to nature, but instead human controlled (and please don’t say, people never meant to let them breed) selective breeding for various traits to create working animals to better our lives (e.g. collies) or the more recent fashion breeding (e.g. pugs).
The other thought that I might ask to be considered is; if you were to pretend that a particular species has become extinct or becoming so in its natural environment (I do realise there are many species that fit that grouping), how can we be sure that these so called “abnormalities” in captivity is not the species slowly evolving due to the probable fact that almost all captive animals are not kept in conditions that are at least 70% environmentally similar to there natural environment.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

mgdh100 said:


> The other thought that I might ask to be considered is; if you were to pretend that a particular species has become extinct or becoming so in its natural environment (I do realise there are many species that fit that grouping), how can we be sure that these so called “abnormalities” in captivity is not the species slowly evolving due to the probable fact that almost all captive animals are not kept in conditions that are at least 70% environmentally similar to there natural environment.


You make a good point, however we are considering reduced fitness characters, and not true selection, which is something a little different. You can select abnormalities IF there is no associated reduced fitness, but if there is selection will intensify it.

Andy


----------



## Bradders100 (Feb 3, 2008)

mgdh100 said:


> Not that I would breed abnormalities myself, there is a question to be considered. Are you/ we being a hypocrite’s if we own/ breed any sort of human modified species such as a dog? Considering not one breed of dog around today exists due to nature, but instead human controlled (and please don’t say, people never meant to let them breed) selective breeding for various traits to create working animals to better our lives (e.g. collies) or the more recent fashion breeding (e.g. pugs).
> The other thought that I might ask to be considered is; if you were to pretend that a particular species has become extinct or becoming so in its natural environment (I do realise there are many species that fit that grouping), how can we be sure that these so called “abnormalities” in captivity is not the species slowly evolving due to the probable fact that almost all captive animals are not kept in conditions that are at least 70% environmentally similar to there natural environment.


 
this is a very good point!



Another thing is environmental affects, i.e. temp change in eggs producing a deformed baby, would you then not breed that pair again?

Its difficult to say really.


I would like to try and learn more about the 6toe crestie problem (can we call it a problem) What if its evolution?

Should we be the ones to decide to stop it just because something doesnt look right?

Obviously deformities like missing legs (I have a beardie missing a 'leg' kinda just has a big odd claw thing, still movable and usable to an extent) i wouldnt breed from.

But again, I suppose it depends if the abnormality is an actual issue or not ^^


----------



## Bradders100 (Feb 3, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> You make a good point, however we are considering reduced fitness characters, and not true selection, which is something a little different. You can select abnormalities IF there is no associated reduced fitness, but if there is selection will intensify it.
> 
> Andy


 
To be fair, you could say that with great danes, We have bred them to be very large and so they suffer from heart problems and a shortened life span.

Same with cavilier king charles spaniels, they can have alot of brain and eye problems


----------



## biohazard156 (Nov 11, 2007)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Just to clear a point up:
> 
> IF six-toed crested geckos do represent polydactyly, and is indeed autosomal dominant then ALL carriers will present the six-toed phenotype. This means that it will be obvious which parent is the carrier.
> 
> ...


 
Andy, I believe that people are producing 6 toed geckos from perfectly normal looking adults, meaning it must be a recessive trait. I think that from the larger american rhac forums, this has been the case several times..

But, where do you draw the line? Say you had a proven pair of 5 years, numerous babies have been produced, all normal, and one day, a 6 toed gecko is born.... would you retire the parents due to this or chalk it up to a random mutation in that particular animal? If it was regularly happening in say 1 in 4 eggs, then that would be a more clear case of both parents being carriers and those should be retired.

I suppose though, in order to understand the impact of this mutation, then it needs to be studied more, but that would undoubtedly require much money, time and breeding of these geckos. I do not believe that any of the ones I have seen are disabled by the extra toes, more that they are little nubbins attached to a toe. I don't think it looks like polydactyly to me, as I work in a genetics lab who study human polydactyly (and they all seem to have functional extra digits, with bones etc)...I don't think these geckos have a bone structure in the extra digit, and I don't think they are functional at all.


----------



## phelsumaman (Aug 14, 2008)

This is a really interesting question. I have bred sime pictus geckos & a small % of the offspring have had a minor kink in the tip of their tail - I'm keeping these individuals & all the healthy lookng offspring will be sold with the caveat that they arent bred - the adults will not be bred again. 

While we are on this subject what do people think about breeding of pedigree cats & dogs? Some of these animals are deliberatley bred for their deformities (& these are seen as desierable!) In the reptile hobby we routinely breed for deformities whether we like to believe it or not - albino, hypo, superkiller - bumblebee - mojave glow in the dark morph etc (an exaggeration but you get my idea). The morphs we create generate novelty but they also concerntrate genes which in all likelyhood would not survive in nature - the reason they wouldnt survive isnt always that they stand out - it may be due to the fact that the animal is of suboptimum health in one way or another. For example royals, I imagine that an albino royal would not be predated on in nature due to the fact that these animals spend almost all their lives in a burrow & only come out at night when being white would not make a huge difference becaue its dark - so why arent there more wild caught albino royals? The genes for this exist in the wild as thats where we found one, i suspect that its due to something else to do with health/behaviour etc. 

I know that I have come across as very anti the breeding of animals with deformities but I do want to spend a moment thinking about the flip side - although natural selection favours survival of the fittest/most adapted some of the 'sub-prime' animals will invariably get to breed & these individuals do contribute to the species overall genetic diversity & may even lead to new species/subspecies if the conditions are right.

As always theres two sides to any argument but for my money only breeding the best/fittest & most genetically diverse group of animals is the way forward

Thanks
Ben
P.S sorry about my typing tonight - spelling mistakes abound I'm sure


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

i personally wouldnt breed from `deformed` animals,

i do think that breeders blame `fluctuating incubation temperatures` for deformaties a little bit too readily.

theres a hell of a lot of leos around with eyelid problems and inc.temps are always blamed.


----------



## Craigbaines (May 28, 2009)

what makes them perfect or deformed? 

evolution maybe?


----------



## purple-vixen (Feb 4, 2009)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Just to clear a point up:
> 
> IF six-toed crested geckos do represent polydactyly, and is indeed autosomal dominant then ALL carriers will present the six-toed phenotype. This means that it will be obvious which parent is the carrier.
> 
> ...


So basically, it's a game of wait and see. I have to say, if anything looked abnormal to one of my hatchlings, first thing I would do would start researching, and looking into why it may have happened.

I have to say, I am with Andy here, I really want to hear from some of the people who have experienced the "six toed" gecko and hear their opinions.



mgdh100 said:


> how can we be sure that these so called “abnormalities” in captivity is not the species slowly evolving due to the probable fact that almost all captive animals are not kept in conditions that are at least 70% environmentally similar to there natural environment.


Fantastic point. I see how being kept in a stable environment, temps/regular food/water etc, being a key point into this.

One thing that springs to mind is, in the wild, they have no glass. Just trees. 

The majority of us keep crested geckos in glass vivariums, as much as I am all "for" stopping the six toed mutation, I am not so narrowminded as to think it may well be a part of a probable evolution. 

I like that theory. But I still believe that the six toes is a sign of trouble ahead, until factually proven wrong.



biohazard156 said:


> Andy, I believe that people are producing 6 toed geckos from perfectly normal looking adults, meaning it must be a recessive trait. I think that from the larger american rhac forums, this has been the case several times..
> 
> But, where do you draw the line? Say you had a proven pair of 5 years, numerous babies have been produced, all normal, and one day, a 6 toed gecko is born.... would you retire the parents due to this or chalk it up to a random mutation in that particular animal? If it was regularly happening in say 1 in 4 eggs, then that would be a more clear case of both parents being carriers and those should be retired.
> 
> I suppose though, in order to understand the impact of this mutation, then it needs to be studied more, but that would undoubtedly require much money, time and breeding of these geckos. I do not believe that any of the ones I have seen are disabled by the extra toes, more that they are little nubbins attached to a toe. I don't think it looks like polydactyly to me, as I work in a genetics lab who study human polydactyly (and they all seem to have functional extra digits, with bones etc)...I don't think these geckos have a bone structure in the extra digit, and I don't think they are functional at all.


I think there is a big difference between a nubbin and a sixth toe. Some crested geckos I have seen, their six toe is nearly the size of one of their others. 

I am in no place to say it's bad or not, but based on some digging, and reading, research and help, I really do believe it's not for the good and it's something that needs to be kept watch upon.

I also believe that if it is proven to be an evolutionary trait, as I stated before, then it would make sense to me, but until it's all tested, researched and factual, I stand by and say it can't be good.

Yet, I come to the conclusion, reading of some people, like you have stated, breed a pair for five years, then out comes a six toed gecko? The explanation for this would surely be an evolutionary one....

I need to go and study a bit more on genetics :blush:



phelsumaman said:


> While we are on this subject what do people think about breeding of pedigree cats & dogs? Some of these animals are deliberatley bred for their deformities (& these are seen as desierable!) In the reptile hobby we routinely breed for deformities whether we like to believe it or not - albino, hypo, superkiller - bumblebee - mojave glow in the dark morph etc (an exaggeration but you get my idea). The morphs we create generate novelty but they also concerntrate genes which in all likelyhood would not survive in nature - the reason they wouldnt survive isnt always that they stand out - it may be due to the fact that the animal is of suboptimum health in one way or another. For example royals, I imagine that an albino royal would not be predated on in nature due to the fact that these animals spend almost all their lives in a burrow & only come out at night when being white would not make a huge difference becaue its dark - so why arent there more wild caught albino royals? The genes for this exist in the wild as thats where we found one, i suspect that its due to something else to do with health/behaviour etc.
> 
> I know that I have come across as very anti the breeding of animals with deformities but I do want to spend a moment thinking about the flip side - although natural selection favours survival of the fittest/most adapted some of the 'sub-prime' animals will invariably get to breed & these individuals do contribute to the species overall genetic diversity & may even lead to new species/subspecies if the conditions are right.
> 
> ...


Good points here, selective breeding for positive traits, healthy traits, surely this still has it's downfalls? Either way, it will continue, whether it be crested geckos, dogs or horses.

I just believe that if something occurs that doesn't seem right, precautions should be taken to stop any further "occurences" that may alter the gene pool, as already, line breeding has taken it's toll..

Again, off to read up on more genetics :blush:

Really good topic...

Hoping to hear from some others about this.

Jac


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

I personally do not consider that evolution can occur in captivity, as there is no selection pressure. Animals which carry moderate to medium severity fitness reducing traits are capable of producing offspring because of favorable conditions. 

