Ethics - Leopard Geckos

I wanted to get some opinions from cornsnakes.com forum members that I respect. I wanted opinions and thoughts on a subject that is currently affecting the Leopard Gecko community, and that I find appalling.

First off, does anyone know who Ron Tremper is? If not, let me say that he is one of the individuals some consider "God" of Leopard Geckos. I consider Rich "God" of cornsnakes ( ). RT is on the other hand no where near as personable or driven for the species. More and more I learn about RT, I question his motives and think he's simply in it for the money. Now, I find their is absolutely nothing wrong with making money breeding and selling reptiles. However, I do have a problem when someone misinterprets what they are producing and the genetics behind it.

He has already screwed up by claiming a line he originated was a recessive mutation (Giant), and sold high dollar hets as such. Of course it bombed, the genes behind Giant however did prove out Codom. A lot of individuals dumped a lot of money into the het for nothing geckos, and he caught a lot of slack for it, which I believe he deserved.

The newest thing that's come out (as some of you may now) is the APTOR, RAPTOR and ECLIPSE mutations.

APTOR = Albino Patternless Tremper Orange
RAPTOR = Red-Eyed Albino Patternless Tremper Orange
ECLIPSE = Solid / Snake Eyed

Now, Tremper Albino is a proven recessive mutation. "Orange" aka Tangerine is a selectively bred mutation. ECLIPSE (or Red-Eyed if Albino) is unproven in its genetic inheritance. The Patternless in the APTOR/RAPTOR mutations is supposedly a new Patternless that is unproven in its genetic inheritance.

According to some individuals (Tremper, groovygeckos.com), if a mutation acts recessive (even though it isn't recessive) it is perfectly alright to slap normal offspring with the term het. I find this unethical. They are selling a animal, guaranteeing it's genetics when the genetics aren't there to guarantee.

With those facts, would you claim a gecko from a APTOR/RAPTOR parent could be het for APTOR/RAPTOR? Could you, ethically sell "het" for an unproven mutation for a decent sum of money (we're talking $500+)? Would you, as the founder of the mutation, prove out the genes behind it PRIOR to tossing it onto the market and taking money from individuals who trust you and your judgement?

Original thread:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=359532#post359532

Thread that turned into more debate on the APTOR/RAPTOR:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76840

Directly from RT'S site:

Notice how he doesn't know a thing about how the mutation works and expects others to figure it out for themselves.

Perhaps we are dealing with two separate recessive genes for eye pigmentation, but this will have to be sorted out over the next few years through test breedings conducted by the people who acquire these new mutations. It is not known at this time if R.A.P.T.O.R. times R.A.P.T.O.R. results in 100% pure R.A.P.T.O.R.s or if you get 50% R.A.P.T.O.R.s and 50% snake-eyed R.A.P.T.O.R.s.

Click to expand...

Want to produce both RAPTOR and ECLIPSE from the same parents?
Here's four ways that can occur:

Breed a non-albino het for RAPTOR to a non-albino het for RAPTOR.
Breed a non-albino het for RAPTOR to an albino het for RAPTOR.
Breed an ECLIPSE het for albino to a non-albino het for RAPTOR.
Breed an ECLIPSE het for albino to an albino het for RAPTOR.

Click to expand...

Notice how he places "Hets" in quotes and that all of the offspring were sired from a single male.

All of the geckos offered as "Hets", (R.A.P.T.O.R. gene carriers), were sired by the famous male featured on the cover of Reptiles and also pictured above.

Click to expand...

I would be just as disgusted if the Cornsnake community was poisoned by things like this. I provide proof and reasoning, and some individuals shrug and say "RT says it, so we're going to say it too." I've said three times to them what needs to be done to prove out the genetics in the APTOR/RAPTOR (RAPTOR x NORMAL). It seems no one wants to do it, they're just worried about reproducing the RAPTOR to sell them for a high dollar.

