# Giant Leopard Geckos - some interesting reading.



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Ok, so I have been accused (privately) of false advertising by someone who does not believe that giant leos exist. Well I can assure you that they do! It is a co-dominant gene. You can tell giants from normals at a very early age but this is only necessary is only 1 parent is a giant (giving 50% of the offspring as giants). Pairings of super giants with normals will give 100% of the offspring as giants and combinations of giants and super giants will give you giants and some super giants.

You can't tell a giant from a super giant until they are about a year old but you can tell a giant from a 'normal' pretty much straight after hatching.

If anyone has any doubts they are welcome to visit me and see parents and hatchlings up close, in the mean time I'll let Ron Tremper explain:

LEOPARDGECKO.COM | Giant Genetics

LEOPARDGECKO.COM | Giant FAQ


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

well i have a giant he 3 year old 126g very big boy here a photo to show your accuser









next to him is his 3 year old lady 


Paul


----------



## dickvansheepcake (Jul 8, 2009)

Madhouse5 said:


> well i have a giant he 3 year old 126g very big boy here a photo to show your accuser image
> 
> next to him is his 3 year old lady
> 
> ...


What length and weight is he? 

He looks quite...porky...!

Here's my giant boy. He's around 106g and 10 and a half inches long.



















These pics are from last year, he's beefed up a little now and is around 3 years old now I think.


Jenny


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

I wouldnt take all of what RT says as gospel. He markets the ' Giant' strain of leo. Other respected big name breeders think differently. Its one of those debates that will rage on but I believe people are becoming less inclined to believe in giants.


----------



## dickvansheepcake (Jul 8, 2009)

I know absolutely nothing about the genetics side of it. All I know is mine was sold as a 'giant' and he is larger than your average leopard gecko....and is of course absolutely gorgeous!


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

not sure on his length i say about 11 ish last time on the scales he was 126g he not porky he just under tall lmao


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> I wouldnt take all of what RT says as gospel. He markets the ' Giant' strain of leo. Other respected big name breeders think differently. Its one of those debates that will rage on but I believe people are becoming less inclined to believe in giants.


there must be something in it as my other 3 year old male is like half his size every think about my giant is bigger head,body etc i hope to get some offspring off them two how i will see if the co dom works out should get a giant baby


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Mal said:


> I wouldnt take all of what RT says as gospel. He markets the ' Giant' strain of leo. Other respected big name breeders think differently. Its one of those debates that will rage on but I believe people are becoming less inclined to believe in giants.


You are right, there are areas where I strongly disagree with Mr Tremper but on this issue, my personal experience has backed up what he says so I have no choice but to agree!

Whatever your belief, you have to agree that accusing me of deliberately misleading people is out of order. It's not like lying in classifieds won't come back and bite you on the proverbial is it?!?!


----------



## JamesJ (Apr 12, 2008)

I bought 2 giant/super giants at a show late last year both, I can't remember if they we're labeled as tempers albinos or tempers chocolate albinos (ones also more oranges and had tangerine in its name somewhere). They are deffinatly chunkier / bigger bulit rather than fat.

So riddle me this, I got a hypo hatchling from the pairing hatched a few days ago :/ as far as I know she had not been bred before and regardless to giant/super giant they are both 1000% albinos. I'm guessing she's retained or they are different strain of albinos but I don't think they are.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

geckograham said:


> You are right, there are areas where I strongly disagree with Mr Tremper but on this issue, my personal experience has backed up what he says so I have no choice but to agree!
> 
> Whatever your belief, you have to agree that accusing me of deliberately misleading people is out of order. It's not like lying in classifieds won't come back and bite you on the proverbial is it?!?!


Totally agree on the classified part. Nothing is proven or disproved. If someone is selling a gecko as a giant and someone is happy to buy it as such there is no issue. All I would suggest is make the buyer aware that you cant be held to account if it doesnt achieve giant status but that you do believe it will. That covers you both. Its not appropriate for anyone to condemn on a subject where the jury is still out.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Just want to clarify something here. I was under the impression that someone had posted on the OPs for sale thread and it is that which I would deem as wrong ie actively effecting a sale. Im told by another member that this was a discussion in pm. As such its a private conversation where both participants can say what the heck they like. If people have opposing beliefs and they are expressed privately in a non hostile mannee I really cant see a problem.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

As Mal has already pointed out there are some inconsistencies in the morph and less and less people believe it acts in a co dom manner.

We have a very early "Giant Mack Snow" who's parents were directly imported from Ron Tremper, and we bred by a very respectable leopard gecko breeder, who gave things up a few years back.
Consistently this gecko produces offspring that are much larger than your average hatchling. Do I think this is down to his genetic make up.... Most certainly!

I think the problem is.... Perhaps the gene did act co dominantly when Mr Tremper carried out test breedings and released the morph. However too many people saw the pound signs, and anything to come from a Giant x Non Giant pairing was sold as a Giant. Several generations on, no one knows a true Giant descendant.

My views on it are... Yes Giant lined leopard geckos do produce larger than average offspring, however so do no Giant lined geckos that are just large themselves.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Mal said:


> Just want to clarify something here. I was under the impression that someone had posted on the OPs for sale thread and it is that which I would deem as wrong ie actively effecting a sale. Im told by another member that this was a discussion in pm. As such its a private conversation where both participants can say what the heck they like. If people have opposing beliefs and they are expressed privately in a non hostile mannee I really cant see a problem.


See my original post. If you didn't notice that then I bet I can guess who this "other member" may have been. How am i to know if I'm the only one who's been pm'd with these "concerns"?


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Hiya all.

I am the shadowy imposter who has upset geckograham.......

To put some facts straight though.

I asked on his sale thread how he was determining the 'giants' he has for sale, he posted on thread what I honestly thought was a mickey take 'have a laugh' response. So I 'LOL'ed back. As opposed to Mr Cameron, I do know that LOL means 'laugh out loud', that is what I had done on reading the response.

Apologies if geckograham mistook my childish humour as an insult.

He then initiated pm contact and after some discussion, none of which entailed me calling him a liar, he called me out in pm with an insult.

I didn't bite - but then received a further pm pointing me to Ron tremper (yes the very man who decided that Giant Leo's act codom genetically), something I had already read many moons ago.

Facts. I deal in em.......

Take care all and have a nice evening.


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Yes, I missed the word private in your original post and I apologise for that.. I was focussed on the giant status / RT element of the topic. As such I had wrongly assumed your comment on your response to my post related to comments made in public. I make no secret that BRO in not just a good friend but a keeper / breeder who I have the utmost respect for and a member of the forum who I hold in high regard for his level of honesty and integrity. If every disagreement between members in pm spills out into the public forum the place will become the laughing stock. If you dont agree with someone or they disagree with you....agree to disagree. It doesnt need the UN.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Big Red One said:


> Hiya all.
> 
> I am the shadowy imposter who has upset geckograham.......
> 
> ...





Big Red One said:


> If you do want 'opinion' though, mine is that you are incorrectly labelling the animals that are for sale.


Facts, so do I.

And a pleasant evening to yourself sir...


----------



## skywalker550 (May 6, 2012)

*Giant leopard gecko*

hi 
I like you believe there is such a distinct morph as the giant. However i would love to know how you distinguish them from normal leos. As my baby Leo is currently getting a lot bigger than his siblings and has a prominent fatty tail, whereas leo s of the same age seem to have a lot smaller tails. Does that mean he is a giant??
Many thanks
Sue


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

skywalker550 said:


> hi
> I like you believe there is such a distinct morph as the giant. However i would love to know how you distinguish them from normal leos. As my baby Leo is currently getting a lot bigger than his siblings and has a prominent fatty tail, whereas leo s of the same age seem to have a lot smaller tails. Does that mean he is a giant??
> Many thanks
> Sue


all the text books on the subject say that a giant has to reach 80g before its a year old and be 90 for female or over a 100 for male once over a year old so i have read most people say that giant offspring are bigger than your average leo eg 4 inches or bigger at birth hope that might help you 

Paul


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> all the text books on the subject say that a giant has to reach 80g before its a year old and be 90 for female or over a 100 for male once over a year old so i have read most people say that giant offspring are bigger than your average leo eg 4 inches or bigger at birth hope that might help you
> 
> Paul


There are text books that give this clarification ? Other than Mr Trempers book ? Im surprised its been given such scrutiny. The paramaters you describe are very similar to other parameters that get passed around. I dont recall having read any textbooks that discuss the morph independent of RTs work. I would be very interested in the text references if you could possibly provide them please.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

lol i don't know i read loads lol Mel don't you start on me hehehe


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Mal said:


> Yes, I missed the word private in your original post and I apologise for that.. I was focussed on the giant status / RT element of the topic. As such I had wrongly assumed your comment on your response to my post related to comments made in public. I make no secret that BRO in not just a good friend but a keeper / breeder who I have the utmost respect for and a member of the forum who I hold in high regard for his level of honesty and integrity. If every disagreement between members in pm spills out into the public forum the place will become the laughing stock. If you dont agree with someone or they disagree with you....agree to disagree. It doesnt need the UN.


