</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The WF Blonde went un noticed by the mega breeders until about five years ago... when Mike Sandridge purchased a few WF Blondes from a private collector. Sandridge never revealed the source as to whom the breeder was.

Mega breeders who had thousands of gliders began to notice a few WF Blondes here and there and thus they began pulling the prized gliders for future breeders.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> Thanks Judie <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />
Reading this, it seems to me that the wf trait was popping up sort of unplanned. It leads me to believe that as the gene pool closed within the populations of the mega breeders, the wf trait started to pop up more often. Here and there means to me that the gliders weren't popping up predictably at all. They were probably coming out of grey pairs who carried some of the necessary genes to combine with others to express the phenotype wf. At some point, whether anyone wants to believe it or not, a wf had to come from a grey pair.

The mega breeders were only getting a few out of two thousand gray gliders a year...so that is why the wf blonde went un noticed.

Without selective breeding for the White Face trait.... most of us would not have White Face Blondes.

Well, there ya go, it's clearly not a one gene dominant trait <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />

The mere coincidence that the WF started small and became more and more prevalent only suggests that this was a beginning and that there were few to begin with. The reasons why it was so infrequent can be realized if these mega breeders were getting stock from overseas. If this is the case then it is likely that this trait was selected against in the wild because it made them more visible to predation. Now it could also be that this was a new mutation and the resulting occurrences in the mega breeders are very rare because there were only one glider that had this mutation to begin with and it took time to permeate throughout the gene pool. It seems reasonable that these mega breeders were exchanging joeys that showed this trait and attempted to breed it out through inbreeding. Just because a color variation has a small frequency in the beginning does not mean it is not dominant. Yes the first of any variation was out of a mutation that became permeated in the gene pool. Mutations change alleles, even in adults. The genetic sequence you are born with is not the same sequence you die with. Your cells accumulate mutations and if they are not corrected they will begin to spread throughout the body. These mutations introduce another layer of complexity to the possible alleles that gametes can contain and thus be passed on to an offspring.

For a breeder to selectively breed for a trait, one would have to believe that the trait was recessive. Then by breeding heterozygotes with the unexpressed recessive trait to other heterozygotes also carrying the recessive trait, homozygotes for the trait and thus expressing the trait would appear. The practice of breeding to relatives increases the likelihood of finding another trait carrier.

But if one believes the trait to be dominant, there is no need to do any selective breeding. Offspring will express the trait no matter who they are bred with, and offspring with the trait are not hard to come by.

Mega breeders will often import wild gliders, especially that many years ago when there were so few other breeders. So it is resonable to assume that the WF poping up in their stock could have been in shipments overseas. It seems strange to me that they could so easily breed these variations out if it was recessive, especially given the difficulty of breeding two WF hets together.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nixweiss.gif" alt="" />
Ushuaia, Judie said that the wf gliders were popping up amongst the population of grey gliders......

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
It seems strange to me that they could so easily breed these variations out if it was recessive, especially given the difficulty of breeding two WF hets together.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Ushuaia, who said anything about easy? Judie even clearly indicated that it was very hard work!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Judie: I have worked too hard to keep them sound by selective "line breeding".

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

...and I don't doubt that the other main breeders share the same sentiments. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

Reminiscent of this:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
As for Cindy pairing hets to hets to produce a WF this can only be proved through a paternity test, no other explanation is capable of disproving this theory. I am not caller her a liar but scientifically the word of another breeder cannot be used to disprove a theory without first justifying what is said as true, especially since she is the only person to have claimed to do so.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Mega breeders will often import wild gliders, especially that many years ago when there were so few other breeders. So it is resonable to assume that the WF poping up in their stock could have been in shipments overseas. It seems strange to me that they could so easily breed these variations out if it was recessive, especially given the difficulty of breeding two WF hets together.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Also, I hate to be smart about this, but if we're going to be truly clinical and scientific here, we cannot possibly pass this as scientific truth until we see these imported gliders' immigration papers or have fecal tests done to determine if these WF pioneers indeed were wild-caught, and that task, Ushuaia, is up to you to validate your theory! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Scientifically, an assumption cannot be used to prove a theory without first justifying what is said as true, especially since you, Ushuaia are the only person who claims this.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

I am the only person who will publicly state this; there is a difference. I have given you the information needed to reach your own conclusions. If you do not see things the way I see them, then that is fine. However be aware that for all intents and purposes WF breeds like a single gene dominant trait, if you doubt this, look at the genealogy. You can make it as complex as you want but the truth is breeders are using the dominant theory to breed in that they place normal gliders with no history of WF with WF and are getting WF ~50% of the time and when placed WF to WF they get the ratios of ~75% of the time. If you are still confused about how this is possible then contact me privately by pm and I will explain how dominance heredity works to be able to produce animals with a dominant phenotype 75% and not 100% of the time when two heterozygous dominant hets are paired.