Selection by man is very different to natural selection, and while it is capable of developing individuals with and enhanced fitness, it is really impossible to tell if this is the case. This is partly the reason why many species (including different dog breeds) have real health issues.

Evolution by natural selection happens over many hundreds of thousands of years (at the species level), and so it would be a little naive to think that over 2-3 generations we are witnessing evolution. We do see variation in digit number and shape in various lizard species, but this tends to be a reduction in digit number, not an increase.

It would be very interesting IMO if people that were breeding non-perfect animals were doing so on an 'evolutionary' stand point. However I think they would require much more evidence on the 'fitness' of the individuals they use.

Andy


----------



## purple-vixen (Feb 4, 2009)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I personally do not consider that evolution can occur in captivity, as there is no selection pressure. Animals which carry moderate to medium severity fitness reducing traits are capable of producing offspring because of favorable conditions.
> 
> Selection by man is very different to natural selection, and while it is capable of developing individuals with and enhanced fitness, it is really impossible to tell if this is the case. This is partly the reason why many species (including different dog breeds have real health issues).
> 
> ...


That's just pushed the one theory that I had as an opposed argument, this now just strengthens my feelings and opinions to my original beliefs.

Thanks for clearing that up, it did seem a little far-fetched, a "3 generation evolution". But I don't want to seem narrow-minded. Just because my passion for this is so strong, I still want to hear other peoples side to this.

I really want to hear what the people have to say who have bred the six toed geckos, and what their belief is?

Statement Example....

"Nothing has been proved that it's bad, so I will continue to breed until it is proved bad."

Fair enough, but what are the advantages? Surely if you know it's not really normal, a crested gecko has five toes on each foot, would you not feel slightly awkward about breeding them on? Genuine question. 

I suppose it all comes down to whether the gene is dominant and what the major cause is.

I'm trying to remain neutral, as GlasgowGecko is encouraging opinions, thoughts and experiences from all sides.

Thanks,

Jac


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

purple-vixen said:


> Thanks for clearing that up, it did seem a little far-fetched, a "3 generation evolution".


This is not to say it could not happen, however for a mutation to be passed on in the wild it has to either be neutral OR give a positive fitness benefit. I do not know whether having extra digits (or abnormal feet if we don't consider this to be extra digits) is a benefit.

Unfortunately it would be pretty difficult to test this.

Andy


----------



## JamesJ (Apr 12, 2008)

Ill be honest, I bred a female 6 toed crested gecko this year. She was my first female and it wasnt until she was almost a year old that it was pointed out to me (I hadnt even noticed myself!) I chose to breed her regardless to the fact she had extra toes, thinking to myself after all it is just a bit of extra sticky to climb it cant be that harmfull, also humans with extra digits arnt told not to have children incase this is passed on etc. I think to be honest I was so eager to breed my first cresties I was naive, I found around half the babys had extra digits. Ive since decided not to breed her again.

A few months ago I purchased 2 female cresties off a friend down south, James went and met him to collect them when he was up this way as I was at work. When I got home from work I was utterly gutted that one of the females has an extra digit on one foot, id even pointed out to him one of his holdbacks had extra toes as ive become very vidulant with it, the foot with the extra toe was not in one photo he sent me and in the other her toes were curled under her foot so it wasnt noticable. When I told him he felt awful as he hadnt noticed either. Now im thinking about selling both the females with extra toes as a "pet only" pair. My dilema is an asking price, I think asking what a normal female would go for is high as they cant be bred, but I dont want the price to be low and then someone with the same attitude I origionally had comes along and buys them to breed as cheap "money makers" regardless of me advertising them as they shouldnt be bred from


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

James_and_Hana said:


> Ill be honest, I bred a female 6 toed crested gecko this year. She was my first female and it wasnt until she was almost a year old that it was pointed out to me (I hadnt even noticed myself!) I chose to breed her regardless to the fact she had extra toes, thinking to myself after all it is just a bit of extra sticky to climb it cant be that harmfull, also humans with extra digits arnt told not to have children incase this is passed on etc. I think to be honest I was so eager to breed my first cresties I was naive, I found around half the babys had extra digits. Ive since decided not to breed her again.


Thank you.

I cannot (and will not) say you were wrong to breed this individual. I can say that I would not have done it, but I don't really have moral objections (as I generally don't attribute human moral opinions to these types of situations).

Would it be possible for you to post pictures of the female in question and the offspring?
IF you are suggesting that around 50% of offspring have the abnormality, then this would suggest EITHER the male was also a carrier, and that it is recessive OR that it is a dominant trait and that the female is a heterozygote.

Interesting.

Andy


----------



## purple-vixen (Feb 4, 2009)

James_and_Hana said:


> Ill be honest, I bred a female 6 toed crested gecko this year. She was my first female and it wasnt until she was almost a year old that it was pointed out to me (I hadnt even noticed myself!) I chose to breed her regardless to the fact she had extra toes, thinking to myself after all it is just a bit of extra sticky to climb it cant be that harmfull, also humans with extra digits arnt told not to have children incase this is passed on etc. I think to be honest I was so eager to breed my first cresties I was naive, I found around half the babys had extra digits. Ive since decided not to breed her again.
> 
> A few months ago I purchased 2 female cresties off a friend down south, James went and met him to collect them when he was up this way as I was at work. When I got home from work I was utterly gutted that one of the females has an extra digit on one foot, id even pointed out to him one of his holdbacks had extra toes as ive become very vidulant with it, the foot with the extra toe was not in one photo he sent me and in the other her toes were curled under her foot so it wasnt noticable. When I told him he felt awful as he hadnt noticed either. Now im thinking about selling both the females with extra toes as a "pet only" pair. My dilema is an asking price, I think asking what a normal female would go for is high as they cant be bred, but I dont want the price to be low and then someone with the same attitude I origionally had comes along and buys them to breed as cheap "money makers" regardless of me advertising them as they shouldnt be bred from


That's sad to hear you didn't realise until you got her home. Also I believe it's a good thing to do what you did and retire the mum that you bred from, but I have to agree with you in the fact that you now have two otherwise perfectly healthy females, that should only be pets, but worry they will fall into the wrong hands and onto deaf ears, especially if they are stunning.

Someone said to me, if you were to stop all this, you would end up with hundreds of crested geckos you could not breed, and you wouldn't be better off, so awareness through talking/sharing is the only way I can think to spread the word until someone manages to raise funds to research it thoroughly..

Maybe you could post a picture up to make people more aware and show how obvious it is? Only if that's ok... 

Jac

xXx


----------



## andy123 (Oct 23, 2008)

ive also had a female with an extra toe, again didnt realise it till it was too late and she sadly passed a way (not because of toe) she was a fab cresty and ever so friendly and it was that tiny (the toe) you couldnt tell it was there and i grew her up from a baby, i also think these can occur as the animal matures and gets older as this wasnt noticeable till she was around 18months old which she then died at 20months old, and i still miss her even today after 7months


----------



## JamesJ (Apr 12, 2008)

Harley




















Babys




















All my hatchlings this year had the same father as he was our only adult male at the begining of the season.

Edit: Jac there are pictures of the one female above, not very good quality/colour ones though, I can get newer ones if you like, I also still have 2 of the hatchlings I could get newer pictures of. Im rather curious as to if the ones with only one extra toe were born that way, as one hatchling had 2 extra toes and one seemed to dry up and drop off! So it only had 1 foot with an extra digit. It may have been shed that was not removed, although it didnt look like any shed was on it :S


----------



## purple-vixen (Feb 4, 2009)

I find it strange it is only on the back feet, but both back feet and not the front. It's also wierd how they kind of stick out to the side.

Thanks for the pictures. 

Jac


----------



## purple-vixen (Feb 4, 2009)

James_and_Hana said:


> Harley
> image
> 
> image
> ...


You know, after you saying that, it really does make me think of another option, maybe they are like warts or cysts. If it can dry up and fall off, like Biohazard said, they don't seem to do anything and have no bone structure prior to her research in human polydactyly <spelling?>

Like Andy said, it is so hard to tell without extensive research and testing, but at least this way, other options can be put out, and all areas can be explored.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Thank you for the pictures guys. Do the extra digits have the usual toe structure on the underside?

I don't think they are warts, but I also do not know whether it is polydactyly as seen in many other species.

Andy


----------



## biohazard156 (Nov 11, 2007)

Its' interesting to see those pictures, and thanks for sharing them. To me, from those pics, and from the other pictures I have seen....they appear to me to be almost extensions of the skin almost. I have seen images from underneath, showing the lamellae on the underneath of the nubbins, but if they are capable of just falling off....then I seriously doubt there is much holding them on other than skin. In humans, preaxial polydactyly does usually stem from an existing digit, like a fork in a tree...but they all contain bones and these just don't look like they do.

Does the male have normal toes then? I would imagine he is a carrier then, and that the female is a homozygote for it. I think quite a lot of the other breedings I have read about seem to be normal x normal breedings producing a small amount of extra toed babies....so suggests to me that its a recessive thing...otherwise it would be cropping up a lot more than it is.

This is not my image, but shows an example of the underneath of one crestie with an extra nubbin.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2281/1746830388_ba93112e56_o.jpg


----------



## Jczreptiles (Sep 1, 2009)

I would breed a deformed animal as long as it was not genetic and it was in the male or a part of the female that the period of being gravid would not effect or cause pain in any way.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

biohazard156 said:


> Does the male have normal toes then? I would imagine he is a carrier then, and that the female is a homozygote for it. I think quite a lot of the other breedings I have read about seem to be normal x normal breedings producing a small amount of extra toed babies....so suggests to me that its a recessive thing...otherwise it would be cropping up a lot more than it is.


It's interesting you say that, personally I think it is more likely that it is a dominant trait... however only time will tell!

This is exactly one of the occasions that I would be tempted to breed non-perfect animals, to test the mode of inheritance.

IF it is a dominant trait, then it should be pretty easy to remove it from the genepool...

Andy


----------



## biohazard156 (Nov 11, 2007)

6 toes on back feet - Gecko Resource Forums

this thread here indicates that it can come from normal parents.... the girl had one crop up, she doesn't mention the parents but it reads to me that they are normal as she doesn't mention the adults having extra digits...and one post further down suggests that someone bought a crestie with extra toes from a breeder with no extra toed adults...


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Its interesting, personally I'd like more concrete evidence or at least full disclosure of the facts, which unfortunately never really seems to be forthcoming... 