Thanks Mal, you're far too kind!
:blush::blush:



geckograham said:


> Facts, so do I.
> 
> And a pleasant evening to yourself sir...


So if we're quoting a pm now, where yes I say you are mislabelling as I pointed out in the rest of the pm 'they should be sold as possible giant'.

You do not KNOW that that young Leo will grow on to be a mighty 100 gram at 12 month 'giant'.

As has also been mentioned in the thread, the jury is out on whether Mr Trempers giant 'gene' does indeed act in a codominant manner.

My other mislabelling query related to your 'reverse stripe' offering. You can mislable whatever you like on your sales thread. That's up to you.....
You asked for opinion. You got it.

By the way - I kinda like your supposedly derogatory name for me - big what one was it?


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Madhouse5 said:


> lol i don't know i read loads lol Mel don't you start on me hehehe


Im not starting on you or anyone, not my style. If you had the references I would genuinely have been interested in reading them. No worries though.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't recall asking for an opinion but ok. Maybe I shouldn't have reacted as I did but your reply on the thread didn't come across as jokey, it came across like you were taking the p*ss! Not wanting to debate it on the thread I pm'd you. You then told me that I can't know they are giants but I believe I can.

I either pair giant males and females to produce all giant offspring or I have some normal females who I pair with giant males producing a 50/50 split of giants and normals. Everything is 4-5 weeks old before I even think of advertising it and by that time (much sooner in fact) I can tell which are giants.

I've been breeding specifically for giants for a few years and have found this to be the case.

I'm sorry for my part in this debacle.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> I either pair giant males and females to produce all giant offspring


Not true even if it did act co-dom - you would still get normals.



geckograham said:


> or I have some normal females who I pair with giant males producing a 50/50 split of giants and normals. Everything is 4-5 weeks old before I even think of advertising it and by that time (much sooner in fact) I can tell which are giants.
> 
> I've been breeding specifically for giants for a few years and have found this to be the case.


How do you tell this? Have you got parameters they must meet?

Are your Giants from either Mr Tremper or Steve Sykes?


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

haha i got my popcorn out and enjoying this thread :lol2: 


on a serious note, thought i would say my bit, mal and BRO are top people and i hold the highst respect for them both, they really know there leos an i would take in everything they have to say :no1: im not going to say to much only what i have found with my huge leo kong, now he hatched from a blackhole x raptor both a normal size for a leo 80g female an the male was around 90g kong hatched at 3g then at 1years old he hit 111g with now giant gene in him, he his now 3 and weighing in at 136g not fat at all, just somthing for everyone to think about with this giant stuff...........

here is the hansom chap, kong the stud, a few on here have seen him so they know he is real 









this is kong at 13 months old after breeding weighing 118g, sorry about my scary legs an the mess, a certain forum member made me take this pic lol cough cough lunar :lol2:


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

sam12345 said:


> Not true even if it did act co-dom - you would still get normals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The ones I know for sure on are all Tremper. You can't expect me to take your word over what I've seen with my own eyes!


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

geckograham said:


> The ones I know for sure on are all Tremper. You can't expect me to take your word over what I've seen with my own eyes!


 
sam really knows his stuff too and very respected, what are you saying tremper albino? or you know 100% they have come from ron trempers direct line of giants? 

to be honset what ive found is big leos produce big leos, normal leos can produce big leos depending on how they have been brought up with diet, care etc and kong is a prime example to this hole debate


----------



## sheena is a gecko (Apr 22, 2011)

53bird said:


> haha i got my popcorn out and enjoying this thread :lol2:
> 
> 
> on a serious note, thought i would say my bit, mal and BRO are top people and i hold the highst respect for them both, they really know there leos an i would take in everything they have to say :no1: im not going to say to much only what i have found with my huge leo kong, now he hatched from a blackhole x raptor both a normal size for a leo 80g female an the male was around 90g kong hatched at 3g then at 1years old he hit 111g with now giant gene in him, he his now 3 and weighing in at 136g not fat at all, just somthing for everyone to think about with this giant stuff...........
> ...


Just to add to this - sorry Craig, not hi jacking honest :blush:, thought it might be relevant- For those that don't know. We own the black hole leo that fathered Kong. He's an average sized 80g male and quite chunky on it but he consistently produces larger than average hatchlings. As an example his first son this year a dreamsickle weighed just under 25g at 7 weeks old. These are average 3 and 4g leos at hatching and grow at a steady rate for the first few weeks after which they seem to explode growth wise. I do believe it is something to do with his genetics but he is certainly not giant and can't be het giant (as I have seen people advertising sometimes) if it is a dominant morph.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Thanks all.

Now this thread is back on track discussing 'giants'.

My issue with the 'codom giant gene' is that it is not proven - no matter what Tremper says.
How can you have a cut off point of 'so many grams at such an age' to define a
Codom genetic morph? It either is something or it isn't !

Mack snow - you can see out of the egg what it is.

Giant - you can't. The parameters are made up - defined by one man.
If on the cut off dates the gecko is 1 gram less than the supposed weight, does it then revert back to 'normal'. It's far too ifs, buts and maybe.

Now people who love their giants - good luck to em. I have Leo's over 100 grams. What's the difference ?

One last thing - its believed that most giants are
Tremper albino based. My personal feelings (again) are that these shouldn't be bred into bell albino lines unless proved 100 percent het free. MY feelings and MY entitled belief. I and other Leo keepers strive for clean lines, I certainly won't risk potential mixing of albino strains, it's what took so long to get eclipse into bells as an example.......


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

geckograham said:


> Ok, so I have been accused (privately) of false advertising by someone who does not believe that giant leos exist. Well I can assure you that they do! It is a co-dominant gene. You can tell giants from normals at a very early age but this is only necessary is only 1 parent is a giant (giving 50% of the offspring as giants). Pairings of super giants with normals will give 100% of the offspring as giants and combinations of giants and super giants will give you giants and some super giants.
> 
> You can't tell a giant from a super giant until they are about a year old but you can tell a giant from a 'normal' pretty much straight after hatching.
> 
> ...


RT happens to be a good friend of mine. He is a great guy and would not lie to sell a few leopard geckos. There is so much more to the man than leopard geckos.

Even friends do not always see eye to eye. On this particular subject I would have to agree fully with what Ron has stated and I fully agree with everything you have stated GeckoGraham. There is no doubt that the giant gene is a real genetic mutaion.

I am not sure where the doubt comes from. I know that here in the States, it is pretty well agreed upon that giants are the real deal. I know back when the morph was first introduced it was unclea how it worked genetically. However, it does not take away from tha fact there is something different about them even straight out of the egg.

Maybe a few breeders in the UK passed off normals as giants to make some extra coin and it put a bad taste in the mouth of some people? Who knows.

All I know is I have had many giant projects and the genetics have all played out in a text book manner.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

53bird said:


> sam really knows his stuff too and very respected, what are you saying tremper albino? or you know 100% they have come from ron trempers direct line of giants?
> 
> to be honset what ive found is big leos produce big leos, normal leos can produce big leos depending on how they have been brought up with diet, care etc and kong is a prime example to this hole debate


Only 1 of my giants is Tremper albino, others are from trempers giant line (as far as I can be certain) but to be honest it's a bit of a duff question, so many breeders produce giants and mix them with their own stock that Tremper's line may as well have been a million years ago.




Gregg M said:


> RT happens to be a good friend of mine. He is a great guy and would not lie to sell a few leopard geckos. There is so much more to the man than leopard geckos.
> 
> Even friends do not always see eye to eye. On this particular subject I would have to agree fully with what Ron has stated and I fully agree with everything you have stated GeckoGraham. There is no doubt that the giant gene is a real genetic mutaion.
> 
> ...


Thank you Greg, good to hear the point of vie of someone who knows Ron Tremper personally. He does get bashed an awful lot, I suppose it's human nature to resent success!

Interesting to see that someone else who actually breeds giants has had the same experience as me with the gene.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> The ones I know for sure on are all Tremper. You can't expect me to take your word over what I've seen with my own eyes!


