Lauren, the bulk of those babies went to pet homes... 2 went to breeding homes, 1 did produce a WT, the other I am unsure of because the own went MIA I also kept a few, but only ever bred one of them... And he has only had normals for me.
That is an impressive WT, but my issue has been with some of the WT lines is they are often bred back into their own lines like Larkin/Linus for example. They produced a WT (Lane) but now his maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather share the same parents? I dont see the reason for going back into the same line that closely.
And take a look at Linus' lineage.
Last edited by MatchMakerMagic; 03/03/0905:07 PM. Reason: added more
I've never seen the tail-tip of a WT joey before, so I'm not sure if it is or not. I THOUGHT it was a gray, but the more I look at the pic, the more it looks like the tip of that tail could possibly be a really teensy WT, but it's too early to tell.
Watcha think? Am I seeing things(like usual, haha)?
~Nicole~
Proudly enslaved by lots of silly suggies, 3 crazy kitties, a huffy hedgie, and a pretty puppy!
Nicole, I am not a WT "expert" but I do not see a WT on either joey. That’s not to say any white hairs may grow in at some point (I personally don’t consider a few hairs a full WT, but that’s me). If tip skin isn't white (pink) then it’s a good indicator that the tip fur will not be very white. Here are pics of my smaller and larger WT's on my WF/WT twin joeys when they were still IP and then where they fluffed out so you can see the amount of pink that turned into WT.
Last edited by MatchMakerMagic; 03/04/0902:43 PM. Reason: corrected
I took another look at those photo's Nicole. And I really believe for a WT to be a real WT there needs to be pink skin at the tip, like all the pics posted after yours. Some white hairs when there was no pink doesn't make for a WT in my book. Any glider can have a few white hairs I've found in my research. Its pretty common actually.
What do other WT breeders consider the "few" hair WT's to be?
Well, if you look at Becca's little joey I'd say he probably doesn't have more then 10(if even that many) white hairs and she says in the ad that his father only has 7 white hairs. Soooo...at what point do you draw the line??? Is 5 white hairs a WT, but 4 isn't???
As has been seen, tiny WTs can produce big WTs and visa versa. So, the # of hairs doesn't matter, if there are white hairs, then it's a WT. If not, then it ain't...
Also, I'm sure that by the time the joey's all furred up he'll have more white hairs.
~Nicole~
Proudly enslaved by lots of silly suggies, 3 crazy kitties, a huffy hedgie, and a pretty puppy!
I wouldn't call myself a WT breeder, I just have the 1 white tip pair, that is actually being adopted into a white tip breeding program. Anyhow...
I know that a lot of people don't consider "a few hairs" to be a white tip, and yet, it seems fairly evident that it can be reproduced FROM the glider with only a few hairs for a white tip.
It's obviously a gene that creates it. There are few instances where fur will grow back a different color after an injury... so that wouldn't be due to genes, but rather, just an accident. ie.-- Joeys tails nipped while IP will come oop with a pink tip to their tail, which is actually just scar tissue, and not a true white tip. The genetic causing the white tip is not there.
I've also noticed with some joeys, that a few hairs, if only one hair seems to be a lighter color against their dark tails, but as they fluff up, it's more apparent that it is just the undertone of the dark hair showing through, and not an actual white tip.
I don't know where the cut off is. I'd say a clump of white fur at the tip of a tail has to be considered a white tip. At one point a couple years ago, people were saying if you can't see it in a photo, then it's not a white tip. But these babies I have now prove to the contrary. Their dad's white tip is hard to capture in photo's, and he's now reproduced 2 more white tipped babies. He's got the gene, therefore, he is a white tip... even with his "few" white hairs in a tiny clump at the tip of his tail. Right? =)
That's just my opinion. Obviously those huge white "tips"... are more of a white TAIL... and not just a tip. Probably comes from the same genetic. Who knows!?
Re: White Tip Genetics
[Re: ]
#746127 03/07/0902:12 PM03/07/0902:12 PM
Even gliders that have no WT lineage can produce WT babes. Some WT X WT make 0 WT babes. The WT cross hasn't been exactly figured out, just pairs that semi-consistantly produce them from time to time. I really dont think it has much to do with the phenotype of the parents, more to do with their recessive genetics.
The odds of joey's having the tails nipped off creating WT's I dont think is significant to the number of WT's.
A good indicator that the joey is a WT for sure is the pink color on the tip of the tail. Even with smaller "clumps" the very tip of the tail is usually pink, like with my Chiquita.
Gliders can show random white hairs all over their body, but in a clump (7 hairs or how ever many is a really small amount when your talking total hair on the tip of the tail lol), yes you would think they did inherit the gene. But to sell them as, or label them "WT" I think you would want a more substantial WT tail than that.
Well just for the record when Nicole showed me the picture I had the ability to zoom in on the area and there WAS pink skin on the end of the tail. I actually think Nicole is planning to keep this little joey or it is going to the adults original breeder. So I don't think its super important for us to classify 100% WHAT this baby is. It carries strong WT genetics and I feel that a few hairs (10) Doesn't classify a full WT name but it will carry the gene with a strong background. Some people don't believe a few hair's classify as a WT but some do. I dont think its a coincidence that this joey has two WT parents and just HAPPENS to have a lil pink spot on the end of its tail and just HAPPENS to have some white hairs growing from that end. Could mom have nipped the tail? Sure.