Andy


----------



## biohazard156 (Nov 11, 2007)

Yeah, I mean, I would like to see more info on it, I have seen a few people on here with extra toed animals, but they have not come forward yet...would be good to see if the parents were normal or not. I think I will stick by my theory of it being recessive, and see what comes of it. Although, It would be handy if it was dominant as you said, much easier to remove, although I fear it is not, and that there are potentially many hundreds of poss carrier babies floating around waiting to be bred.


----------



## biohazard156 (Nov 11, 2007)

just found this...seems someone in the uk has had it happen from normal parents

Cull it or Keep it - Page 5 - The Pangea Forums - Crested Geckos & More


----------



## Geckogirl_88 (Apr 24, 2009)

As far as bredding my leo's goes, none of mine have any abnormalities fortunately. 
If I DID breed from an abnormal gecko, I would only do it if I had bred the induvidual myself from a normal parent, thus being able to make an informed decision about whether the deformity was genetic or due to incubation factors etc. If a deformity was really bad, I wouldn't breed it. But a kinked tail probs wouldn't put me off TOO much, though it would have to be an amazing individual to make me decide to breed it, desptie abnormality. 

But this got me thinking, at what point does asbnormality become a desirable trend?
For example, my blazing blizzard female has 1 full black eye and 1 half golden, half black eye. These "snake eyes" are now considered a desirable trait, but surely they originated from abnormality? 

What do others think?
xx


----------



## pigglywiggly (Jul 19, 2008)

maybe extra toes in cresties isnt just a simple recessive trait, and could possibly be inherited the same way as extra toes in cavies?

it might explain how one suddenly pops up from an established pair who have produced many normal offspring over many seasons.

the extra toe in cavies is inherited differently, it isnt a simple recessive, but more of a polygene. 

its really difficult to explain, but its a build up of small modifiers that only express the extra toes once the animal has a large enough number of the modifiers.

so you can breed a cavy with extra toes to one without, and get 100% normal babies - normal parent has little or none of the polygenes for extra toes, but the offspring will carry an increased number of polygenes, which once they are bred from themselves increses the chance of producing extra toes.
its very hard to remove it from your lines as it isnt a simple recessive

In cavies the extra digits are also on the rear legs and can vary from a small toe attached by very thin flap of skin, to a complete extra digit with claw, they are usually removed by the breeder at birth.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

pigglywiggly said:


> maybe extra toes in cresties isnt just a simple recessive trait, and could possibly be inherited the same way as extra toes in cavies?
> 
> it might explain how one suddenly pops up from an established pair who have produced many normal offspring over many seasons.
> 
> ...


Whilst it is possible that it could be a polgenic trait (multiple genes), i think this is currently a less likely option.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to tell untill you have the results of controlled breeding trials.

As for breeders simply cutting the toes off... well the less said about that the better.

Andy


----------



## James D (Nov 17, 2008)

Jczreptiles said:


> I would breed a deformed animal as long as it was not genetic and it was in the male or a part of the female that the period of being gravid would not effect or cause pain in any way.


The point is, how can you tell whether a deformity is going to be inherited by the offspring until you breed the parents in the first place?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

The whole "incubation temperature fluctuation" theory as a method of explaining deformities is pretty controversial in my opinion. It gets invoked with absolutely no evidence...

For this reason I think it is impossible to suggest that it is fine to breed animals like this.

Andy


----------



## James D (Nov 17, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> The whole "incubation temperature fluctuation" theory as a method of explaining deformities is pretty controversial in my opinion. It gets invoked with absolutely no evidence...
> 
> For this reason I think it is impossible to suggest that it is fine to breed animals like this.
> 
> Andy


That's exactly what I was getting at Andy.
As I've said several times before, I dislike the way every deformity in leos is blamed on incubation temperatures with no evidence at all.


----------



## toyah (Aug 24, 2006)

I think the only reason I'd consider breeding from a gecko with extra toes would be to breed the animal back to its parent.


----------



## mrcarlxx (May 1, 2009)

i am a little bit of a hypocrite on this subject.....as i dont see a problem with breeding snakes etc, but when it comes to things like dogs or humans then its a no.

when i say i would breed snakes with problems i dont mean proper problems, i mean a kink in the tail or something small.....if the thing had 3 heads and one eye or something that would cause suffering then thats where i would draw the line


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

Would breeders of Spider Royal Pythons come under this catagory?

'Head wobble' or 'Stargazing' in this morph is well known yet many people continue to breed!!!


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Central Scotland Reptiles said:


> Would breeders of Spider Royal Pythons come under this catagory?
> 
> 'Head wobble' or 'Stargazing' in this morph is well known yet many people continue to breed!!!


For me yes, they most certainly would. I have had no dealing with the issue myself, but I would love to hear from anyone who is breeding Spider royals that have the issues mentioned.

Andy


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

I thought long and hard about a "rescue" three legged Leo we took from a shop. The lack of a fourth limb was put down to "incubation fluctuation" as no other siblings had any issues.


----------



## snakeprint (May 29, 2008)

MrMike said:


> I thought long and hard about a "rescue" three legged Leo we took from a shop. The lack of a fourth limb was put down to "incubation fluctuation" as no other siblings had any issues.


That's laughable if you think about its human equivalent though. Are babies really born without a limb because Mum didn't keep it warm enough in the womb? (Yes, I know the fatal flaw in this point is the whole egg/womb thing, but is it that different?) Surely we'd look for possible genetic issues - missing chromosomes etc - and outside factors such as chemicals, various medications and radiation problems which seem to get blamed a lot?
I think what I'm saying is something must surely be wrong for an entire limb to not have formed, temperature fluctuations or not. Perhaps if a gecko starts to develop in an egg and already has some kind of weaker gene which means it will not grow as well, (or perhaps it's mother was under-nourished at the time of laying) and then there are issues with incubation temperatures, it could show itself as a missing limb, but I'd have thought there has to be something wrong genetically for such a big deformity to occur. I really don't know enough about how embryos develop, and I suppose nobody really does or we wouldn't be discussing whether or not the whole "incubation fluctuation" thing is a valid reason for some of these deformities.


----------



## sazzle (Jun 3, 2008)

i would never breed any of my 'specials' they're pets only... and can lead to so many issues in the industry if people continue doing it x


----------



## MrMike (Jun 28, 2008)

snakeprint said:


> That's laughable if you think about its human equivalent though. Are babies really born without a limb because Mum didn't keep it warm enough in the womb? (Yes, I know the fatal flaw in this point is the whole egg/womb thing, but is it that different?) Surely we'd look for possible genetic issues - missing chromosomes etc - and outside factors such as chemicals, various medications and radiation problems which seem to get blamed a lot?
> I think what I'm saying is something must surely be wrong for an entire limb to not have formed, temperature fluctuations or not. Perhaps if a gecko starts to develop in an egg and already has some kind of weaker gene which means it will not grow as well, (or perhaps it's mother was under-nourished at the time of laying) and then there are issues with incubation temperatures, it could show itself as a missing limb, but I'd have thought there has to be something wrong genetically for such a big deformity to occur. I really don't know enough about how embryos develop, and I suppose nobody really does or we wouldn't be discussing whether or not the whole "incubation fluctuation" thing is a valid reason for some of these deformities.


It wasn't my diagnosis  This was the information we gave when "rescuing" her. We will never know the cause unforuntately. She will just have live her days in the pampered lifestyle she has become accustomed to.


----------



## snakeprint (May 29, 2008)

No, I gathered not as you used quotation marks. It really is mad the number of times incubation temperature gets blamed for these things though. People don't seem to want to accept that their reptiles may have a genetic deformity.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

snakeprint said:


> No, I gathered not as you used quotation marks. It really is mad the number of times incubation temperature gets blamed for these things though. People don't seem to want to accept that their reptiles may have a genetic deformity.


 I have noticed recently people are very quick last year to have said there is nothing wrong with breeding deformities into lines as long as it doesnt SEEM to affect the animal.. whatver that means.. now they are selling up the specific adult geckos that are breeding deformed babies..

in itself this is ok but a few of those sellers are not even mentioning the adults produce deformed babies.. 

Sadly I genuinely think the animals that are ( specifically 6 -toe cresties Im talking about here) potentially an issue will end up in homes that will only breed them anyway.

I know the majority of crestie keepers and breeders know of at least 2 or 3 keepers who have bred 6 toed cresties and even one who didnt bother to mention it when selling. It is quite worrying.

if I owned these animals I would want them to have a forever home with me so I could ensure they did not go anywhere else. I feel that is the only way to try to halt the issue. I appreciate that not all breeders and keepers think this way but it is not possible to influence everyone to be sensible when breeding.

That wont happen though as breeders and keepers want to make space for animals without these traits so sell and move them on once they realise that they may be frowned on for continuing to breed the pairings that produce genetic abnormalities themselves.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

sparkle said:


> I have noticed recently people are very quick last year to have said there is nothing wrong with breeding deformities into lines as long as it doesnt SEEM to affect the animal.. whatver that means.. now they are selling up the specific adult geckos that are breeding deformed babies..
> 
> in itself this is ok but a few of those sellers are not even mentioning the adults produce deformed babies..
> 
> ...


Agreed - it's a problem in certain areas for sure.
I have a Blind Supersnow Bell Albino male who would have been excellent as a breeding animal, except he won't ever go near a female and he's a pet only !

I don't know for definite what the answer is though to be honest.....
If for example you move on a 'special' one, you can't be certain that a similarly unscrupulous person isn't taking it on to 'breed'. Some people will just think they are getting a bargain, not a pet to be cared for long term.

On the subject but slightly off tangent, what is the feeling about what 'should' be done with deformed or 'not right' animals ?
This may be 'spinning/stargazing' Spider Royals or Leo Enigmas for example ?

Is the cruel reality that they should be euthanised even if they exhibit mild symptoms - to prevent them being bred at ANY point and try and eradicate the issuess ? By the way that's not my viewpoint, rather a discussion element !


----------



## Captainmatt29 (Feb 28, 2009)

I have a question for you all - alot of people are so anti 6 toes......i know of a gecko being bred who had 3 toes on one leg and all the off spring had complete toes and no loss all season.

Anyway to my point if having 6 toes was a bad thing then my left foot is classed as deformed surely ? or is it evolution accommodating for better stability ?

After all 99% of crested setups aren't alike their natural habitat which means they may have to make the change to accommodate the change?

Also bare in mind if you research some evolutionary theories limbs are known to develop without bone structure until a later date


----------



## kirsten (Jan 13, 2008)

i haven't read all the thread as i'm a little short on time, but i will be coming back to this later. but i'd like to give me opinion and answer of the original question.

i believe some people continue to breed slightly malformed animals, because quite often (i've noticed this a lot, sods law, i believe it's called) the most beautiful animals, and best examples of their morphs, quite often have some problems. 

so i believe some people may continue to breed to enhance the morph quality, then add in new blood and try to breed out the problems, whilst maintaining morph quality.