No for sure, have a read around and get a massive perspective for the morph, and if you still insist on selling geckos as Giants on the basis that the gene act Co dominantly in your collection, lets get one thing straight.....

Co dom x Co dom, does not result in all Het Co dom.
So if you have been selling everything from Giant x Giant pairings as "Giants" then you have mis sold some geckos in the fact that some should be Normal and some "Super Giant" (**** Co dom).


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

sam12345 said:


> No for sure, have a read around and get a massive perspective for the morph, and if you still insist on selling geckos as Giants on the basis that the gene act Co dominantly in your collection, lets get one thing straight.....
> 
> Co dom x Co dom, does not result in all Het Co dom.
> So if you have been selling everything from Giant x Giant pairings as "Giants" then you have mis sold some geckos in the fact that some should be Normal and some "Super Giant" (**** Co dom).


It is not possible to distinguish a giant from a super giant at 4-5 weeks old, labelling geckos as "super giant" at the age I sell the would be wrong. It IS possible to tell a giant from a normal at that age though so I have mis-sold NOTHING. That is a nasty and scurrilous accusation and it has been referred to the moderators.

What am I to believe? Personal experience combined with that of the most successful breeder there is (he gets bashed alot on here but we Brits seem to really resent any form of success, it is no accident that everyone knows his name and nobody knows mine or yours) or random Internet stranger?


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> It is not possible to distinguish a giant from a super giant at 4-5 weeks old, labelling geckos as "super giant" at the age I sell the would be wrong. It IS possible to tell a giant from a normal at that age though so I have mis-sold NOTHING. That is a nasty and scurrilous accusation and it has been referred to the moderators.
> 
> What am I to believe? Personal experience combined with that of the most successful breeder there is (he gets bashed alot on here but we Brits seem to really resent any form of success, it is no accident that everyone knows his name and nobody knows mine or yours) or random Internet stranger?


It's not an accusation at all, you state yourself...



geckograham said:


> I either pair giant males and females to produce all giant offspring


This is not true, and going on what you have said there, you sell every gecko from this pairing as "Giants". Whether it being intentional some of these geckos may not have been Giant.

Did I bash Ron at all? NO!!
I refer you to my original post in this thread, where in fact I actually state I have every confidence the morph acted like this when first released.
It's people who don't understand genetics and think Co dom x Co dom = 100% Co dom that have likely had devastating effects of the trait.



sam12345 said:


> As Mal has already pointed out there are some inconsistencies in the morph and less and less people believe it acts in a co dom manner.
> 
> We have a very early "Giant Mack Snow" who's parents were directly imported from Ron Tremper, and we bred by a very respectable leopard gecko breeder, who gave things up a few years back.
> Consistently this gecko produces offspring that are much larger than your average hatchling. Do I think this is down to his genetic make up.... Most certainly!
> ...


I've actually had a lot of dealings with Ron recently and we've discussed a lot of each others projects, some of which feature in his latest book you'll see. He's one of the nicest and helpful blokes I've met in the leopard gecko community, and I've got a lot of time for him.
That said, and I have told him this. Some of his "creations" have been clutching at straws. I think there is pressure on the guy to release new morphs consistently and this has rushed him with some things.
Back on topic though... There is no doubt that Ron's line of "Giants" produce big leopard geckos!

Also I think its irrelevant how well known someone is. I have a very good friend who lives not too far from me, who I believe has changed reptile keeping more than most of the big names around today. Does any one know him, no!
Also do a bit of research, 4 or 5 of the participants to this thread are some of the most well known and respected breeders in this hobby in the UK. Some even globally.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Perhaps I worded something wrong, super giant paired with giant will not produce any normals. And do you seriously think I just blindly label geckos without looking at them first? I'm sick of saying that giants hatchlings can be told apart from normals so if it isn't a giant it won't be sold as one, it's that easy!


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Size isnt everything as they say. One of the biggest hatchlings I have ever produced came from two 55gm normals. It was mahoosive from the egg. I havea 130gm male, strong, muscular, long and no evidence of obesity. I dont label him as giant. When paired to geckos of normal stature the hatchlings have generally been big robust geckos, you could say bigger than normal but not giants. When paired to his offspring he produces ' big from the egg' hatchlings but none have grown to be as big as him. The size of the parent gecko can but is not guaranteed to influence the size of the hatchling. Other factors can also influence the sze and growth of hatchlings. Good nutrition of the parents, incubation times, hatchling nutrition can all have significant impact on the size and growth curve of an emergent hatchling. There is no marker in the first few months of a hatchlings life that conclusively identify it as giant. There is no visual indicator to give a 1000 % positive identification. If you put your pairings through a genetics calculator you will find that the predicted results will as Sam points out, include the odd normal gecko. The crux of the matter is there are no guarantees with any pairing.

It is sad that debate and discussion is seen as a personal attack. Why this has been reported to the Mods is beyond me. A forum is meant to be a place for people to discuss and exhange thoughts, opinions, beliefs and views. It isnt a crime to disagree. I cant see any malicious or hostile intent from any participants.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

I have no problem with debate Mal, but I'm not going to take someone saying I mis sell geckos, I do no such thing and you just can't deny that Sam said it. You can't say that about a shop on here so why can you say it about a private breeder?

I disagree with you when you say I can't tell a giant from a normal, I can and I've never used a genetics calculator, can you point me towards a good one?


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

geckograham said:


> I have no problem with debate Mal, but I'm not going to take someone saying I mis sell geckos, I do no such thing and you just can't deny that Sam said it. You can't say that about a shop on here so why can you say it about a private breeder?
> 
> I disagree with you when you say I can't tell a giant from a normal, I can and I've never used a genetics calculator, can you point me towards a good one?


If you read what I said in context, in light of what you said I stated that would be mis selling geckos IF you were selling all of these geckos as Giants. The key wording was...



sam12345 said:


> So IF you have been selling


You now state that the pairing was meant to read Super Giant x Giant = 100% Giants. Again not strictly true if we are sticking to the Co dom theory, but at least people would get more than they thought rather than less.

In reference to the identification of young "giants", can you enlighten me as to what points you pick up on.
SVL, Overall Length, Weight at hatching, Weight at 2 weeks, Different body shape?

As Mal pointed out, growth rate depends on a number of different factors, before, during and after incubation.
Just saying "that ones giant because I can tell" doesn't really cut it. You must have some reference or criteria to go on?


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

It is a case of looking at the dimensions of the gocko, if you have a clutch from giant x normal it makes it easier because you can compare the two. I find length is the big factor, particularly the tail. I don't tend to weigh hatchlings because I try not to handle them unless I have to.

I promise you mate everything is advertised in good faith and if people aren't happy, I'm not hard to find!


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Im posting via phone so cant give you the links but google the morph calculator or use a punnet square. Giant to Giant =25% Super Giant 50 % Giant and 25 % normal. Remember that is percentage chance per egg. That is also working on the premise that the genetics are true. The dilema is knowing whether the hatchling is a big normal or giant. That can NOT be 100 % ascertained until the gecko reaches the later months of its first year of life. A hatchling can be a reet big bugga for 5 months then its growth can become static with it never reaching giant parameters. The only way you can give an absolute guarantee that the gecko is giant is to wait until it is around 10 months old unless of course it reaches giant status before that point. Hope that makes sense, its not the easist of things submitting lengthy posts via phone.


----------



## skywalker550 (May 6, 2012)

*Giant leopard Gecko's*

Hi
I take it from this debate, no one has yet attempted to establish the genome of a Leo? As if we had that information we would be able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt how genes operate to determine size and colour in Leo's.

Many thanks for the info though guys , its been really interesting !

Sue Walker


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

here a morph calculator Leopard Gecko Genetics Calculator


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Madhouse5 said:


> here a morph calculator Leopard Gecko Genetics Calculator


Cheers, I'll have a little play with that later.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

geckograham said:


> Cheers, I'll have a little play with that later.


can i ask you what you think of these baby's









any clue on the morph just been offer them at a good price


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Madhouse5 said:


> can i ask you what you think of these baby's
> image
> 
> any clue on the morph just been offer them at a good price


Top one is some kind of albino, hard to tell what kind without seeing the eyes. What were the parents?