I see some of what you're saying, yeah it obvously breeds to some degree like a simple one gene dominant trait, but given the history of the variation, it just doesn't quite add up to make what you're saying entirely true without a shadow of a doubt.

Are you telling me that a random single gene dominant mutation was occurring amongst a population of gliders in unrelated individuals?

If there were no standard phenotype wf hets, then the lineage would have be easily traceable to the one specific individual that experienced the wf dominant mutation since the individual would have been obviously having wf offspring and his standard offspring would not have been. This does not match up with the info that Judie presented about the wf gliders popping up here and there. Maybe they had so many gliders in a cage that they didn't know who was coming from what. Maybe contact Sandridge and ask him, or go down the line and see what you can find.
Most wf lineages don't go past Cereal. If it was obviously dominant at that point, I don't think that Sandridge would have done any inbreeding.

Please account for how this dominant single gene mutation originated? I would find it pretty strange that many individuals would experience the same dominant mutation simultaneously.

The only way that a wf could be dominant is if it resulted from a glider that experienced a dominant gene mutation.
How else does a dominant mutation pop up?
Is this your theory or not?

The White Face babies that poped up amongst several thousand gliders... the parents I do not know if they were WF or Grays.

One has to remember... these breeders did not pay attention to the White Faces. Babies were pulled and put in large groups and then in holding bins till weaned and then shipped. Mass production so to speak.

I will take time tomorrow and call one mega breeder and ask if the parents were inported to them and wither or not the babies had wf parents.

As to Mike Sandridge... at the time he was a very large breeder but certainly not what one would call a mega. His White Face Blondes he purchased as breeding adults.

Cereal the male... and then Pricess and Pearl of which were sisters, both wf blondes themselves....and Cereal was their father who then were bred back to him. So, you see... these gliders were being line bred befor he purchased them from another breeder and Mike continued the breeding program.

Most of us who purchased from Mike... did not continue breeding so tightly. We chose to breed them to normals or search for something that was a generation or so removed, or if "Lucky"... locate a baby with the all White Face and unrelated.

Remember... WF Blondes about four years ago were a rarity among us smaller breeders.

That's what I'm wondering.
Maybe they had so many gliders that they had no idea who was coming from what. They probably had colonies? The pouch or whatever they used might have had a number of gliders and they possibly couldn't identify the mother or father.

One thing though, if it was a spontaneous dominant mutation, wouldn't the mutation be only occurring in the genes of the offspring? If it occurred in the genes of the parent, then the parent would show the wf trait. They would have to notice that there was a wf glider in a breeding colony. I don't care how many gliders one has, any breeder is gonna see that and see $$$. I would imagine that it'd be highly unlikely that offspring from the same pair are going to also experience the same random dominant gene mutation?

Judie, you mentioned being lucky to find unrelated wf gliders. What do you mean by that? Wf gliders that were bred out enough to be considered unrelated, or were there other wf lines that appeared separately? Where did the Pele line come from?

Flying Fur Ranch... has a few WF Gliders that were pulled from their own Standard Gliders.

Custom Cage Works has their own line which was established the same way. Because Mike and Steve are friends... it would seem that eventually they would have traded a few offspring between themselves.

The Pele line came from Glider Tree. Glider Tree does rescues... and someone brought them a pair of gliders of which one was a WF Blonde with lineage unknown. Pele then was bred to several females and the offspring were kept and repaired to other standard grays.

Then there is Mary Brown and Flo. My guess is they obtained their lines much the same way as the above.

I don't know if this is has anything to do with the WFB/HET/Gray debate but what about the gliders that LOOK BEW but are also WFB? (The WFB is there but not seen because of the Leu. coloring masking the face markings). Now wouldn't these WFB/BEW gliders throw either WFB or BEW 100% of the time or would they also throw Greys(hets)? Can the WFB gene be supressed by the Leu. genes or can they truly both be expressed? And are the grey offspring HET for BEW and also Het for WFB?, one or the other, or are they wild type?

Sure, why not? Good point, Dancing. (In terms of the WFB HET statement, Ushuaia has already admitted that his theory regarding "THERE ARE NO WFB HETS" was a mistake.)