----------



## Captainmatt29 (Feb 28, 2009)

kirsten said:


> i haven't read all the thread as i'm a little short on time, but i will be coming back to this later. but i'd like to give me opinion and answer of the original question.
> 
> i believe some people continue to breed slightly malformed animals, because quite often (i've noticed this a lot, sods law, i believe it's called) the most beautiful animals, and best examples of their morphs, quite often have some problems.
> 
> so i believe some people may continue to breed to enhance the morph quality, then add in new blood and try to breed out the problems, whilst maintaining morph quality.


Kirsten i think you have hit that one the head pretty well and it seems like a sensible means to the reason


----------



## Heim (Aug 3, 2008)

I love reading really good arguments, especially when people put some thought into their answers.

Throwing some petrol on the fire, for the ones that wouldnt let any species breed unless it was 'perfect', how do you feel when you see humans 'contaminating' their own gene pool?

There is plenty of example of physically and mentally disabled people having children. Or even such families where the mother and father have been under performers in the work place and academics, have a number of 'unfavoured' physical traits, but have a large family? 

Maybe even the the gay sperm donors? Not that I have anything against gays at all, but if were 100% truthful, if we all felt that way it wouldnt be long before the species went the way of the panda would it?

What if a woman had a down syndrome child? Should she be told she can not have another child? Like that 'if you knew a woman that had 7 kids but half them died and the others were ill, she was pregnant, would you advise her to get an abortion?' question.

I mean in all honesty, how would you feel if someone turned up at your door one day and told you that your kids wont be be allowed to have children, as your bloodline was less favourable than someone elses?

Or perhaps its different because we are more clever than reptiles? Therefore we should no limits placed on people? While we play the hand of god with all the 'lower species'?

(2nd day back in work and its dragging, amuse me people! let me see blood!!)


----------



## ladybird (Sep 9, 2006)

I suppose it depends if the deformity is genetic or not. You know they can get deformities from other causes such as improper incubation and such. That wouldn't affect the offspring. But, to be on the safe side, I personally would stay away from breeding stuff that hatches out with a deformity just in case


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Heim said:


> Or perhaps its different because we are more clever than reptiles? Therefore we should no limits placed on people? While we play the hand of god with all the 'lower species'?


Problem is, we DON'T play "the hand of god".

The "hand of god" eliminates the vast majority of every single clutch - only a select few survive to breed.

The "hand of god" doesn't act with pity to baby along a fiddly feeder or one that's a bit weaker than the rest or one with a deformity that makes it impossible for that baby to thrive in the wild.

The "hand of god" doesn't try to preserve each and every life.

What we play is "the mercy of man". We don't select harshly for the fittest animals, the best feeders, the ones that show no signs of weakness. We select animals that wouldn't survive in the wild to be the parents of new generations.

I wouldn't breed an animal with a deformity.

In fact, I have an animal who, on further inspection, has a spinal kink. I had made quite a lot of plans around breeding him. Those plans are now in the toilet because I WILL NOT risk that kink being genetic, knowing that one of his siblings was also kinked. Whether or not he thrives, whether or not he COULD breed... he won't be breeding here.


----------



## snakeprint (May 29, 2008)

Heim said:


> I love reading really good arguments, especially when people put some thought into their answers.
> 
> Throwing some petrol on the fire, for the ones that wouldnt let any species breed unless it was 'perfect', how do you feel when you see humans 'contaminating' their own gene pool?
> 
> ...


I agree with your point totally about human deformities. I can imagine people might be put off from trying to have more children if they have a child with a disability or serious medical condition though. Although it may work the other way too - if your first born is disabled, would you want to try to have another child that can lead a more normal life? I'm not suggesting for one minute that the first child would be overlooked or any less loved by its parents in any way and I don't want to cause offence to anybody who may have a disabled child or make any assumptions about what life for them is like. I am just trying to make the point that we have a choice about whether we produce more young or not. 
To refer back to the "playing god" point, I suppose we already are doing this by keeping reptiles as pets in the first place. If they were in the wild, males would often have to fight each other in order to get their mate, and so in most cases it is the strongest or most intelligent animal that passes its genes on. Or it might be that the female will only accept the male that is most attractive to her physically. By keeping reptiles in vivariums with each other, we are the ones that decide who gets the chance to breed with who. Survival of the fittest goes out the window.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

messengermatt said:


> I have a question for you all - alot of people are so anti 6 toes......*i know of a gecko being bred who had 3 toes on one leg and all the off spring had complete toes and no loss all season.
> *
> Anyway to my point if having 6 toes was a bad thing then my left foot is classed as deformed surely ? or is it evolution accommodating for better stability ?
> 
> ...



Im not sure what your point is here Matt, IF it is that this means the deformity was not heritable because non of the offspring show the phenotype, then I'm sure you see the error in that logic.

As for the argument of evolution. It is a little bit out of place in a situation where there is NO selection, an absolute requirement of evolution. I see your point, especially with it being close to home, however I always find it best to try and separate morals and choices applied to humans from those we can sensibly apply to non humans.



Heim said:


> I love reading really good arguments, especially when people put some thought into their answers.
> 
> Throwing some petrol on the fire, for the ones that wouldnt let any species breed unless it was 'perfect', how do you feel when you see humans 'contaminating' their own gene pool?
> 
> ...


As above it is a completely different scenario to compare humans and lizards here. Humans are capable of higher brain function and reason above the level of instinct. This means they are capable of making an informed choice themselves. These animals are not.

Andy


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

Maybe not 100% relevant to the original post but certainly worth a read, i promise!!! ​ 


*Culling Offspring*
A much overlooked and underused practice​The voluntary culling of offspring is a practice all too few people participate in. In reality this is a disservice to the hobby as a whole on several levels, and has amounted to a disturbing trend. 
In today's world of information, knowledge, and availability of animals, the number of people breeding reptiles increases every year.
All these things are indeed assets to the hobby, but the relative ease of reproducing many species has resulted in virtually every person in possesion of a pair of leopard geckos or cornsnakes to feel they have to breed them.
The problem lies in the fact that this results in nothing more than more animals being produced without rhyme or reason and very little progress being made.
In part, the reason behind this lies in the desire for monetary gain. If an egg hatches, the baby will be sold regardless of whatever characteristics that baby might or might not bear. This includes behavioral traits as well.
The simple truth is this is irresponsible and not every hatchling produced needs to be added to the gene pool. 
What we have today is a multitude of small time breeders with one pair of this and one pair of that just hatching eggs for the sake of producing more animals and selling everything produced with no regard for the betterment of the captive lineages. This often results in the sale of sibling pairs, which promotes inbreeding for no purpose, and the sale of mediocre animals which will go on to produce more mediocre animals and so on.
The entire attitude of breeding for the sake of producing more animals to sell needs to be corrected. 
I have seen estimates that in excess of 150,000 leopard geckos were produced this year(2002). My point is why should you or I put together a group of leos for breeding? What purpose would it serve? None whatsoever beyond the generation of a small amount of additional income. 
The current effort put into the reproduction of many common species must be shifted to the area of refinement, and this is dependant on culling. 
So what is culling anyway? Contrary to the belief of some, culling is not keeping the best one or two offspring for your group and selling the rest. Many large scale professional breeders refer to this as culling, but it is just a facet of selective breeding, since they would have just sold them all if none met their personal standards to merit keeping.
Culling is the destruction of any offspring bearing any undesirable, or less desirable traits. By traits, I do not mean only color and pattern. 
I realize that the intentional killing of certain offspring is distasteful to some, and will be considered cruel by many. I am not writing this however to cater to the warm and fuzzy opinions of many today who claim the title of "herper" just because they keep a few reptilian pets.
Many people hold an inherent sympathy for the weak, or just the lives of the less desireable. There is little room for this shortsighted approach.
Nature itself is harsh and unforgiving in its methods and in what individuals are allowed to reproduce. We too must become strict in our standards, but we have to use different criteria.​ 




That brings us to the question of how will the culling of offspring be accomplished? The answer will vary depending on the species involved. The degree of culling must be based on the relative abundance of a species as captive born. The more common a species, the more strict the criteria should be. Species which remain rarely bred may be limited to the culling of only deformed or otherwise defective offspring, while the most common species should be culled using much broader standards. First and foremost, any offspring with physical deformities should be culled. Snakes born with one eye, or a spinal kink etc should not be sold. Likewise, lizards born with turned feet or deformed limbs should never leave your possesion.​



Even though in many cases these conditions are not genetic, there is simply no reason to add less than perfect specimens to an already saturated market. It is all the more applicable if the condition is genetic, or suspected to be so. These animals should never be allowed to reproduce.
The only time that this standard could be relaxed would be when it concerns a species which is very limited in availability, and the specimen only has a minor nongenetic blemish but is still capable of needed reproduction.
Note I said species, not morph. Just because a morph is rare (and thereby commanding the coveted higher price tag), is no excuse to sell deformed specimens. Case in point, one eyed albino boas. There exists the possibility that this condition is a genetic defect resulting from inbreeding. When these snakes were still bringing several thousand dollars, a grand or two was deducted from the price of the one eyed individuals and they were sold regardless. This was greed, no more, no less. 
A very important part of a breeding project that is often overlooked is to have a plan. Before you start to breed a species you need a goal, a result you are aiming for, a set of standards you want to meet. 
The process begins of course with the careful selection of your founding stock. Do not be in a hurry to get your group together. Know what you are looking for and do not let the price figure in too heavily. Never settle for lower quality in order to save money. The founding stock is the basis of the entire project, and if you cut corners at the beginning, you are crippling your own efforts. 
Do not buy siblings with the intention of breeding them to each other. There is nothing wrong with buying siblings, but also buy another pair form a seperate bloodline and cross the pairs. 
Now the main issue, you've hatched eggs, what do you cull? This is where it gets subjective. With all the possible breeding programs, there is no one answer. Alot will depend on the goals you established earlier. 
Generally speaking, any offspring which are not at least as high quality as the parents are subject to culling. There is no reason to step backward. Anything involving the color or pattern traits will largely depend on the tastes of the breeder and his level of dedication to the perfection of the blood line.​ 
Other characteristics however, should be held to stricter standards. For instance if you are breeding mountain kingsnakes or gray bands you will have some problem feeders. If, after a reasonable amount of time, you have some specimens that refuse to eat mice devoid of any manipulation, they should be culled. Nonfeeders should not be sold in the first place, even at discounted prices, and those that remain so should be removed from the gene pool. This will strengthen the captive lineages.​ 