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

geckograham said:


> Top one is some kind of albino, hard to tell what kind without seeing the eyes. What were the parents?


he says rainwater to a all yellow male he not sure on the morph could be tremper albino or murphy or even hypo lol


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Mal said:


> Im posting via phone so cant give you the links but google the morph calculator or use a punnet square. Giant to Giant =25% Super Giant 50 % Giant and 25 % normal. Remember that is percentage chance per egg. That is also working on the premise that the genetics are true. The dilema is knowing whether the hatchling is a big normal or giant. That can NOT be 100 % ascertained until the gecko reaches the later months of its first year of life. A hatchling can be a reet big bugga for 5 months then its growth can become static with it never reaching giant parameters. The only way you can give an absolute guarantee that the gecko is giant is to wait until it is around 10 months old unless of course it reaches giant status before that point. Hope that makes sense, its not the easist of things submitting lengthy posts via phone.


This is what I was (I thought discreetly) trying to point out via pm.

Even the 'approved' method of defining a giant states that is an animal that reaches 'x' weight by 'x' age. Therefore IMO you cannot state for certain that a giant parent has produced a giant hatchling. It's not like having a Mack snow that's white as opposed to yellow. Therefore (again IMO) they should be 'poss
giant'.

I would like to bet that not every offspring of a 'super giant' has ever met the criteria either - but that's again my opinion. This would however mean that the genetic influence is not acting in a pure co-dom fashion.

My belief is that giant acts like a polygenic line bred trait such as stripe/carrot tail. Some offspring will inherit the parents large size, some won't.....


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

I have a sneaky suspicion the point has got through hence the lack of response.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

mel what do you think of them babies please


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Mal said:


> I have a sneaky suspicion the point has got through hence the lack of response.


Well excuse me for not being online every minute of the day! I stand by my assertion that giants are distinguishable from non giants. Everything sold as a giant is at least a giant, some will be super giants.


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

It is no secret that GeckoGraham and I do not see eye to eye on some subjects. However, from my own projects and the projects of many of my leopard gecko breeder friends, he is spot on with his assertions when it comes to the giant morph. I have his back on this debate 100%.

I also think it is discusting to try and imply or straight out say he is selling animals that are not what he says they are. Some of you need to step back and think about what you are going to type before you do so.

To those who doubt the validity of the giant gene, is your opinions of the morph based on actual projects you have worked on? I only say this because I have been working with giants from the start. You can CLEARLY tell giant hatchlings from normal ones just as easily as you can snows. Obviously not by color. Giant hatchlings do not always weigh more than normals. There is however a clear head, body and tail proportion difference that is easily picked up on. 

The thing is, dominant, co-dominant, and even recessive mutations have all been mistaken for polygenic traits. It is easy to say something is polygenic when it is misunderstood. It can sometimes be hard to tell them all apart.

I am willing to bet that the large majority of people doubting the giant gene have never worked with it. That would be the only explanation for the confusion and lack of understanding.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Gregg M said:


> It is no secret that GeckoGraham and I do not see eye to eye on some subjects. However, from my own projects and the projects of many of my leopard gecko breeder friends, he is spot on with his assertions when it comes to the giant morph. I have his back on this debate 100%.
> 
> I also think it is discusting to try and imply or straight out say he is selling animals that are not what he says they are. Some of you need to step back and think about what you are going to type before you do so.
> 
> ...


Gregg,

I acknowledge that you are a very experienced keeper of reptiles and have lots of time for many things you do and say.
However - this is a forum for debate, we are debating a point here that some agree with and some don't. We cannot keep stating that there is something definitive regarding the giant gene as you/Ron Tremper and geckograham believe one line of an argument where as many others don't.

I have never worked with spider morph royal pythons, it doesn't mean 'head wobble' doesn't exist does it?
I and other poster are expressing our doubts and opinions regarding the way the giant gene works and/or expresses. That is our right.
I have seen numerous large hatchling Leo's and large adult Leo's, yet apparently these aren't and never could be 'genetic giants'.

Why is that ?


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Forum - A public meeting place for open discussion. Look in any dictionary of the English speaking language and you will find wording along those lines. The key words here are ' open discussion '.

There are many topics relating to this hobby that cause controversy,argument, dischord or of greater significance discussion. Gregg, you have a wealth of knowledge and experience and many of us (myself included) hold you in high regard because of this. However I am sure that even you must agree that some of your posts have stirred up controversy and argument. Im not going to re open previously closed topics but you have argued points vehemently yet when challenged to provide evidence to support your argument have failed to do so. You havent been stopped from expressing your thoughts and opinions though. That is all that is happening here, people are expressing their thoughts and beliefs. It doesnt matter if they are right or wrong, what does matters is the ensuing discussion. 

Graham is fully entitled to his own beliefs and opinions and no one is trying to stop him from expressing what he believes. They are his animals and he can sell them in a manner that he sees appropriate. To use difference of opinion to sabotage sales would be totally unacceptable. However that isnt happening here. If it were Im sure the Mods would be descending and taking swift action.

What is happening here is that people are trying to offer reasoned discussion and debate. Something that is actually lacking in this forum. Most of the time its a help page or look at my critters section. The threads with real in depth discussion are few and far between. Threads such as this are actually what forums are all about. To stifle such discussion would be a great disservice to 
the forum.

Im sorry that Graham is seeing this as a personal attack on him. Words said to him in private conversation have no relevance in this thread. People, including Graham, have had equal opportunity to express their thoughts and beliefs. People can discuss things for as long as they like, it doesn't necessarily mean we will all agree with each other in the end. We simply and respectfully agree to disagree. We can be quite grown up about things.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

I have no problem with debate Mal, that is the reason I started this thread. The only thing I will NOT accept is accusations of mis selling. I'm trying to build a reputation here and it is very unhelpful to have people (admittedly only 1 so far publicly) throwing this accusation around. Am I going to risk everything by lying about what I'm selling for the sake of an extra fiver on the price? I think not.

You also have to admit, gregg and I singing from the same hymn sheet has to be pretty compelling evidence!


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

geckograham said:


> I have no problem with debate Mal, that is the reason I started this thread. The only thing I will NOT accept is accusations of mis selling. I'm trying to build a reputation here and it is very unhelpful to have people (admittedly only 1 so far publicly) throwing this accusation around. Am I going to risk everything by lying about what I'm selling for the sake of an extra fiver on the price? I think not.
> 
> You also have to admit, gregg and I singing from the same hymn sheet has to be pretty compelling evidence!


Nobody has accused you of mis selling. Let's get that straight first off. 

As for you and Gregg holding a viewpoint being compelling evidence, sorry but it's not. It's you stating your point of view. Flip that argument around and say myself, Mal, Sam and Craig all appear to agree. So we must be right?

That's not facts, it's opinion. Something you and Gregg are entitled to in exactly the same way the rest of us are.

You started the thread to prove some sort of point regarding the giant 'gene', I still haven't seen compelling evidence to make me change my own PERSONAL viewpoint.......


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

i think the only way this will be done is to do a breeding program with giants myself i say there must be something in it, ok so if we put together a breeding group of giant owners and super giant owners then see what offspring you get from a giant to normal size then a giant to a giant and a super giant to a giant ,normal,super. 

don't think this would take much to do i already have a giant male paired to a normal size female so i hope to get some babies 

what you all think 

Paul


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Big Red One said:


> Nobody has accused you of mis selling. Let's get that straight first off.
> 
> As for you and Gregg holding a viewpoint being compelling evidence, sorry but it's not. It's you stating your point of view. Flip that argument around and say myself, Mal, Sam and Craig all appear to agree. So we must be right?
> 
> ...


You are no mind reader, I know why I started this thread, you don't. For someone who clearly sees themself as having a sense of humour, you really had a sense of humour failure on the gregg comment!


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Madhouse5 said:


> i think the only way this will be done is to do a breeding program with giants myself i say there must be something in it, ok so if we put together a breeding group of giant owners and super giant owners then see what offspring you get from a giant to normal size then a giant to a giant and a super giant to a giant ,normal,super.
> 
> don't think this would take much to do i already have a giant male paired to a normal size female so i hope to get some babies
> 
> ...


I'm up for that.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

cool lets do it  as soon as i get eggs i will let you know ,she had what most people think was two test eggs last week they was both infertile so hope the next clutch will work out better there a photo of my two on here already 

so lets have some fun


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

geckograham said:


> I have no problem with debate Mal, that is the reason I started this thread. The only thing I will NOT accept is accusations of mis selling. I'm trying to build a reputation here and it is very unhelpful to have people (admittedly only 1 so far publicly) throwing this accusation around. Am I going to risk everything by lying about what I'm selling for the sake of an extra fiver on the price? I think not.
> 
> You also have to admit, gregg and I singing from the same hymn sheet has to be pretty compelling evidence!