Anyway, enough of my rant...Let me here what you all think! :bang:

sort of in a similar vein, the 'mack snow' and 'super snow' variations? We love the look of the snow, and have the choice of spending over £1000 on a 'mack', or getting a line-bred snow for around £100. As I am not a breeder looking to recoup an investment, we can either get the line-bred version, or wait a couple of years for the market price of the 'mack' version to hopefully reduce as more are bred. It seems to me that the leo world is a bit more money-driven than in corns, and we are just starting to dip our toes in the different morphs. My 5 corns and the christmas I have ordered cost far less than the 1 leo my son really wants, but to me the snow just looks like a spotty version of the Blizzard we have already!

No, not in any way like the Mack Snow. The Mack Snow is a proven Codom mutation. I also wouldn't expect the mutation to come down in price any time soon. The RAPTOR/APTOR is not proven, is doubtful that it will ever be proven in the near future and yet they are being sold as if they are proven recessive.

thanks, that clears that up for us a little :crazy02:

I don’t really know enough about Leos or genetics (not yet anyway!) to comment on those things specifically, but I don’t like the idea of any one individual being considered “God” of a certain species. If others in the biz/hobby are accepting and following whatever this guy says, whether he is right or wrong, then that’s pretty scary. In the corn snake biz/hobby…we have people who have been working with corn morphs for a very long time, people who are genetics whizzes, some who are veterinarians/vet techs, etc. I respect and admire these folks, and appreciate all of the info they have shared w/ the rest of us over the years. But I would not ever just pick one of those individuals and think that whatever they say and do is right no matter what. It sounds like that is what some of the Leo folks are doing in this case. Scary.

Perhaps this thread should be at faunnaclassifieds so Mr Tremper can have reply. :shrugs: I'm certain you'll get replies from people who have experience with Geckos. :cheers:

Tremper does not participate in forums or the Leo community in general. Also, as you can see from my original post, it is already up on Fauna.

I wanted to add...It's not about just geckos. It's about the ethics behind what is going on and the excuses I'm getting.

I think the issue starts with lack of "standard usage" of the terminology.

For example, everyone considers the mack snows to be proven codominant. In order to prove that a mutant is codominant, there need to be three phenotypes. IIRC there are only two known phenotypes. What has been proven is that mack snow is heritable in a simple fashion but that it is not recessive. What has been proven is that mack snows are heterozygous.

The point I'm making with the above example is that the term "codom" is being used in a situation where it translates into genetic terminology as "heterozygous."

The problems above all stem from the fact that het gets misused, enough that for many it has come to mean "it's carrying a recessive mutant" and does not mean "it is heterozygous." This is where the term "visual het" (which is a nonsense term) comes from and why "codom" then gets used in place of "heterozygous."

Would you mind me quoting part of your post, Serp? Or would you like to reply to the post yourself? Or would you just like to stay the heck out've it? *lol*

I know nothing about Leo's at all other than they're pretty so I can't comment on them but I will tell you that here we have rather respected breeders (cornsnakes) who can use their established reputation to pass off a 'nothing specia'l as a 'new morph'. Louise knows what I mean here...some of you might remember the 'blackberry' corns issue I was ticked off about a few months back.

I think it'll keep happening everywhere and it's up to us who are active in forums to keep the truth and fact out there and available.

princess said:

I think it'll keep happening everywhere and it's up to us who are active in forums to keep the truth and fact out there and available.

Click to expand...

I 100% agree. Which is why I started the discussion on Fauna in the first place. Sadly, RT is considered "God" of Leos and some just jump on the bandwagon and follow what he does, regardless of the fact that he (might) be wrong. It's very discouraging... :shrugs:

blckkat said:

Tremper does not participate in forums or the Leo community in general.

Click to expand...