Likewise, if a specimen just fails to thrive it should be culled. I spent several years keeping and breeding bearded dragons. One fact of breeding this and other species which produce fairly large numbers of offspring is that a small percentage of them just will not take off. Some people, out of a sense of sympathy, or obligation, will put great effort into nursing these individuals, coaxing them to eat etc. I allowed several dragons to die naturally from their refusal to hunt for themselves, it needs to be done. My wife took one dragon many years ago and hand fed it, spending an hour or so per day for 4 weeks convincing it to eat. While this is a noble act, these animals should be culled. The weak have no place in the gene pool, and saving such animals is not doing the species, or future keepers any favors. The dragon my wife spent so much time with grew into a healthy adult, but we kept her until her natural death nine years later, and she was never bred. These are merely some examples meant to make you think about where you are going with your breeding projects. Producing an animal for no reason other than to have a few more babies to sell is no longer acceptable in this time of over saturation of many species.​



Where many common species are concerned, there exists no reason for experienced hobbyists to produce them at all. Their efforts are much better spent working with other species that are in need of being produced.​ 




Things like leopard geckos and cornsnakes, including the common morphs, are already produced by the tens of thousands. These species are ideal for the kids, and the less experienced to get their first taste of breeding, and this is great. However, if you are an experienced hobbyist producing yet more leopard geckos, you are accomplishing nothing outside of your own self serving interests. At least a portion of every breeders efforts should be aimed at the advancement of the hobby as a whole. I myself have been guilty to a degree of several points I have mentioned here. I'm not trying to convince you to stop producing common species. I am only saying that with many species the numbers being produced are more than adequate. More focus should be placed on quality rather than the quantity of the common species, and alot of the effort put into pumping out even more of these would be of better service to the hobby if applied to less common species, especially those that are not bred due to the lack of potential for financial reward.​



In the past I have worked toward producing abberantly patterned California kings. This project was just for the enjoyment of seeing the odd patterns. In the process though, I also produced many average, or even below average looking hatchlings. I sold them all, often wholesale, just to move them. This practice benefitted nothing, and many of those should have really been culled. The availability of average looking cal kings does not warrant my producing even more. It does nothing for the refinement of the species, nor is there a need for more of these in the pet trade. 
The majority of people will refuse to take culling to that level. They would equate culling a healthy but imperfectly banded cal king to lighting a cigarette with a $20 bill. These people will ensure the over abundance of the most common species, and their status as disposable pets. They also make it easier for those of us less concerned with money, and more so with the betterment of these species and the hobby as a whole to practice more strict culling. 
At the very least, poor feeders, and weak or deformed hatchlings should be destroyed. There is really no valid excuse for selling them and their culling will only improve the gene pool.
Culling is not easy, and I do not enjoy it any more than you. As responsible breeders though, we must practice it to some degree.​ ​


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Hi Fraser, can I ask the source of this info?

Andy


----------



## SleepyD (Feb 13, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Hi Fraser, can I ask the source of this info?
> 
> Andy


hi Andy I don't know if it's the same source but I came across that article a while back written by Clay Davenport here ~ Culling Offspring though I had to open it up using google cache as the main site wouldn't open at the time ~
Culling Offspring


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I personally do not consider that evolution can occur in captivity, as there is no selection pressure. Animals which carry moderate to medium severity fitness reducing traits are capable of producing offspring because of favorable conditions.
> 
> Selection by man is very different to natural selection, and while it is capable of developing individuals with and enhanced fitness, it is really impossible to tell if this is the case. This is partly the reason why many species (including different dog breeds) have real health issues.
> 
> ...


Think Id disagree with you, in the case of say cresties as I believe this question has come out of the ones for sale at the minute we may have wild caught species from severallocale which have been bred together. These may be many many miles apart and would take hundreds of years to occur in the wild, yet very quickly in captivity we can replicate centuries of evolution. We can manipulate conditions, day length, humididty, chosen mates etc etc etc and produce conditions which simply wouldnt happen in the timespan we are considering.

In nature all sorts of unnaturaltraits occur readily, Im seeing a lot of melanistic birds at the minute round where I live and work for instance, we are also seeing invasionsof foreign specis like American Cray fish, wallabys etc something which simply couldnt have happened in an evolutionary scale in centuries yet with our interactions are happening in relatively short time frames.

Anyway back to abnormalities,like someone posted above these extra digits seem to be a growth on the edge of a rear toe, similar things happen with dogs with dew claws and are readily just cauterised off within first week of life and deemed perfectly acceptable.

To me this is actually far less worrying than the traits we are breeding into say Leos where we are actually breeding towards known brain ailments (circling) etc and this is deemed acceptable as we like the colours of the morphs being produced whereas in fact we are probably weekening the gene pool dramatically especially with the breding back of siblings to parents.

Personally I try to get my animals from a wide source in the vague hope that the genepools are remote, but given that all probably stem from a mere 200 or so wild caught samplescan we ever be very sure on this.

take for example Cheetahs which can all be geentically linked back to just six individuals!!!!

Personally I wouldnt breed towards defects but I dont think we simply have enough of a knowledge base tomake any assumptions and it would have to be doneon the genetic basis only which Im sure most of us simply dont have the wherewithal to ascertain.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

SleepyD said:


> hi Andy I don't know if it's the same source but I came across that article a while back written by Clay Davenport here ~ Culling Offspring though I had to open it up using google cache as the main site wouldn't open at the time ~
> Culling Offspring


Interesting as well I was going to mention about culling offspring that showed defects and how acceptablepeopleconsidered this to be?


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

Yip, direct from Clay Davenports website.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Ssthisto said:


> Problem is, we DON'T play "the hand of god".
> 
> The "hand of god" eliminates the vast majority of every single clutch - only a select few survive to breed.
> 
> ...


Do we not?

Enigmas et al etc etc etc

All the morphs being produced would they happen naturally in all escence no, same goes with dogs cats and most other domestic/pet animals,all ahve been created by man not for man by a greater power.

We think oooh yeelow with stripes of orange is in this season, if i cross X with Y and then breed them back to parents chances are Im gonna achieve this, dont worry that the dodgy hip, eyelid turning, brain faults etc may be exacerpated in this process but we do it. However an obvious trait like this extra toe if it even is that is more clinically obvious to the onlooker when infact this could be the true wild form from X valley, who knows?

In cresties for example it wasnt until very recently people even thought they had tails!!!!!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Nic B-C said:


> Do we not?
> 
> Enigmas et al etc etc etc


No, we don't play "god" - i.e. the creator that made the animals what they are *in the wild*... by the harsh forces of natural selection. 

We play the compassionate humans who change the course of nature and allow things to survive that might not otherwise.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> Think Id disagree with you, in the case of say cresties as I believe this question has come out of the ones for sale at the minute we may have wild caught species from severallocale which have been bred together. These may be many many miles apart and would take hundreds of years to occur in the wild, yet very quickly in captivity we can replicate centuries of evolution. We can manipulate conditions, day length, humididty, chosen mates etc etc etc and produce conditions which simply wouldnt happen in the timespan we are considering.
> 
> In nature all sorts of unnaturaltraits occur readily, Im seeing a lot of melanistic birds at the minute round where I live and work for instance, we are also seeing invasionsof foreign specis like American Cray fish, wallabys etc something which simply couldnt have happened in an evolutionary scale in centuries yet with our interactions are happening in relatively short time frames.
> 
> ...


I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here Nick. How does breeding individuals from different locales constitute evolution?
How do cheetahs fit into your argument? (You have to bare in mind here that to become this specialized requires intense selection pressure, which in-fact agrees with the point I originally made).

Just not sure what you mean at all.

Andy


----------



## todds_out (Aug 29, 2007)

I have just found this Thread and would like to say publicly that I used to own a Halequin male which characteristicly appeared to have this so called sixth toe. I have bred twice to two separate females since I had him within my care. Starting with him, from obersvation only, I can conclude he is no lesser adapted or capable to survive, grow, eat or procreate. The first female I had bred him to did not have this characteristic featured on her feet, so I could possibly guess but only guess she didn't have a possible recessive trait as there were no signs visually. All Offspring from that pairing that year did not have the 'sixth toe' There were 12 in total.

This year I bred him to a female that again did not have the sixth toe and would believe that she did not have this gene as she did not show visual signs. I can say that in total I had 18 babies this year 14 of which are from that pairing. 4 offspring from this pairing showed signs of the 'extra toes' 
3 have the extra growth on back feat and one has just one extra groth on one of its back feet. 

Also I'd like to say something regarding the pair or adult cresties which are now sold. I can geuninely advise they are not the parents of the young cresties which show signs of extra toes.
If you think you know something then please PM me. It really is so simple. most other people have the courtesy. I don't think I need to name names.
I'm really fed up with some people acting like they're some sort of Righteous authority on crested gecko care and breeding, especially when broadcasting their unfounded, presumptuous, trigger happy guesses.


Here is a photo of the male harleys back feet. The little buds are quite small and barely noticeable which is why I probably didn't notice until recently.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here Nick. How does breeding individuals from different locales constitute evolution?
> How do cheetahs fit into your argument? (You have to bare in mind here that to become this specialized requires intense selection pressure, which in-fact agrees with the point I originally made).
> 
> Just not sure what you mean at all.
> ...


Evolution mens to evolve, by migration, changing environment or interbreeding. Animals sourced from different locales interbreeding in captivity would naturally take centuries to happen if at all hence accellorating evolution.


and the cheetah arguement is one of gene pools all cheetahs have been proven to come from a mere 6 individuals and they as a species are ina problem due to this, cant remember specifics on this but Im sure it was from an Attenbrough programme..


Ssthisto quote "We play the compassionate humans who change the course of nature and allow things to survive that might not otherwise. "

So by producing enigmas and snakes like those mentioned above is allowing things to survive where they might not otherwise is it and to what detriment to the species.

I dont have the answer just mooting this out really to see what others think


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Nic B-C said:


> Ssthisto said:
> 
> 
> > "We play the compassionate humans who change the course of nature and allow things to survive that might not otherwise. "
> ...


That's exactly what I'm getting at. We allow things to survive that wouldn't naturally - that, even if you gave them a normal-looking paint job to eliminate the lack-of-camouflage problem, probably wouldn't survive to breed.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> Evolution mens to evolve, by migration, changing environment or interbreeding. Animals sourced from different locales interbreeding in captivity would naturally take centuries to happen if at all hence accellorating evolution.


Again, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say, but this is not an example of evolution. Without NATURAL SELECTION then all you have is trait variation. This is not evolution, it is not close to evolution.