Im sorry but while your trying to build your reputation your going to experience far worse than someone questioning the accuracy of your labelling for a controversial morph. The Leopard Gecko breeding world in the UK has some great people working in it. Im proud to call many of them my friends and admire and respect them for all the positive things they do for the hobby. It also has a number of people who will smile in your face while stabbing you in the back, people who would sell their Grandma to get one step ahead of you. 

Why you and Gregg singing from the same hymn sheet provides compelling evidence is beyond me. Gregg is a great guy, he appears to know his stuff and have a great level of experience. So do others that have participated in this thread. Gregg doesnt have an certificate that says he is the worlds leading expert on giant strain leos. He claims to have worked with them a lot and we have no reason to doubt him on that. However his word is no better than anyone else that has spent time studying and working with these animals. One UK participant on this thread in particular is someone I hold in extremely high regard for his knowledge and experience of leopard gecko genetics. He has worked with some of the big names, he fronts leading edge leopard gecko breeding projects and knows his stuff inside out. So really if you want to use Gregg as your support, I offer my 'trump card' Sam123 .

I know the above was a bit 'flippant' but you cant really use the fact that Gregg agrees with you as compelling evidence. This discussion is unlikely to progress beyond the fact you have two camps....one believes in Giants, the other camp thinks a) the evidence of their true existence is less compelling and b) that it is difficult to give a 100 % guarantee that a hatchling is a giant (if they do exist) before the hatchling reaches subadult status . We simply have to agree to disagree.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

FFS! The gregg line was a jokey reference to previous dust ups between gregg and myself! I didn't think it was all that ambiguous, it's not like it was just an out of place smiley without a word of explanation!


----------



## MP reptiles (Dec 30, 2010)

Big geckos produce more big geckos! I used to believe in it but I'm not a believer so much of the co-dom thing. A geckos morph surely can not be justified in the terms of its weight as super giants often are. I know this may be slightly off topic but my very lengthy female has layed eggs double the size of any of my others. I do not know why but none of them have hatched so i cant say or prove anything but they may well have been big babies.

I think many valid points have been made here and there is no compelling info to prove that it is co-dom although I do believe that there are some genetics behind these "giants"


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

geckograham said:


> FFS! The gregg line was a jokey reference to previous dust ups between gregg and myself! I didn't think it was all that ambiguous, it's not like it was just an out of place smiley without a word of explanation!


Sorry in the context of the thread Im afraid I didnt see the Gregg comment as a joke.. Also I hadnt seen your response to BRO whilst typimg my post via phone. It does however show how easy it is to misinterprett sentiment behind words written on a screen. An apparantly hostile post can just as easily be down to misinterpretation of sentiment.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Mal said:


> Sorry in the context of the thread Im afraid I didnt see the Gregg comment as a joke.. Also I hadnt seen your response to BRO whilst typimg my post via phone. It does however show how easy it is to misinterprett sentiment behind words written on a screen. An apparantly hostile post can just as easily be down to misinterpretation of sentiment.


Excellent point there. I'll admit I was very angry yesterday, don't think I need to go into the reasons again. This thread has prompts worthwhile debate though so perhaps all sides could agree to lighten the mood a bit?


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

geckograham said:


> You are no mind reader, I know why I started this thread, you don't. For someone who clearly sees themself as having a sense of humour, you really had a sense of humour failure on the gregg comment!


:lol2:


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

OK then, for all us novice geneticists, I would love to see the multigeneration (and line) segregation analysis which conclusively proves this "trait" conforms to a single loci. When I see this work of fiction, then we should talk about the clear ambiguities in the phenotype delimitation...

I'll post my data at some point next week (when I have finished up the figures), but I'd love to see some of this nonsense backed up first with anything other than "i've bred more than you".

Andy


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Ok Mr 10 stars. You are clearly so disdainful regarding anybody else's point of view that you might as well just tell us all how it is so we can all log off and watch soaps. We are not all geneticists now are we?


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Graham, was that really called for or helpful ? If anyone can unravel this I would put my money on GG. The tone of his post isnt that disimiler to the tone others have adopted in this and similar heated discussion. That is of course if we re interpretting correctly the sentiment behind the words on the screen. I for one would love to read his views on the topic. It will be very interesting to read factual evidence and may enhance discusion and understanding amongst both camps. I hope that we can all be receptive of what GG brings to the discussion.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

geckograham said:


> Ok Mr 10 stars. You are clearly so disdainful regarding anybody else's point of view that you might as well just tell us all how it is so we can all log off and watch soaps. We are not all geneticists now are we?


Well I assumed by the suggestions being made that those suggesting this 'trait' is anything other than what it was sold as have no idea what they are talking about and are "confused", that someone has some 'actual' proof. After all, people are welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts...

I have a small amount of data (n=300) pertaining to growth rate, adult size (weight, length, with at various positions etc...) and a few other things for three dietary regimes under controlled conditions, for four test groups including "giants" ('one copy'), "super giants" (two copies) (both bred from 'known origin' parents to delimit morph), large parent non-giants (Both parents over X weight and Y length), and 'normal-sized' non-giants (again from specific weight and length classes) from multiple lineage's. I don't want to say this gives me a unique understanding about this trait (as the results are not exactly rocket science), but I have seen no similar data sets for this trait anywhere else.

As I say, I will put the results together in the coming days for everyone to take a look at, but I suspect there will be few people who are surprised with the findings...

One further point, you are right, we are not all geneticists. But that begs the question, how reliable is the evidence coming from other non-geneticists about trait heritability? I'm casting no aspersions, but I am yet to see any evidence at all that any of the phenotypic traits associated with this 'morph' are a) constant in each individual. b) not the product of environmental variation, (and most importantly for this debate) c) segregate to a single loci over multiple generations and lineages. But please, somebody prove me wrong!

Andy

Oh, and my previous post was perhaps a little close to the bone, but really having read 6 pages of "my dad's bigger than your dad", I felt it'd fit right in...


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Fair enough, I am genuinely interested to see what you have on this. Concise evidence from an actual geneticist will add a whole new dimension. Unfortunately I have nothing like the resources to conduct such studies. I just started a leopard gecko collection and developed I particular liking for giants. I did some reading, spoke to a few local breeders and then saw results with my own eyes. Hatchlings I kept thinking they were giants did indeed hit the magic 90g well before they were 12 months old and of the ones I've sold (admittedly not that many as I've always mainly given them to a pet shop in return for never paying for live food or supplements) have never attracted any complaints. If anyone who bought one was unhappy, even after a year, they would have let me know!

I'm not sure if it can be called a "morph" though as you can get giants in pretty much any "morph" these days. So if I'm wrong can anyone explain why I've had the results I have? Is it just diet/husbandry etc? And if so why the noticeable difference in giant and normal hatchlings?


----------



## joze_leo (Jul 29, 2011)

Where can i get me some of these giants?


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

joze_leo said:


> Where can i get me some of these giants?


They aren't rare by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

I have a ton of respect for all those involved in this thread on both sides of the argument. And I am honored to see my name mentioned so many times in this thread by all of you. LOL.

I understand that this is an open forum. It is a great forum and that is why I have been a consistant member on here. I just do not agree with dragging someones name in the dirt unless they are a complete douchebag.

All I can offer is my personal experience based on my breeding results and they concur with what GeckoGraham has stated.

I just wanted to see how many of those who doubt the validity of the morph actually work with it. To me, it seems no one who is questioning it is actually working with them. If any of you are working with it, it would be great to hear your personal results.


----------



## Junior13reptilez (Oct 17, 2010)

Madhouse5 said:


> well i have a giant he 3 year old 126g very big boy here a photo to show your accuser image
> 
> next to him is his 3 year old lady
> 
> ...


 They just look overweight to me


----------



## SlimJim (Aug 10, 2011)

This debate reminds me of Religion vs. Athiesm, both sides have arguments, both sides have "proof" but neither are going to convince the other.

Instead of blindly believing or disbelieving in something, try and find definitive proof, in this case it would be by breeding Giants yourself.

If you haven't done it personally then your argument is meaningless, how are you meant to convince other people of something if you can't be 100% sure yourself.

The only people that I see here giving actual evidence are Graham and Gregg, who seem to be the only people posting that have actually worked with Giants.

I'd love to see some evidence against this argument, as I have yet to see any in this thread.

Until then I'm going to stay undecided on which side I'm on.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

SlimJim said:


> This debate reminds me of Religion vs. Athiesm, both sides have arguments, both sides have "proof" but neither are going to convince the other.
> 
> Instead of blindly believing or disbelieving in something, try and find definitive proof, in this case it would be by breeding Giants yourself.
> 
> ...


