For part three of my commentary regarding the giant gene, and the observations I’ve been able to make, I’ll look out into the “community” a bit and talk about one peculiar reference I see almost daily. Someone posts a picture of a “heavy” gecko, bragging about its weight, and feels the need to say “no giant gene here”. To which my response is always the same, really? Here’s the question I’d rather ask: “How do you know?” Let’s take a look at some history, and maybe that will help the discussion progress a little bit.
The first giant was noticed as part of a group of Tremper albinos. We know that it was het Tremper, so we can safely say that the gene manifested itself during that particular time. I think it’s also safe to say, given what we know about the oftentimes subtle effect of the gene, that it is more than very likely that there were true giants in the hobby in the form of Tremper Albinos, long before Moose made the gene famous. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I really don’t see the possibility that I am. After all, the first known “giant”, was actually 11″, which in my estimation, makes it a super giant all day, every day. I’ve yet to have any of my giant males, and I have more than a few, reach close to 11″. That becomes case one for my argument; it is extremely likely that the giant gene is in the hobby, right under peoples’ noses, without them realizing it. Any Tremper albinos could certainly be suspect as carrying the gene.
Case two: the RAPTOR. The founding male for this project was, as we know, a giant Tremper albino. Therefore, half of its offspring were also giants, at least in general terms. It makes for a very likely scenario that many RAPTORS, Eclipses and APTORS could very well be giants, undocumented and unrealized. So for me, it all comes together when I see that post on Facebook proclaiming “115 grams, no giant”. That may be accurate, but it may also be a complete misunderstanding of the gene and how it works, and more likely simply being thrown out there because the “line” that that gecko came from was not considered “giant”. I can’t find any way to conclude with 100% certainty that such a determination is correct, though, given what we know about female giants and their propensity to remain fairly modest in size. It is entirely conceivable that a great many animals in the hobby are actually giants or even super giants, and the keepers just don’t realize it. I know that I’ll always wonder whenever I see the “no giant gene here” disclaimer.