Migration is natural environments is very common, i really don't know what the point you are making is.

Andy


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Hi Andy I dont know what your perception of evolution is but mine is as follows

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In captivity we force evolution expecially when making morphs


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> Hi Andy I dont know what your perception of evolution is but mine is as follows
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In captivity we force evolution expecially when making morphs


What a very strange thing to say, my 'perception' of evolution is pretty well informed, but you seem to have missed the whole concept of natural selection. It could be you are simply not getting your point across clearly, but that not for me to guess.

We need to be clear though, morphs do not constitute evolution, and neither does migration. There are aspects of these concepts which do apply, but it is no where near as simple as you are describing.

Andy


----------



## James D (Nov 17, 2008)

I have to agree with Andy on this....what you're describing (at least what I think you're describing) is not evolution.
Pedigree dogs are not a product of evolution, they are the product of selective breeding. It is exactly the same situation with the various reptile morphs around.

Evolution cannot occur without natural selection which is what we 'override' with animals in captivity. Without the harsh selection pressures individuals are exposed to in the wild, most individuals will survive therefore reducing the overall fitness of the captive population.

I also agree with Ssthisto (sorry, I can't remember your name) when she says that we do not play 'god'.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

I said they were elements involved which would take centuries to occur in nature, we accelerate them in captivity.

Evolution quite simply is a development of genetics to adapt to these elements.

What is your definition of Evolution or does it differ from that which is widey accepted, im a tad confused here.

A morph is a clear example of evolution as its using genes from different sources even different species to adapt the current genes


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

James D said:


> I have to agree with Andy on this....what you're describing (at least what I think you're describing) is not evolution.
> Pedigree dogs are not a product of evolution, they are the product of selective breeding. It is exactly the same situation with the various reptile morphs around.
> 
> Evolution cannot occur without natural selection which is what we 'override' with animals in captivity. Without the harsh selection pressures individuals are exposed to in the wild, most individuals will survive therefore reducing the overall fitness of the captive population.
> ...


No you do not need natural selection for evolution...evoltion is to evolve....to develop...to change....natural selection is merely the way Darwin describes evolution in the wild, in captivity you dont have those ecternal pressures but it is still evolution nonetheless


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Read down the bottom of this wiki in applications

Further information: Artificial selection and Evolutionary computation
Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[250] A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[251] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology. It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.[252]


----------



## James D (Nov 17, 2008)

Nic, I'll leave Andy to write up the currently accepted 'definition' of evolution as his is likely to be far better worded than mine! However, I will say that there is nothing simple about evolution.

A morph is NOT a clear example of evolution. It is a genetic variant that results in a change in phenotype, that is it. They are a result of a random mutation which is then reproduced by man. 
Also, there are no morphs that are produced by cross breeding with another species.....that's hybridisation.


----------



## James D (Nov 17, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> Read down the bottom of this wiki in applications
> 
> Further information: Artificial selection and Evolutionary computation
> Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[250] A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[251] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology. It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.[252]


Directed evolution (which _seems_ to be what you're describing) is something completely different. Evolution has no direction and makes no decisions, it is man that fulfills that roll...


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Something is either evolving or it is not if a change has occured its evolved if it has not no evolution has occured simple as.

Now the proces may be natural or forced but evolution nethertheless

and I know a morph cant be through cross breeding just threw that in as this is another thing done in domesticity


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

James D said:


> Directed evolution (which _seems_ to be what you're describing) is something completely different. Evolution has no direction and makes no decisions, it is man that fulfills that roll...


James wether directive or selective it is evolution they are merely ways of describing the process of the end result of evolution.


----------



## SilverSteno (Feb 12, 2006)

Not to mention Wiki isn't exactly the best source of information to be basing your views of evoluntionary theory on...Try reading a few decent books on evoluntion and you might discover it gets a lot more complicated!


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

SilverSteno said:


> Not to mention Wiki isn't exactly the best source of information to be basing your views of evoluntionary theory on...Try reading a few decent books on evoluntion and you might discover it gets a lot more complicated!


That is merely an example but the facts are quite straight forward as to what evolution is. The actual specific genetics of it are really imaterial in this arguement, evoltion is a genetic change end of.

If you can direct me to any evidence to the contrary i would love to see it, the only one I can think of being the bible!

If you actually look at this wiki entrant you will also see it is not your normal type as its fully referenced


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> That is merely an example but the facts are quite straight forward as to what evolution is. The actual specific genetics of it are really imaterial in this arguement, *evoltion is a genetic change end of*.
> 
> If you can direct me to any evidence to the contrary i would love to see it, the only one I can think of being the bible!
> 
> If you actually look at this wiki entrant you will also see it is not your normal type as its fully referenced


Evolution is NOT as simple as a specific change at a single locus. What you are describing here is a MUTATION. For a mutation to constitute evolution it HAS to be selected.

Natural selection and human mediated selection are far from the same. Selection (or genetic drift) are pivotal in evolution, without them it is simply NOT evolution.

I can point you at literally 100's of peer reviewed papers that will state this explicitly. I can point you at various text books (from a variety of qualification levels) that will tell you the same. Or you could read the link that you have posted and it WILL tell you exactly what I have said.

Andy


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

One mutation is to evolution what a single brick is to a castle tower. It's a small part - but by no means the whole.

Deliberately perpetuating a single mutation isn't the whole of evolution either, although if you breed for a single trait you'll inevitably get piggyback traits that go with it... often less desirable ones, like the rapist roosters that showed up in a commercial chicken production facility where they'd selected first for fast growth, then for big breast muscles, then for heavy legs and strong hearts... what they didn't realise is that the animals that showed the traits they needed also had a broken behavioural routine. The book I read it in, _Animals in Translation _by Temple Grandin, explains it better (along with some of the reasons why a "paint job change" might have wider-reaching effects than just changing an animal's colour).


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Evolution is NOT as simple as a specific change at a single locus. What you are describing here is a MUTATION. For a mutation to constitute evolution it HAS to be selected.
> 
> Natural selection and human mediated selection are far from the same. Selection (or genetic drift) are pivotal in evolution, without them it is simply NOT evolution.
> 
> ...


I didnt say they are the same at all I said they are evolution, what I am saying though is we are bypassing generations of natural selection and would also come up with results that wouldnt survive natural selection..

I really dont see what the arguement is her whatsoever.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Are you also forgetting the other method of evolution of genetic drift?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> *I didnt say they are the same at all I said they are evolution*, what I am saying though is we are bypassing generations of natural selection and would also come up with results that wouldnt survive natural selection..
> 
> I really dont see what the arguement is her whatsoever.


I'm sorry Nick, but I'm really not sure what you are saying here. What IS evolution in the context of the above phrase?

The debate here, is that we appear to have different understandings of what constitutes evolution. You appear to consider it as simply "a genetic change", whereas I consider it to be a genetic change which MUST be subject to natural selection.

Andy


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> I'm sorry Nick, but I'm really not sure what you are saying here. What IS evolution in the context of the above phrase?
> 
> The debate here, is that we appear to have different understandings of what constitutes evolution. You appear to consider it as simply "a genetic change", whereas I consider it to be a genetic change which MUST be subject to natural selection.
> 
> Andy


Why do you believe natural selection is the only form of evolution, are all domestic animals figments of your imagination?

Are all test animals figments of your imagination or have they genetically changed?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> Are you also forgetting the other method of evolution of genetic drift?


I certainly have not, as you will see from one of my earlier posts. But let me remind you that this involves neutral selection, and genetic drift is VERY difficult to prove.

Andy


----------



## Sweetcorn (Aug 2, 2008)

I've found all this to be really interesting and very confusing lol

From what I've read, for true evolution to take place you need the following.

Mutation
Migration
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection

Is this right?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> Why do you believe natural selection is the only form of evolution, are all domestic animals figments of your imagination?
> 
> Are all test animals figments of your imagination or have they genetically changed?


EVOLUTION and HUMAN SELECTION are not the same thing. This is the point.

Andy


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

no some are factors which will effect evolution others are forms of evolution


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> EVOLUTION and HUMAN SELECTION are not the same thing. This is the point.
> 
> Andy


You seem to be getting stuck with natural selection which is darwinian this was widely adapted in the 30s and 40s with the development of genetical understanding and modern evolutionary synthesis which is the base for the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.

They are not the same thing but have the same net result with the latter being accelorated and allowing for a differning survival rate as it does not rely on natural forces to weed out incompatable traits


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

Nic B-C said:


> You seem to be getting stuck with natural selection which is darwinian this was widely adapted in the 30s and 40s with the development of genetical understanding and modern evolutionary synthesis which is the base for the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
> 
> They are not the same thing but have the same net result with the latter being accelorated and allowing for a differning survival rate as it does not rely on natural forces to weed out incompatable traits


Strangely I don't get stuck on matters of genetics and evolution very often, far from it. Working on evolution of mating systems puts me in quite a good position in all honesty (and in no small way means I am able to accurately delimit the term evolution).

Evolution and human selection do not have the same net effect, nor are they similar processes. One is directional, the other is not. One is selection for increased fitness depending on their environmental niche, the other is not. Do I need to continue?

Andy


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

But both evolution nonetheless.

We are just gonna have to agree to differ on this, I know where you are coming from and I do understand what you are sayng but it does not disguise the fact that both are evolving


----------



## neep_neep (Oct 18, 2007)

I think some of the confusion is coming from the way you phrased your initial statements.



Nic B-C said:


> we may have wild caught species from severallocale which have been bred together. These may be many many miles apart and would take hundreds of years to occur in the wild, yet very quickly in captivity we can replicate centuries of evolution. We can manipulate conditions, day length, humididty, chosen mates etc etc etc and produce conditions which simply wouldnt happen in the timespan we are considering.


We can't say that by breeding two localities together we are replicating centuries of evolution - who knows what selection pressures could happen to the separate populations over a number of centuries? You are subjecting them to artificial selection - which is not the same as replication of natural events. The offspring may survive in captivity but may not in the wild - the intermediate phenotype may leave them more visible to predators, or they may not be as attractive to potential mates.



Nic B-C said:


> Evolution mens to evolve, by migration, changing environment or interbreeding. Animals sourced from different locales interbreeding in captivity would naturally take centuries to happen if at all hence accellorating evolution.


Not necessarily. 'Naturally', the different locales may never meet again and become reproductively isolated over the centuries (i.e. become different species). By breeding two separate localities, you increase gene flow between the sub-populations, thus reduce genetic variation. This isn't necessarily accelerating evolution - it can effectively homogenise any variation that had evolved in each locality.