The evidence on my side of the debate has already been presented.
Why is it that only people who have bred giants are entitled to an opinion? The debate has been about how giants are defined, you don't need to breed one to see the potential flaws in that. Myself and other posters have hatched huge geckos and have large adults, yet they aren't giants apparently. That's 'experience' so why does that not count?


----------



## SlimJim (Aug 10, 2011)

From what I've read they're defined easily by length at birth then combined with weight as they get older.

Maybe if you bred Giants and compared the hatchlings to Large normal hatchlings, there would be a significant difference to change your mind or maybe there wouldn't be a difference at all, which would be actual evidence.

All I was saying is I believe in something when I've seen actual proof, until then it's all just theory and theories aren't always correct.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Big Red One said:


> The evidence on my side of the debate has already been presented.
> Why is it that only people who have bred giants are entitled to an opinion? The debate has been about how giants are defined, you don't need to breed one to see the potential flaws in that. Myself and other posters have hatched huge geckos and have large adults, yet they aren't giants apparently. That's 'experience' so why does that not count?


That's all a bit of a non-issue for me. For instance, I have 2 brothers, 1 is about 5'9" like me, the other is 6'4"! Also, does every 7 feet tall human have gigantism? I think not. Also why has my dog grown so much bigger than average when the rest of her litter didn't?

When breeding anything, larger than average offspring will be produced. The genetics behind Giants, in my experience, give you the opportunity to breed bigger than average geckos by design.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

geckograham said:


> That's all a bit of a non-issue for me. For instance, I have 2 brothers, 1 is about 5'9" like me, the other is 6'4"! Also, does every 7 feet tall human have gigantism? I think not. Also why has my dog grown so much bigger than average when the rest of her litter didn't?
> 
> When breeding anything, larger than average offspring will be produced. The genetics behind Giants, in my experience, give you the opportunity to breed bigger than average geckos by design.


Graham, the points you make are exactly what I am saying. Offspring from the same parents vary, but there's a bigger chance of larger than average offspring of it is ' in the family' - it doesn't mean a single gene is acting in a co Dom manner that gives exact outcomes......

It's the defining 'points' I have issue with, not the fact that there's some genetic influence! I would bet any amount of money that I had that not every giant or super giant offspring does what it 'should' in a co Dom situation.

I wouldn't bet that it might end up a large gecko, but that is linebreeding/polygenic phenotypical expression.......


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Big Red One said:


> Graham, the points you make are exactly what I am saying. Offspring from the same parents vary, but there's a bigger chance of larger than average offspring of it is ' in the family' - it doesn't mean a single gene is acting in a co Dom manner that gives exact outcomes......
> 
> It's the defining 'points' I have issue with, not the fact that there's some genetic influence! I would bet any amount of money that I had that not every giant or super giant offspring does what it 'should' in a co Dom situation.
> 
> I wouldn't bet that it might end up a large gecko, but that is linebreeding/polygenic phenotypical expression.......


I do see your point but all I can tell you is that it's all gone "by the book" for me over the last few years. Even though I've hatched quite alot of them, I don't think I've hatched enough to say for certain yet but surely the last few year's results are a good indication of the validity of giants?


----------



## nsn89 (Jun 11, 2011)

SlimJim said:


> This debate reminds me of Religion vs. Athiesm, both sides have arguments, both sides have "proof" but neither are going to convince the other.
> 
> Instead of blindly believing or disbelieving in something, try and find definitive proof, in this case it would be by breeding Giants yourself.
> 
> ...


Religion has no proof by the way..:Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

nsn89 said:


> Religion has no proof by the way..:Na_Na_Na_Na:


Niether does Atheism, by the way! :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

Big Red One said:


> The evidence on my side of the debate has already been presented.
> Why is it that only people who have bred giants are entitled to an opinion? The debate has been about how giants are defined, you don't need to breed one to see the potential flaws in that. Myself and other posters have hatched huge geckos and have large adults, yet they aren't giants apparently. That's 'experience' so why does that not count?


The point you have missed is the fact that giant hatchlings have a differet body shape than normal hatchlings. Something you would not really see unless you have bred them.

You are ofcorse entitled to your opinion, however, I can not see how it can add any weight to your argument unless it was formed from experience. How can you say giants work or do not work a certain way if you have never bred them? Why is it that Graham, myself, and every other breeder working with them agrees that the genetics are working pretty much in a textbook manner? Why are the people who are not working with them doubting the validity of the gene?

Also, those of you who have really big geckos, can you say with 100% certainty that there is no giant gene in them? I know for a fact that some breeders here in the US have exported many geckos to the UK. Genetics can easily be lost when animals are passed from hand to hand. Also, giants are not worth any more than non giants so discloser of genetics can be left out as well.


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

i cant believe this is still going on :gasp:

well i know kongs dad came from the US in 2007 (hes a 80g blackhole) but his mum was bred from a long line of uk leos, with 100% NO giant gene, yet at 10 months he was 111g, big leos pop up now and again, he is now 136g at 3years old not fat at all as you can see in my pics in the first few pages of this thread.

ive had two normals/wild types breed and two of the males they produced reached 105g by 11months old yet others only reached 80g with the right care and tlc you get big leos big parents produce big hatchlings, also had solar my tremper sunglow his parents have been here in the uk for many years, he reached 108g at 11months does that make him a giant i dont think so just a big male. of course this is just my experiance. and all my leos reach big weights with a good diet


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Gregg M said:


> The point you have missed is the fact that giant hatchlings have a differet body shape than normal hatchlings. Something you would not really see unless you have bred them.
> 
> You are ofcorse entitled to your opinion, however, I can not see how it can add any weight to your argument unless it was formed from experience. How can you say giants work or do not work a certain way if you have never bred them? Why is it that Graham, myself, and every other breeder working with them agrees that the genetics are working pretty much in a textbook manner? Why are the people who are not working with them doubting the validity of the gene?
> 
> Also, those of you who have really big geckos, can you say with 100% certainty that there is no giant gene in them? I know for a fact that some breeders here in the US have exported many geckos to the UK. Genetics can easily be lost when animals are passed from hand to hand. Also, giants are not worth any more than non giants so discloser of genetics can be left out as well.


Again Gregg, you're kind of arguing the same point as I am now. Saying that giants may be mixed amongst 'normals' means that we have no way to distinguish giants clearly. That is my point, you cannot tell them with any certainty!
I have seen massive hatchlings, are you saying that if I bred giants and saw massive hatchlings I would say 'wow, they are completely different to the ones I have already seen'? The big hatchlings I have seen are really long and 'different' to a 'normal'. That then brings us back to how a giant is defined.

I have a massive hatchling, it grows to be 100 grams at 12 months.

Apparently though that can't be genetically a giant..... Again how/why?

Because its not from Ron Trempers genetic lineage. That does not make sense in establishing what something is. If I breed a 'suspected' yellowish Mack snow and get clearly identifiable white banded snows, I know I have a genetic snow.
If I breed a big gecko and get big hatchlings, I have what?

It doesn't add up.

As I have already said (so has Sam and others) I don't doubt that there are big Leo's and something is causing this. I DO doubt that every single super giant or giant Leo will produce the x size at x age offspring in a manner that reflects a codominant gene.
I don't need to breed them to acknowledge that, any more than I need to breed enigmas to acknowledge that they can show issues.


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

Big Red One said:


> As I have already said (so has Sam and others) I don't doubt that there are big Leo's and something is causing this. I DO doubt that every single super giant or giant Leo will produce the x size at x age offspring in a manner that reflects a codominant gene.
> I don't need to breed them to acknowledge that, any more than I need to breed enigmas to acknowledge that they can show issues.


And my point and main question is, what are you basing this doubt on? 2 breeders who work with and have worked with the gene see the results. I have nothing to gain from this because I do not work with leos on that scale anymore. I am telling you what I have seen year after year when I was doing it on that scale. It actually does work out the wat Tremper talks about it. Could it be something other than a co-dominant? Certainly. But so can any other co-dominant genes in any species. In fact, none of these supposed co-dom animals are actually working like a co-dominant by definition.



Big Red One said:


> I don't need to breed them to acknowledge that, any more than I need to breed enigmas to acknowledge that they can show issues.


You actually do need to work on the project because you are lacking tons of important information if you are not like % of giants along with weights and lengths of the hatchlings.

If you ever saw a true genetic giant next to even a big normal hatchling, you will see a clear difference. Just as ckear as you would if you put a snow hatchling next to a normal.

As far as the enigma thing goes, that is not even close to what we are talking about. What does a morph with a known genetic issue have to do with breeding giants? You do not need to breed enigmas to know there is a problem with them because of the vast information and countless threads on the internet that talk about it. You NEED to breed giants in order to say it is not working in a co-dom way. How would you know the % of the clutches being giant? How whould you know what size they get and at what age they get to be that size? Myself and others who breed/bred giants are saying it works a described.