Many of the larger breeders do not (and in some cases will not) participate in the various online forums. For them, reptiles are usually their sole source of income, and to enter into some of the debates on "Genetics" or "Hybrids" can be quite ruinous to theirs or anothers business. To quote one, way too much "armchair quarterbacking" goes on amongst the forums.

So much is still unknown about the genetic workings of various reptile mutations many big name breeders sell animals on the strength of their names/reputations. It's up to the buyers to determine whether or not it's worth taking a chance on the animal. No opinion right or wrong, just the facts. And again, its sjut erptlies ...a thousand samolians for a 6" lizard??? :crazy02:

Which is why I appreciate Rich so much! He's willing to add his input, answer questions and participate in the hobby!

In all honesty. I really don't care one way or another (though I hope recessive) what it proves out. I just want the truth. If you don't know, that's ok...But don't say it's one thing when you don't know!

blckkat said:

Would you mind me quoting part of your post, Serp? Or would you like to reply to the post yourself? Or would you just like to stay the heck out've it? *lol*

Click to expand...

Sure, you can quote me, just don't misquote me.

What exactly is the situation with macks? When you cross mack X mack, do you generate a third phenotype?

If you only ever generate two phenotypes, then the mack gene is dominant. If it is possible to generate three phenotypes (presumably what would be called a "super mack") then the mack gene is codominant.

Dominant or codominant applies across the board to the mack gene. If it is codominant in one gecko, it is codominant in all of them. It is not a genotype, it is a relationship between two alleles.

-----

I believe the same "misuse of codominant" is also true of the giants. Are there just giants and normals, or is there a third ("super giant" or "half giant") phenotype? Unless there are three phenotypes, giant is also a dominant gene, as opposed to codominant.

Again, the difference between what I'm saying and what you will hear elsewhere is a result of the fact that "codominant" is being misused to mean "heterozygous for a dominant mutant" and "dominant" is being misused to mean "homozygous for a dominant mutant."

-----

I'd be curious to see how people would deal with the same type of situation in corns. Say you are the one who found the "golden okeetee" snake, you bred it to a normal, and you want to sell some of the normal-looking offspring. How would you choose to label them?

Serpwidgets said:

I'd be curious to see how people would deal with the same type of situation in corns. Say you are the one who found the "golden okeetee" snake, you bred it to a normal, and you want to sell some of the normal-looking offspring. How would you choose to label them?

Click to expand...

You don't. You wait until you get a male that is big enough to breed back with his mother and test him for that new gene. Then you test him with a caramel female to see what comes out. Only then, imo, do you sell any offspring as anything. To sell offspring as 'het' before it is proven is wrong and misleading, and a poor business decision.

What happens if it really is a new gene? Then you've sold 'het golden okeetee' corns for what, 1/10th of the price of what they'd really be worth by spending the extra 18-24 months to raise up a male and proove it out?

with the mack snow and super snow, I have only seen a few of each in the flesh, and not that many on the net to know for sure, but there was a visual difference in the patterning. without knowing the genetic background for certain, because there is apparently a line-bred strain that looks very similar, I felt I could not be certain that there was really any difference in the makeup of the geckos. As always, the animal (car/clothing range/etc) is ultimately worth whatever is paid for it. The big issues I guess are honesty and integrity when representing whatever is being sold, and breeding trials will always be needed to prove out the genetics in these cases

You're dodging the question. Not everyone has the room or the time to raise entire clutches. What if the female double clutches, you hatch 50 eggs and you cannot keep all of them?

I could come up with 100 hypothetical situations where you are selling some. (Your wife gets pregnant, you lose your job, your home is destroyed, your state passes a law, yadda.) Don't make me do that, just answer the question: "how do you choose to label them?" :grin01:

Giant x Giant = Super Giant
Mack x Mack = Super Mack

Joe, that is EXACTLY my point! TR is selling these "het" APTOR/RAPTOR for $500+ when it is unproven.

I would like to answer your question, Serp. I would label them from "from blah blah blah lines. unproven mutation."