To put it simply, specific genetic info dictates what goes on in the cells of an organism. There are specific genes/alleles that indicate for the ribosomes to produce a lot of melanin bringing about black, those that cause the production of not so much melanin bringing about the colour brown, and those that send out no message resulting in no melanin being produced bringing about no colour or the colour white (or in the case of the eyes RED due to blood seen at the surface of the iris). In addition, there are also different types of pigment and melanin itself can exist in various forms, patterns, distributions, bringing about the vast array of colours. What colour appears in a shaft of hair depends on the combination of genes, because each gene dictates that a different amount, form, distribution, and pattern of melanin is to be produced in the hair cell. On top of that, there are genes responisble for the melanin production in different body parts, like those colour genes responsible for colour of the eyes, those genes responsible for the colour of the skin, those responsible for the colour of the tail hair, etc. Thus, in light of this fact, in the gliders it's more than highly likely that the different colour phases incorporate some of the same genes into the genotype as other phases, only they have it in a different combination thus bringing about the different colour phase. For instance, black eyed white gliders share similar eye colour DNA with standard greys (both colours have the black eyes), but also could possibly share the "no-colour-in-the-hair" DNA with albinos, for instance. Now, I don't know if that's the case but it's only one of a multitude of possibilities. Thus, the different colours do infact share colour-influencing genes.

So in effect, yes, I'd imagine that it could be possible and/or likely that some (if not all) the genes/alleles governing the WF trait are also involved/expressed in the leucistic glider. I could see that happening.

Mikey <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I don't know if this is has anything to do with the WFB/HET/Gray debate but what about the gliders that LOOK BEW but are also WFB? (The WFB is there but not seen because of the Leu. coloring masking the face markings). Now wouldn't these WFB/BEW gliders throw either WFB or BEW 100% of the time or would they also throw Greys(hets)?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If the genes involved are dominant then NO THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! It is possible for a white face to have one copy of the dominant allele and still produce WFB and this is what is called a het even though it shows the color. Now if two Hets are placed together then they will throw WFB gliders 75% of the time. I do not know any other simpler way to explain this since this is the 3rd or 4th time I have tried to explain this in this thread. If you still do not understand this then PM me and we will talk in depth about this over the phone.

I only knew of one breeder to produce gliders this way. If these reports are this numerous than it could be true that the gene is dominant but it has some kind of penetrance. Here is a website that gives a lot of very useful information of Mendelian genetics:

Mendillian Genetics

Please read further to understand what is meant by penetrance, there is also a lot of great information there. I am not sure as to whether or not penetrance must exhibit variation in the expression or if it just causes a reduction in the number of those organisms that have a dominant trait that express it. With penetrance an organism can carry a dominant gene as a het and not express it, pass it to its offspring and then the gene could be expressed in the offspring as though the gene were recessive. Since only one copy is needed to show the phenotype it is still considered to be dominant. Polydactylity in humans is an example of this.

Given this it is looking more and more likely that the gene could be dominant with some high degree of expressivity.

Why'd you wait 'til now to bring up this point of penetrance?
It's actually a fairly decent point.
Click on the link on the left to go right to the section on Penetrance.
This sort of answers a question I posed earlier.
Does a gene have to be dominant or recessive. Obviously there is some degree of flexibility on how a dominant gene is expressed. Why though, do they still decide to call it a dominant gene? Only because if it were recessive an individual would need to be homozygous to express the phenotype?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Why'd you wait 'til now to bring up this point of penetrance?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I had trouble finding a site that could adaquately explain it. Also I did not know that so many het to het gliders were out there that had produced WF until Judie's post.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Why though, do they still decide to call it a dominant gene? Only because if it were recessive an individual would need to be homozygous to express the phenotype?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes; exactly

Now I think we should try to determine that if it is a dominant penetrant gene, as the evidence suggests, then what is the penetrance ratio.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Why'd you wait 'til now to bring up this point of penetrance?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Everything I have read here assumes simple Mendelian inheritance, and mostly directed at a single gene. Not all genes sort or are expressed in that fashion. Multiple gene inheritance was suggested as an alternative theory. In addition, there can be X-linked genes, Co-dominant genes, other gene linkages, multiple alleles of the one gene expressing a common phenotype such that they do not do as expected (perhaps not all WFB phenotypes are the same genotype), variable penetrance of genotypes , multi-factorial inheritance, etc. There are many possibilities to explain some of what is being seen, and with low numbers it will be difficult to prove or disprove many of them.


<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It was brought it up at least once on 9/7. The thread went other directions.

lol, YOU brought it up I see Schlep <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
I had no idea what variable penetrance was when you brought it up.
I just figured it out when Ushuaia posted the link.
I'm still learning this stuff, teeny tiny baby steps <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumb.gif" alt="" />

Among the 3 options below, consider these, making an assumption of a single gene controlling WF:

1 - WF is dominant to wild type

2 - WF is recessive to wild type

3 - Some other pattern of inheritance more complicated, but harder to deduce the pattern because of low numbers of progeny. Since this one is difficult to nail down given low numbers, put it aside for a minute, and look at possibilities 1 & 2.