Congrats Nicole WT's and WT het's alike are special babies in my book.
I wouldn't classify that tip as a "WT" I would say it is a glider from WT lines with a few white hairs in tip of the tail. I still think to sell or label a glider WT there should be a more substantial amount of white (pink at the tip when a joey). But that is just my opinion.
On the glider pictured above, as the gliders tail puffs out that small bit of while will probably all but disappear in the black the way smaller tips usually do.
Just because we produce a microscopic egg, doesn't mean it's NOT an egg. Just because a sugar glider's egg is even more microscopic than a human egg is, doesn't mean that it can't be classified as an Egg, because it is an egg. No matter how microscopic it is...An egg is an egg is an egg.
If a sugar glider HAS a white tip, then it's a white tip and should be classified as a white tip, because it's a White Tip! Even if it's a tiny white tip, it's still a white tip. Even if it all but disappears when the tail fluffs out, it's still a white tip and should be classified appropriately.
JMO =)
Re: White Tip Genetics
[Re: ]
#747491 03/10/0912:40 PM03/10/0912:40 PM
I think there is a clear difference between a few hairs and a white TIP. The white tips have pink skin. A few white hairs, are often a black tip with only white hairs. Until more is known about the genetics behind it for SURE I think its unfair to label a few white hairs as a white TIP for breeding and sale purposes. Im all for being fair to the customer and not over charging for something we dont know much about yet.
It was already discussed that this little joey does have pink skin at the tip, where the white tip is growing through now.
I'm not saying anything about selling or overcharging or anything of the sort, though people are able to make their own decisions about how much they are willing to spend on any particular thing... and then, whatever the amount is spent on it, IS what that item (white tip sugar glider or any other thing) is worth to that particular person that spends the money for that item.
Just the genetics of it all, a white tip is a white tip. Saying that it shouldn't be classified that way because it's small doesn't make sense. There is no way for us to determine just how many "hairs" it takes to be "classified" as a white tip if that's what actually determines it. I'm just saying that if there IS a white tip, that wasn't induced from an injury, then it's a white tip.
Well, I have him listed as a WT. The reason being is that the WT is so unpredictable and even a gray glider from 2 WT parents is still only a POSSIBLE WT het. Sooo...to list him as a het would mean that he only POSSIBLY has the gene, however, it's proven by the pressence of the white hairs that he DOES have the gene. Sooo...I'm listing him as a WT and saying that he's only got 3/4 white hairs.
Also, I'm only asking $25 more then his brother, so I'm not doing it because I'm money-hungry or anything, lol. Even though his tip is tiny, he IS a 2nd Gen WT, so I feel he's probably worth more then that, but because it's so small, I wouldn't feel comfortable asking any more. Nonetheless, imo, he's a 2nd Gen WT.
~Nicole~
Proudly enslaved by lots of silly suggies, 3 crazy kitties, a huffy hedgie, and a pretty puppy!
Re: White Tip Genetics
[Re: ]
#747501 03/10/0901:02 PM03/10/0901:02 PM
It was already discussed that this little joey does have pink skin at the tip, where the white tip is growing through now.
Yup, you can see it in the first pic I posted of the tails. It's not much, but if you look at the pic you can tell the the tip of his tail definately has a lighter color to it.
I can't see any pink at all even blown up. But maybe Im missing something. Either way, I dont want to take this thread off topic, "WT Genetics".
What Im saying about classifying is that a "WT" should be pink skin (white hair will grow in where pink skin is, like leu's) rather than the dark skin and a few hairs. Im not disputing a WT's ability to be different sizes but the tail tip color, not lighter gray or darker gray - but a clear pink tip no matter the size. Tip to me means the TIP - not just a few hairs. But that is just my personal opinion based on my research of WT geneology in general.
Kinue, I agree with Becca. I don't think you quite understand where we are coming from. It has nothing to do with the size of the tip at all, it's all about genetics. Take mosaic for an example, you can have a mo that is all white or you can have one that has one tiny white dot or just a white foot, but it's still a mosaic because it has the gene. Same thing for the WT's, even if it still only has one white hair, that still indicates that it has the WT gene. The names of the gliders are based on thier genes not the amount of color they produce.
First I’m not arguing with anyone, and I see what you are saying but I just happen to disagree with the labeling of "possible" WT's is all if they do not have a pink tip on the tail. This gene does not act like a MO's dominant trait where one foot can be white and therefore its offspring can and will be MO's.
I’m not saying a gliders with white hairs don’t have the gene or that the size of the tip determines whether or not they carry the gene. That isn't what I’m saying at all. I first hand understand that WT tails vary in size. lol. But I happen to feel that "a few hairs" does not make a WT tail glider.
No one here has the gene figured out yet, correct? So to say a glider is genetically a WT because it has a few hairs may not be so. They very well could be complicated form of recessive gene where they express very little of the gene but cannot pass it to offspring as some types of genes do. Or they could be X-linked recessive and still only need one parent to carry the gene, but either parent can carry it... There are just many possibilities.
Looking at many many many WT lineages (and photos) is what I base my opinions on. To me it seems WT genetics have less to do with phenotype (what you SEE on a glider, like white hairs or a white tip) but more with recessive genes you may not see.
But again... That is just my personal opinion based on my research. No more no less.