I'm not having a dig! Just hoping you can see where people may be interpreting things differently to how you may of intended : victory:


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

Himmler would have loved this thread.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Caz said:


> Himmler would have loved this thread.


Dont be silly he liked things similar not bloody evolution there 
and yes Neep neep so many uncertaintees, if you look at the galapagos where this whole story started we see the seperation of islands and individual traits appearing in same species from the localles, we could never sumise wether individuals could migrate from island to island or wether they have just merely evolved selectively to the new flaura and fauna available, Darwin certainly couldnt back then.


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

Nic B-C said:


> Dont be silly he liked things similar not bloody evolution there
> and yes Neep neep so many uncertaintees, if you look at the galapagos where this whole story started we see the seperation of islands and individual traits appearing in same species from the localles, we could never sumise wether individuals could migrate from island to island or wether they have just merely evolved selectively to the new flaura and fauna available, Darwin certainly couldnt back then.


Ah but he also believed that nothing 'deformed' should be allowed to reproduce..: victory:


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Caz said:


> Ah but he also believed that nothing 'deformed' should be allowed to reproduce..: victory:


I know mate and they actually did shit loads of genetics research especially with twins....it was just a joke on the song


----------



## panix (Jul 13, 2009)

now dont flame me on this post as im new to the reptile keeping scene, you talk about the deformity of the 6th toe and that most would not breed one, but if you breed 2 different morphs and interbreeding to get a unique coulor its preety much the same thing the different coulors and patterens are deformitys , arnt they? cause in the wild they probly would not servive because of wrong camaflage couloring, now with the 6th toe its pretty much the same but instead of pigment deformity its extra skin and maybe a bit of bone but if it doesnt inder the gecko (ie stop it climbing or is painfull) then there shouldent really be a problem, but i could be totaly wrong. 

a few pages back james and hanna said about the crestie with 6 toes they bred i had one from that clutch i belive. and has no defects and is perfectly well and is an amazing harly


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

panix said:


> now dont flame me on this post as im new to the reptile keeping scene, you talk about the deformity of the 6th toe and that most would not breed one, but if you breed 2 different morphs and interbreeding to get a unique coulor its preety much the same thing the different coulors and patterens are deformitys , arnt they? cause in the wild they probly would not servive because of wrong camaflage couloring, now with the 6th toe its pretty much the same but instead of pigment deformity its extra skin and maybe a bit of bone but if it doesnt inder the gecko (ie stop it climbing or is painfull) then there shouldent really be a problem, but i could be totaly wrong.
> 
> a few pages back james and hanna said about the crestie with 6 toes they bred i had one from that clutch i belive. and has no defects and is perfectly well and is an amazing harly


 
so wait you say a 6 toed animal has no defects .. by default this is wrong.. therefore your arguement makes no sense..

Since we do not know whether the 6 toes may denote some other issue it is wise to keep it out the breeding pool.. however being wise and careful, erring ont he side of caution is something a lot of twunts on here are incapable of doing...

you say the phrase "an amazing harely".. you mean a visually pretty animal.. with 6 toes..

so thats better than an f2 plain colour that has 5 toes..

at the end of the day this 6 toe issue will split crestie keepers and breeders I am delighted to be on the side I am.. it seems that SOME of the ones who did breed 6 toes last year felt .. HMM this isnt looking good for me.. other people are saying this isnt a good idea let me get rid now and get my reputation back..

saying Oh it seems fine.. is not enough for me but it will be for plenty of others..

james and hanna are selling the animals that produced 6 toe babies and have asked the buyers NOT to breed and be pet only homes.. i can bet a million quid that wont happen.. they have tried to sell them on carefully but they argued to toss that it was fine till recently.. all credit to them they have now changed their minds..


todds out has also just sold his adults that produce 6 toed babies.. and babies with 6 toes and didnt even bother to mention in his calssified advert they HAD 6 toes or they produced babies with 6 toes.. that sort of selling is pathetic in my book

its going to happen.. people dont give a feck if it affects things later down the line..

some idiot will likely get a hold of them and breed anyway.. and that idiot will say OH but they seem fine.. Oh but its evolution..


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Sparkle why do you feel it neccesary to be so rude to people all the time and come over so patronising.

Im after those two females and have no interest in breeding them at all same as i am not bothered about having ten males which wont be bred from including one with floppy tail and one which has had MBD.

Guy above has said it is a deformity i wish you would read things properly and he went on to mention that surely its just as much a deformity as us breeding colours into different species. thing is with the toe thing not one of the people you mention has intentionally bred them with 6 toes both infact didnt even notice them until pointed out by other people.

James and hanna were keen to breed their first cresty and this is what they did, Todds out ended up with them from normal adults i believe and hes not sold those adults but another pair.

It really would be nice if you got your facts right rather than ruining peoples sales and damning their reputation.

im sure both people really are not happy with your interfering.

it appears that when anyone appears on here with cresties you feel the need to interfere, you did the ssame to me hastling me for my MSn so you could chat with me when in fact seeing the way you posted I had no interest to converse with you whatsoever.

you then proceeded to try and make a fool out of me by misquoting me about vets in a very vindictive way.

I know you are devoted to the animals but you do come across as a bit of a net psycho at times, might be an idea to back off once in a while or learn to converse with peoplein a less hostile manner.

Dont expect me to reply to any reply you make on this though end of bye!


----------



## todds_out (Aug 29, 2007)

I'm sure those 'people' 'on your side' are just so happy with your behaviour right now.
There arn't 'sides' here Sparkle, but there are perceptions which are influenced by many things, believe it or not. You might want to show just a little bit of dignity so your 'friends' don't get too embarrassed ok. Also Calling people twunts isn't very diplomatic and you just sound like a bit of a chav. (Nice one).

Nothing I have done has been wrong. The babies that were produced have showed a characteristic that some people are really worried about right? I did not breed these geckos knowingly together to produce this. I perhaps should have labelled these geckos with the sixth toe trait... but if I did does anyone know what that actually means on here? NO they don't. You don't either do you.

Somehow though you seem to be under the impression that you can dictate what people should do in this circumstance.. 
Unfortunately when you blurt out many false claims, do you think that people will actually think of you as a credible source? by just twisting truth or making up your own little false claims about people you're just going to sound a bit nutts and not that great a person to get to know to be frank.

Here's some facts which you have completely ignored:

The 'amazing harley' that was within the title description for the extreme harley... That crestie did not have 6 toes. It had 5 toes like a regular crestie.

Also The adult pair are not related to the offspring with the six toes. 
You'll have to absorb this information this time as I've explained once already.

As for my reputation.. mine is actually fine.
J.


----------



## panix (Jul 13, 2009)

sparkle i never said the 6 toes were not a deformity i said they were but my point was that if it does not cause any pain or health problems to the gecko then there shouldn't be a problem breeding but i suppose that is up to the individual.

also about my harley its normal with 5 toes but i belive it came from the 6 toed parent also its sibling had 6 toes BUT mine was fine and yes it is an amazing harley so its not passed on to every offspring.

so sparkle befor you start flaming ppl in your post's read it properly first


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

sparkle said:


> 'animals that produced 6 toe babies and have asked the buyers NOT to breed and be pet only homes.. i can bet a million quid that wont happen.. they have tried to sell them on carefully ..
> 
> some idiot will likely get a hold of them and breed anyway.. and that idiot will say OH but they seem fine.. Oh but its evolution.. Oh but Im thick idiot who needs to jusitfy why its ok to breed and sell 6 toed animals because I cant be arsed to not make some cash from the parents..


This is the crux of the matter I think.
It is maybe time we as a hobby either accepted culling of any animals showing 'undesirable traits', or go the other way and accept all of them as long as they can lead a relatively normal life...
If everyone agreed to try and breed only 'perfect' specimens we would be halfway there IMO, but as soon as anyone sells an animal the issue is out of their control, so as Sparkle says, somebody will breed from something 'unfit' at some point .
I'm not even going into the whole debate about where lines are drawn....that's another part of the same issue which as we are seeing here will have different viewpoints !


----------



## panix (Jul 13, 2009)

also think about the first cresties that were brought over they were larger had larger heads and larger crests than most do today so in a sense with the ones now being smaller having smaller heads and smaller crests are technically deformed, its just cause it doesn't look wrong no one worry's about it and its only due to the massive amounts of breeding and interbreeding that these defects have come about. i mean with breeding and interbreeding to get a sertain morph , yes it may look appealing but doesent mean its right and its messing with the genes and sooner all l8er you get what we got now with 6 toes.

its all to do with genetics the more you mess the more problems your gonna get.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

It is interesting that people are focussing on a very minor genetic throwback of a skinfold on a toe and yet the whole enigma style breeding seems far more acceptable, in my mind the succesive breeding out to get morphs that show traits such as displayed in enigmas is far more damaging than a natural genetic throwback


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

panix said:


> also think about the first cresties that were brought over they were larger had larger heads and larger crests than most do today so in a sense with the ones now being smaller having smaller heads and smaller crests are technically deformed, its just cause it doesn't look wrong no one worry's about it and its only due to the massive amounts of breeding and interbreeding that these defects have come about. i mean with breeding and interbreeding to get a sertain morph , yes it may look appealing but doesent mean its right and its messing with the genes and sooner all l8er you get what we got now with 6 toes.
> 
> its all to do with genetics the more you mess the more problems your gonna get.


Im not actually convinced, especially in cresties that this type of thing is to do with "morphing out" Im more inclined to think its a natural genetic throwback like dew claws in dogs, something that can occur in any animal at any given time


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Nic B-C said:


> It is interesting that people are focussing on a very minor genetic throwback of a skinfold on a toe and yet the whole enigma style breeding seems far more acceptable, in my mind the succesive breeding out to get morphs that show traits such as displayed in enigmas is far more damaging than a natural genetic throwback


That's where I'm more coming from (see my prev post) but it's again an issue of where lines are drawn...

There's varying degrees of 'enigma syndrome' being shown in leos, so do we cull any and all that show it to try and remove the issue in future generations ? Tough call and some would say harsh... 
Also - it's not yet proven that 'syndrome' parents always produce syndrome enigmas and vice versa.


----------



## panix (Jul 13, 2009)

Nic B-C said:


> Im not actually convinced, especially in cresties that this type of thing is to do with "morphing out" Im more inclined to think its a natural genetic throwback like dew claws in dogs, something that can occur in any animal at any given time


Nic B-C you could be right on that but my point was that with all the breeding for different morphs its not surprising to get different genetic defects. your right this sort of thing can happen naturally, but breeding for pigment defects ie morphs honestly cant help the problem


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

panix said:


> Nic B-C you could be right on that but my point was that with all the breeding for different morphs its not surprising to get different genetic defects. your right this sort of thing can happen naturally, but breeding for pigment defects ie morphs honestly cant help the problem


I'm not sure I'm with you here ?
What exactly is a genetic defect ? And are you saying no-one ever again should breed anything other than 'normal wild type' ?
As has been alluded too earlier in the thread, the rogue genes that create albino's etc are indeed all naturally occuring and either came from original wild caught specimens or their offspring....