Possibility 1 - WF is dominant. Chris has an interesting theory. He has an advantage of having some pedigrees or breeders progeny percentages. If WF dominant were true, it could well have been a spontaneous mutation. It just showed up. No selective breeding would be required. Whether it came from a megabreeder of 2000 wouldn't matter. One would get 50% WF by breeding a WF with wild type IF the WF parent was heterozygous for WF, and 100% WF if homozygous for WF. This possibility 1 option could explain WF joeys and wild type joeys born to WF parents. Two wild types should never lead to a WF without another freak mutation given the assumptions made. A homozygous WF parent would always have 100% WF joeys. Breeding WF to WF phenotypes would increase the likelihood of getting a homozygous WF genotype glider, and this breeding glider will get all WF joeys. Two grey gliders mating and producing a WF joey should disprove possibility 1.

Possibility 2 - WF is recessive. If recessive were correct, this gene could circulate throughout the population for a long time undetected. A chance mating of another heterozygous for WF should create a WF phenotype about 25% of the time, and would yield a wild type looking glider about 75% of the time. About a third of those wild types would be homozygous for wild type, and about two thirds of the grey progeny would be heterozygous for WF, but both of these groups looking like the standard grey glider. If this recessive theory were the situation, two WF gliders should not be able to make a standard grey glider joey, and all of their joeys should be WF. Selective breeding could increase the likelihood of WF joeys. A mating of two WF gliders getting a grey, wild type glider would disprove possibility 2

Possibility 2 is what was considered true for so long. breeders selling "hets" for WF made one think it was true, and that they knew WF was recessive by what they were seeing in progeny results. There were posts to that effect, and I think a lecture at a SGGA. We read it so often, it was considered true. Unless somebody's glider got out, hopped the fence or a glider was accidentally put in the wrong cage, the disprovers above should help sort them out. If examples exist disproving both theories 1 & 2, then a more complicated pattern as noted in 3 might exist.

So how about it breeders? Anybody have examples of the two disproving statements in bolded italics above?

I would love a pedigree to study, if any breeder would send one.

Okay so have we decided that there is such things as hets? And that the wf characteristic is much more complex than we have realized? At least we are all in agreement and now working towards the same goal in figuring out this puzzle. The back and forth was making my head spin. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> I'm thinking it will take a lot of research and gathering data to figure out just what is going on and how the wf gene is passed down and expressed. Until then we can only speculate. Isn't there someone gathering this info. from wf breeders? I thought I read it somewhere.

I'm not sure there are no hets. One can't really speculate until pattern of inheritance is determined. That can't happen without a WF breeder coughing up results of mating for the analysis. I always read info here that was predicated on a WF recessive theory. Let's get the goods first. The data will lead to obvious conclusions about whether hets exist or not. Anybody able to post results?

I think there's some self-cultivated confusion on the part of some of the folks here in regards to the true definition of co-dominance and how it works.
Then again, maybe there's just too much here and I didn't read it right. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
There are no hets though............
Co-Dominance could be defined as a recessive allele which is passed along in typical fashion, and may have an 'intermediate' appearance when present alongside a normal allele, and yet another appearance when present alongside another recessive allele. In some cases, a co-dominant trait may or may not express itself visually when paired with a dominant allele.
How can this be? Well, think of it as two genetic traits fighting it out for dominance in an evolutionary sense.

- Jason
Jason Thurber's Captive Bred Exotics

" I'm a star. I'm a star, I'm a star, I'm a star. I'm a big, bright shining star".
- Dirk Diggler

Leucistic x Leucistic will produce Leucistic 100% of the time.

However, a Double Het which is a Leucistic Het/WF Blonde Het when bred to a Leucistic, possibilities of coloration would be:

1) Leucistic

2) WF Blonde Het/Leucistic Het which is a Double Het but traditional coloration of a WF Blonde.

3) WF Het/Leucistic Het that would be very diluted in coat color or broken pattern as to the traditional WF Blonde Het.

3) Leucistic/Possible WF Het or WF Blonde Het This variation would have to be proven first in order to be called a Double Het

4) possibility of a 100% Leucistic Het because WF Blonde Het still carries the dominant gene for normal gray.

No,............... a double het is an animal that is heterozygous for two different 'recessive' traits.
An example of a double-het would be the normal looking offspring produced by breeding a leucistic with an albino (two simple recessive traits).
Judie, like I told you, me and the 'snake guys' have been doing this for a long time. The information I shared with you regarding the genetics behind the leucistic trait, when nobody else was too sure, held true, didn't it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thanx.gif" alt="" />

- Jason

Yes, I thought of that after I posted it about the double het thing. Should have corrected it but I could not think of a way to discribe the animal with both genes present. I guesss I should have left it as Leucistic/WF Blonde and nothing else.

And yes, the recessive trait works just like you said. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thanx.gif" alt="" /> This has been a real learning process for me since I never had genetics in school.

To tell the truth, it took a personal interest in keeping and breeding snakes for me.
The biology class never had anything to offer in my school either. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nixweiss.gif" alt="" />

- Jason Jason Thurber's Captive Bred Exotics