----------



## Big Red One (Oct 17, 2007)

Gregg.

I am basing my doubts on the fact that there is an ambiguous 'marker' in use for giants as a genetic trait. x weight at x age is a made up parameter, it's not something you can see.
If I say I have my own line of genetic giants, they reach 23 grams and 3 inches by 30 days, it's just something I have made up. Some Leo's may reach it, some may not...

Honestly, I don't have to experience something to doubt it.

To me there is not conclusive proof, you've even just alluded to the point that it may not be co dominant yourself. That's what I'm questioning so why are you so vehemently arguing a point?
As has been said, it's my viewpoint, I can hold whatever viewpoint I like.

You've also stated that you need facts and figures, hatchling weights and sizes etc. Then you say you've bred tons of these and you know how it works. So help us morons out, give us your facts and figures.

I'd be massively interested to see all the 10/12 month size and weight figures to marry up to the hatchling data....


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

Gregg M said:


> And my point and main question is, what are you basing this doubt on? 2 breeders who work with and have worked with the gene see the results. I have nothing to gain from this because I do not work with leos on that scale anymore. I am telling you what I have seen year after year when I was doing it on that scale. It actually does work out the wat Tremper talks about it. Could it be something other than a co-dominant? Certainly. But so can any other co-dominant genes in any species. In fact, none of these supposed co-dom animals are actually working like a co-dominant by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
if all this is true, how have i found what i have? i have seen big hatchlings that only get to 80g by 12months old (they carry on to be over 100g), yet other big hatchlings get to far bigger than alot of these giant and super giant leos get at the ages, and they go past the giant guidelines, i must be on to something special.....


im right and everyone else on this thread are wrong......... :Na_Na_Na_Na: :lol2: i think this thread should have a warning - please sit down with a large drink ( a alcoholic one lol) before reading


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

Big Red One said:


> Gregg.
> 
> I am basing my doubts on the fact that there is an ambiguous 'marker' in use for giants as a genetic trait. x weight at x age is a made up parameter, it's not something you can see.
> If I say I have my own line of genetic giants, they reach 23 grams and 3 inches by 30 days, it's just something I have made up. Some Leo's may reach it, some may not...


Is it made up or is it actually observations that make RT feel it is a co-dom? There had to be something that made the man come to the conclusion that it is working in a co-dominant manner.



Big Red One said:


> Honestly, I don't have to experience something to doubt it.


Yes, we are all free to doubt things. However, when you are trying to debate the validity of a morph without ever working with it it just seems odd. Especially when breeders working with the gene agree with the findings.



Big Red One said:


> To me there is not conclusive proof, you've even just alluded to the point that it may not be co dominant yourself. That's what I'm questioning so why are you so vehemently arguing a point?
> As has been said, it's my viewpoint, I can hold whatever viewpoint I like.


Is there conclusive proof that snows are actually co-dominant? According to the actual definition, it is not a co-dom yet people still call it that. I am arguing the point because it does seem to be working as described by RT from my personal breeding experience with the morph.



Big Red One said:


> You've also stated that you need facts and figures, hatchling weights and sizes etc. Then you say you've bred tons of these and you know how it works. So help us morons out, give us your facts and figures.


None of you are morons. I certainly never said that and I do not think that. I am just saying that you can not say something is not working in a certain way unless you have seen it first hand. Do you know anyone who is breeding giants that agrees with your conclusion?



Big Red One said:


> I'd be massively interested to see all the 10/12 month size and weight figures to marry up to the hatchling data....


I do noy have the data because I am no longer breeding leos on a large scale and because I never needed to write it down because it is pretty easy to remember that 50% (a lot of the time more) of my hatchlings were giants when bred to a normal and 100% of the clutches were giants when it was a giant to giant breeding. If it were indeed a polygenic, 100% of the clutch would not be giants all the time. All giant I have hatched all had that long lanky look to them that was much different from their non-giant clutchmates.



53bird said:


> i cant believe this is still going on :gasp:
> 
> well i know kongs dad came from the US in 2007 (hes a 80g blackhole) but his mum was bred from a long line of uk leos, with 100% NO giant gene, yet at 10 months he was 111g, big leos pop up now and again, he is now 136g at 3years old not fat at all as you can see in my pics in the first few pages of this thread.
> 
> ive had two normals/wild types breed and two of the males they produced reached 105g by 11months old yet others only reached 80g with the right care and tlc you get big leos big parents produce big hatchlings, also had solar my tremper sunglow his parents have been here in the uk for many years, he reached 108g at 11months does that make him a giant i dont think so just a big male. of course this is just my experiance. and all my leos reach big weights with a good diet


I am ignoring your posts because frankly, I doubt some of what you are saying. Not trying to be a dick. I am just being honest. There is no way you have a 136 gram leo that is not overweight.


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

Gregg M said:


> I am ignoring your posts because frankly, I doubt some of what you are saying. Not trying to be a dick. I am just being honest. There is no way you have a 136 gram leo that is not overweight.


you dont know me or kong so you have every right to doubt me, but other forum member have seen kong and know im honest with my word, i dont lie but to be honset i dont care wht people think, i know and my friends know he is real and not fat as you can see.......
i have no need at all to lie, he is a very well loved pet and will stay that way

as ive said other members can back this up so you dont need to ignore thism he is a big gecko coming from small parents, a good mixed diet including plenty of locusts get you big leos

this was done awhile ago since he has put 2g on these are £150 scales from my vet that does my parrot too, plus checked with other scales, the tub he is in is 11inchs long,kong is around 2mm under 12inchs









a thread of some of the large uk leos http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/lizards/770238-giant-leopard-gecko-competition-7.html


----------



## Rvreps (Mar 18, 2012)

I have a male leo whos 126g and a smidge over 11"! ........... All round monster, massive head, massive tail....... Hes not a giant hes just a beast


What would i do without tapatalk?!


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

You know what I think is odd. The fact that all of these giant leos that people claim have no giant genetics happen to be Tremper albinos. Ever think that you ae actually working with the giant gene without knowing it?


----------



## MP reptiles (Dec 30, 2010)

Gregg M said:


> You know what I think is odd. The fact that all of these giant leos that people claim have no giant genetics happen to be Tremper albinos. Ever think that you ae actually working with the giant gene without knowing it?


Phil on here has a monster tug snow....


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Gregg M said:


> You know what I think is odd. The fact that all of these giant leos that people claim have no giant genetics happen to be Tremper albinos. Ever think that you ae actually working with the giant gene without knowing it?


You have to admit, that is an excellent point.


----------



## mariex4 (Oct 19, 2009)

see i was put straight, leos are the same as people you get big people , small people etc so leos are the same , just my thought on what was told


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

mariex4 said:


> see i was put straight, leos are the same as people you get big people , small people etc so leos are the same , just my thought on what was told


That is very true, I don't think it quite covers all the bases in this debate though.


----------



## sheena is a gecko (Apr 22, 2011)

Gregg M said:


> Is it made up or is it actually observations that make RT feel it is a co-dom? There had to be something that made the man come to the conclusion that it is working in a co-dominant manner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





53bird said:


> you dont know me or kong so you have every right to doubt me, but other forum member have seen kong and know im honest with my word, i dont lie but to be honset i dont care wht people think, i know and my friends know he is real and not fat as you can see.......
> i have no need at all to lie, he is a very well loved pet and will stay that way
> 
> as ive said other members can back this up so you dont need to ignore thism he is a big gecko coming from small parents, a good mixed diet including plenty of locusts get you big leos
> ...



I can totally back up and confirm that what Craig is saying is true. We own the male that produced Kong and he's an average sized 80g male but he does produce some huge babies regardless of the size and morph of the female he's paired with, although I can't define a pattern to it, We have several clutches from this male paired with 2 different females this year, some are huge monsters of babies, others from the same parents just average sized leos.

Just wondering would anyone be able to post a pic of a giant hatchling next to a normal hatchling so those of us who don't know can see what you mean by them being different straight from the egg?