----------



## panix (Jul 13, 2009)

Big Red One said:


> I'm not sure I'm with you here ?
> What exactly is a genetic defect ? And are you saying no-one ever again should breed anything other than 'normal wild type' ?
> As has been alluded too earlier in the thread, the rogue genes that create albino's etc are indeed all naturally occuring and either came from original wild caught specimens or their offspring....


i dont mean it in that way and no im not saying we should not breed them. all i was trying to say is that with so much breeding its not surprising to get these differences 

and as in albinos yea it happens naturally but its rare and the albino animal whould probly not survive as long as the one with ''normal'' coulors it may do but it would stick out like a sore thumb to prditors

but the point is when you try breeding especily for that the genes get stronger and can accure more often


----------



## purple-vixen (Feb 4, 2009)

Reading back through the thread, I am getting a jibe that people are worried about this appearing because of how small the gene pool of crested geckos is, and the fact that people don't want the crested geckos to be bred so much into a certain line so as to see similar problems of that seen in the leopard gecko "enigma". I am only a newbie to the genetics world, and even moreso highly interested since the six toe incident, I want to learn more.

That's the jist I get.

I strongly believe the six toe, it's something if spotted, should be prevented. It doesn't seem normal, and myself, not yet a breeder, will never line breed either. That's my personal morals, and my personal wants if you like. Until I am proven wrong, I will still believe that, or until I prove "you" wrong, I accept "you" have a different opinion. <"" for persons not person>

The aim of this thread is to make people aware that the sixth toe if you like, or "flap of skin" has become apparent over the last 3-4 months, it's different, it's strange therefore is it not sensible to look into the genetics and take some time learning that this COULD possibly affect the future offspring as much as it might NOT affect the future offspring?

The problem here is too many people arguing about what is right and wrong, and not enough people putting their research together and their findings to see if it is a version of a "wart" and is perfectly safe to continue breeding that particular gecko, or if it does indeed prove to be the start of a degenerative mutation, then precautions should be taken to stop that line from continued breeding.

To be honest, on some, it's so small most wouldn't and didn't notice it. But, what I find hard to understand, am I different to you guys because I notice the new spot that has appeared on Vimtos bum? The crest that has bent over for whatever reason on Arnolds neck? The tiny bit of stuck shed on Hannibals toe <and he is a nightmare to handle>.

My point to that statement is that most people I know/speak to handle their animals at least once a week to check they are ok. I am struggling to understand how you could miss a sixth toe or "flap of skin", honestly..? I am not assuming, I am asking a genuine question. 

Anyway, I am not here for an argument, I am here for a discussion on genetics of the crested gecko and to learn how we can factually prove whether the six toe trait is in fact a bad thing.

The more I learn and see peoples opinions, the more I feel a bit more open-minded and willing to look at the whole story.

Thanks,

Jac


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Big Red One said:


> That's where I'm more coming from (see my prev post) but it's again an issue of where lines are drawn...
> 
> There's varying degrees of 'enigma syndrome' being shown in leos, so do we cull any and all that show it to try and remove the issue in future generations ? Tough call and some would say harsh...
> Also - it's not yet proven that 'syndrome' parents always produce syndrome enigmas and vice versa.


The enigma thing is an easy one, simply dont breed for it, the cresty one here could happen at any time two very different things, however if two 6 toed crestys were put together and together successively to produce a ten toed gecko then we are in a different territory!


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Nic B-C said:


> The enigma thing is an easy one, simply dont breed for it, the cresty one here could happen at any time two very different things, however if two 6 toed crestys were put together and together successively to produce a ten toed gecko then we are in a different territory!


Why is it easy and why not breed an enigma ?
I have several that are perfectly normal.........


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Big Red One said:


> Why is it easy and why not breed an enigma ?
> I have several that are perfectly normal.........


Because they give a known neural defectone may say i have one and its normal but breed it and what may happen, I just dont like seeing animals being bred to their detriment. there was a very interesting programme on pedigree dogs last year on this very subject


----------



## toyah (Aug 24, 2006)

While I personally feel that six toed geckos should not be bred from, in such a small genepool as crested geckos, immediately throwing out an entire line because it has been known to produce a deformity which doesn't seem to negatively impact the geckos is potentially throwing out the baby (additional genetic diversity) with the bathwater (the extra toe).

Personally I think it needs someone to breed two six toed geckos together, and report whether or not all the offspring show the same trait. Knowing if it's recessive or not would be the first thing you need in order to know how to manage it in the population, surely?


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

toyah said:


> While I personally feel that six toed geckos should not be bred from, in such a small genepool as crested geckos, immediately throwing out an entire line because it has been known to produce a deformity which doesn't seem to negatively impact the geckos is potentially throwing out the baby (additional genetic diversity) with the bathwater (the extra toe).
> 
> Personally I think it needs someone to breed two six toed geckos together, and report whether or not all the offspring show the same trait. Knowing if it's recessive or not would be the first thing you need in order to know how to manage it in the population, surely?


Its already shown that these have come from normal parents and then some from 6 toed parents, Spme have thrown out many normaloffspring before its happened and some straitaway from 6 toed but also had normal, its all interesting really


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Comparison to humans on 4 now :lol2:


----------



## suez (Jul 8, 2007)

Nic B-C said:


> Comparison to humans on 4 now :lol2:


 watched that very interesting.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

suez said:


> watched that very interesting.


Mow think of the guy with the Asian wife as a breeder in pursuit of the ultimate animal!


----------



## toyah (Aug 24, 2006)

Nic B-C said:


> Its already shown that these have come from normal parents and then some from 6 toed parents, Spme have thrown out many normaloffspring before its happened and some straitaway from 6 toed but also had normal, its all interesting really


Normal parents throwing six toed offspring suggest it's recessive, but a pair producing nothing but would pretty much prove it. It could well be a threshold trait, which would make it much more difficult to breed out, and potentially change the way you try to breed it out of a population.


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Heres an article on evolution mpte time scales to change and think how quickly (especiallyin leos) we have changed them

Observatory - Lizards Newly White, at White Sands in New Mexico - NYTimes.com


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Nic B-C said:


> Heres an article on evolution mpte time scales to change and think how quickly (especiallyin leos) we have changed them
> 
> Observatory - Lizards Newly White, at White Sands in New Mexico - NYTimes.com


Thing is, the single mutation that's happened in the lizards there, over enough time, will also result in other changes as the population becomes more reproductively isolated. Eventually you'll wind up with the White Sands Skink that's a subspecies to the Great Plains Skink - or even a separate species of its own - because the breeding that takes place in the pale population will start to diverge from the main normal-coloured population, and that will result in other mutations or traits becoming more/less common in the pale individuals that might not be present in the darker ones.

And I just have to say "I've been there!" Didn't see the pale skinks, although the leopard lizards round 'there have very pale background colours and VERY fine spotting.


----------



## piglet37 (Aug 20, 2008)

i think that one of the main problems surrounding this issue, especially the whole 6 toe crestie thing, is that there just isnt enough information around yet, so people are having to make information based on the small amount of information that is currently accessable, and this is going to mean that everyone disagrees, as everyone is going to have read different stuff which they are going to have based their opinions on. What i understand from reading this thread, is that no one knows what causes the 6 toe thing, so it might be genetic but it might not, which i think makes it very difficult for any one to make a propler decision on, as i wouldnt like to make a decision on something that i dont have all the facts about. 

Does anyone know if the 6 toe thing happens naturally in the wild???


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

Basically has to be genetic but its to what extent this can be carried and passed on which is the question.

With this case its not been proven if its just a random genetic throwback or a directly transferable gene.

Whereas morphs in Leos can be worked out fairly easily as lots of study and records have been made.

If these toes are occurring in geckos now and its not purely from inbreeding they almost certainly exist somewhere in the wild.

It could be a simple one off chance in a million but theres been quite a few on here but these all could stem from a single individual, they could just be totally unrelated or could be specific gene combination, until study has been done we would be foolish to conclude anything


----------



## buddah (Dec 23, 2009)

would it not be for aesthetics as it is with other animals, alot of people breed deformaties into dogs purely for that reason, even though in alot of the time it doesnt benifit the animal and in alot of cases will cause suffering and an early death.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

piglet37 said:


> i think that one of the main problems surrounding this issue, especially the whole 6 toe crestie thing, is that there just isnt enough information around yet, so people are having to make information based on the small amount of information that is currently accessable, and this is going to mean that everyone disagrees, as everyone is going to have read different stuff which they are going to have based their opinions on. What i understand from reading this thread, is that no one knows what causes the 6 toe thing, so it might be genetic but it might not, which i think makes it very difficult for any one to make a propler decision on, as i wouldnt like to make a decision on something that i dont have all the facts about.
> 
> Does anyone know if the 6 toe thing happens naturally in the wild???


 When I dont have the facts... I play safe.. ESPECIALLY with animals..

that to me is the ONLY thing a captive animal keeper/ breeder CAN do.. we chose to make these animals captive surely we owe it to them to take steps to think about their breeding in captivity..

its a no brainer really.. if a deformity pops up.. take the animal out of breeding plans and make it pet only.. ANY deformity.. it may not solve the whole issue but it does help..


----------



## Nic B-C (Dec 4, 2008)

sparkle said:


> Since it would be foolish then why not err on the side of sensible caution.. better that than breed adults that definately produce 6 toed geckos then we find out in a few years there IS a serious issue. Perhaps some people just cant be arsed to be careful with their breeding plans. Usually the same type of keeper that doesnt take their animal to the vets ( advises others its pointless) and says they can see whats wrong with a sick animal JUST by LOOKING.
> 
> NO change there then. :whistling2:


Once again you exel yourself in being rude and an inability to read exactly what it is that people post on here.

Ive never told people not to go to vets, Ive never told anyone too breed deformed animals. 

If you have read through this Im against deliberately breeding animals which have abnormalities but have stated as in this case you can geta genetic throwback.

If you want to err on the side of caution i suggest you sell or give up all of your animals as they all potentially carry such jeans.

You have insulted peopel who have such animals and have also damned their reputations without facts quite wrongly.

This is something which is disgusting


----------



## CBR1100XX (Feb 19, 2006)

Been running long enough I think.:closed:


----------