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

Gregg M said:


> You know what I think is odd. The fact that all of these giant leos that people claim have no giant genetics happen to be Tremper albinos. Ever think that you ae actually working with the giant gene without knowing it?





geckograham said:


> You have to admit, that is an excellent point.


if this is the case everyone with a tremper albino is working with the giant/super giant gene........ how many years ago did the first tremper albino reach the UK, we all must have the possiblty of giants then, i know kongs mum was bred many years ago by het trempers never produced a big leo. 
what about all the other leos that reach the giant gene markers if not bigger with no tremper in them, ive seen normals reach 100g plus at 11months old (not fat) 

i think this giant stuff should be done with females, as you know its somthing special if a female reaches 110g plus before it turns a year old. then i would class that as a giant, but males do get big given the right care, all my males were over 100g before there first birthday ( 4 were non trempers 100%) 

hopefully you all will take me seriously this time, i have no need to lie, just being honest with what i have found, there may well be a giant gene, but so far i have found males get to giant sizes if not bigger, i have around 3 females hit 100g before they reached a year old one is a tremper, the other two have no tremper in them at all and that has been proven with the pairings ive done over the years.

i think people will keep debating about this just like the substrate issue etc it will never be 100% proven.........


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

53bird said:


> if this is the case everyone with a tremper albino is working with the giant/super giant gene........


This is not even close to being what gregg said.


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

Gregg M said:


> You know what I think is odd. The fact that all of these giant leos that people claim have no giant genetics happen to be Tremper albinos. Ever think that you ae actually working with the giant gene without knowing it?





geckograham said:


> This is not even close to being what gregg said.


he said its odd that all these "giants" are tremper albinos, which some of mine came from het trempers many many years ago, which produced kong, which as you can see is up there with super giants, so any tremper albino has the chance of produceing giants, if this is not true kong has only got this big by being given a good diet, and your still missing all these non trempers that hit the giant guidlines

this will never come to a clear answer, i just cant see it, with all the big leos i have brought up, some being from wild caught bloodlines there is no answer...............


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

53bird said:


> he said its odd that all these "giants" are tremper albinos, which some of mine came from het trempers many many years ago, which produced kong, which as you can see is up there with super giants, so any tremper albino has the chance of produceing giants, if this is not true kong has only got this big by being given a good diet, and your still missing all these non trempers that hit the giant guidlines
> 
> this will never come to a clear answer, i just cant see it, with all the big leos i have brought up, some being from wild caught bloodlines there is no answer...............


He was clearly referring the the fact that giants first came from a Tremper albino line, not the all Tremper's albinos carry the gene. Therefore it's possible that the particular trempers that king came from may have indeed been giants.

Besides, if I am "missing" all of the large geckos you have hatched, you are in turn missing all of my giant hatchlings produced following RT's assertions.


----------



## 53bird (Sep 30, 2009)

geckograham said:


> He was clearly referring the the fact that giants first came from a Tremper albino line, not the all Tremper's albinos carry the gene. Therefore it's possible that the particular trempers that king came from may have indeed been giants.
> 
> Besides, if I am "missing" all of the large geckos you have hatched, you are in turn missing all of my giant hatchlings produced following RT's assertions.


i have alot of tremper albinos all bought from young leos (20g) apart from the ones ive bred, all males have reached the giant/ super giant markers with only 3 females reaching it (i tremper 2 non trempers), i have tremper supersnows, tremper sunglows, mack raptors, supersnows, normals and a blackhole reaching these sizes, so all must have the giant gene........
some geckos given the right upbringing do get big or giant what ever you want to call it. many trusted members have seen these leos, no i havnt seen your giants only pictures of the babys with the same hatch dates, you label some as being giant when they look exactly the same as the non giants, still does not prove you can tell at such a young age.
yes but just because my leos get big i dont label them giants which reading through this thread i should be. i have not hatched all of them some come to me as young 20g leos (from trusted friends) then they grow huge with a good diet and care 

i can keep saying this as i have been with big red one, and sam12345 etc we can compare experiances all day long but wil never come to a 100% answer. 

i have said what ive wanted and dont see this going any further from what everyone else has said. and to be honest i know what ive seen and others have seen it too, which you both have seen what you have seen, we all have our own experiances and ideas of what we think happens


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

I cant believe this is still going on. Great to see discussion on the forum though. Im eagerly awaiting Glasgow Geckos input. If were going to get any definatives in the subject it will be through the kind of controlled study Andy is undertaking.
Although I dont have the weights I will try to post some pictures when I get on the comp tomorrow. I was offered some absolutely massive sub adult leos in March. They werent Trempers, they were wild caught in Pakistan.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Why anyone would want to buy WC leos just baffles me. I hope you sent whoever it was packing!


----------



## MP reptiles (Dec 30, 2010)

geckograham said:


> Why anyone would want to buy WC leos just baffles me. I hope you sent whoever it was packing!


why does it baffle you, half the morphs in ball pythons would not exist if it were not for wc.

I'm not a fan but captive breeding needs to start with wc.

wc animals usually offer a clean genetic slate so very useful for proving out new genes etc.


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

Mal said:


> I was offered some absolutely massive sub adult leos in March. They werent Trempers, they were wild caught in Pakistan.


As far as I know, live native animal export from Pakistan is illegal.


----------



## geckograham (Jan 22, 2012)

Gregg M said:


> As far as I know, live native animal export from Pakistan is illegal.


The import of wildlife from Pakistan has been prohibited by the US government for a long time. There is no such ban in an European country but I cants seem to find a definitive answer on wether or not their export is banned by Pakistan. I did find that the had a massive conference geared towards banning the export of ALL wildlife from the country.

Mal, I do understand the importance of WC specimens in reptile keeping but for something as widely bred in captivity, importing WC geckos has become uneccessary, gratuitous and wrong.


----------



## sam12345 (Dec 28, 2007)

Guys, let's not go off topic again.
Mal only stated he was offered some geckos. You don't know the age or origin, or the reason they were WC in the first place. They could be 10-15+ years old, or part of a recognised scientific study.
And again read in context it seems Mal didn't accept these geckos anyway....


----------



## Mal (Jul 22, 2007)

Firstly,my apologies, I cant find the images I referred to so they cant be included in this discussion. They were sent to me at a time I was caring for a terminally ill relative so I didnt give them too much thought or ask questions about their history. However, the contact that offered them to me was some one very reputable and 100% kosher. From what I recall they were surplus animals from research studies that are going on at a major European University. The point is, though, there are some pretty darn big animals even in wild populations. RT states that the first giant hatched from 2 normal appearing parents. It would be interesting to know a bit more about the background of those animals.

Graham, the subject of WC reptiles could in itself give fantastic discussion material. Personally I dont want WC animals in our collection, I cant justify owning them. I also dislike seeing WC animals on general sale in the reptile pet trade. However there are some people doing wonderful things through their work with WC animals. Preservation of some species is now almost dependent on succesful captive breeding programmes. Many species are at such risk in the wild through habitat destruction or even through them being harvested as food sources etc. The wc pet trade is not the only risk these animals face. Genetically pure animals are also extremely valuable if not essential for morph development, testing and strengthening of blood lines. At the end of the day, we all own animals that are descendant from WC specimens.

Ive just had a quick scan through the pages on this thread and there is one aspect of it I would like to clarify my stance on. I do not seek to try and discredit RT. He has done amazing stuff for this hobby. I did make a comment that I wouldnt take everything he says as gospel and I stand by that. In the same way I wouldnt take the word of anyone else marketing a new (ish) morph, car, product etc etc etc as gospel, I would prefer to read independent review and discussion.


----------



## Gregg M (Jul 19, 2006)

Mal said:


> Firstly,my apologies, I cant find the images I referred to so they cant be included in this discussion. They were sent to me at a time I was caring for a terminally ill relative so I didnt give them too much thought or ask questions about their history. However, the contact that offered them to me was some one very reputable and 100% kosher. From what I recall they were surplus animals from research studies that are going on at a major European University. The point is, though, there are some pretty darn big animals even in wild populations. RT states that the first giant hatched from 2 normal appearing parents. It would be interesting to know a bit more about the background of those animals.


.

Honestly Mal, your word is good enough for me. So please, include whatever info you can add to this talk. I was not questioning you, I was questioning the validity of what you were told. After reading the above post, my question has been answered.

There are some very large species of Eublipharid in the wild. E. macularius is not one o them. Species like E. angramainyu and E. fuscus get quite large and are huge as hatchlings. I also know that the founding blood line of captive leopard geckos is a genetic mix of a few species. Back then, people did not care about pure bloodlines. Could some of these randomly produced, large hatchlings that do not come from trempers line have a genetic link to some of the larger species? I think it is very possible and most likely probable. However I know for a fact that Trempers line of giants act like he discribes. It is not random. It is reliably produced.

Graham,
Just to touch on the export thing. I am pretty certain that Pakistan does not allow the export of their native species at all like Australia and the Philippines. I am not 100% sure but I believe I am correct.


----------

