# Leucs and chocholate leucs



## porkchop48 (May 16, 2006)

Ok so im looking for a few adult leucs. Some one had said they had 2 chocolate males for sale. Now would that be considered mixing? I dont really understand what the difference is between the two. Heck I dont even know really what the chocolate ones look like but I figured I would ask here before I decide to buy them


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't believe that it's considered mixing. Chocolates aren't a naturally occuring morph. That said, I think that I personally wouldn't mix them.

The only real difference between between the normal leucs and chocolates is that the black on chocolates is brown (hence the name).


----------



## PDFanatic (Mar 3, 2007)

Anyone have any pix of chocolates??? I want to see one


----------



## crashnt20 (Dec 28, 2006)

Here is a pick of one of my chocolate bumble bees.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

The "chocolates" are selectively bred to have a lighter background. They are from the same population as normal leucs and no, it's not considered mixing.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

So does anyone know if this is a genetic trait, like albinoism, or just selective breeding for a lighter background? Ive heard both stories.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

I'm using "selectively bred" to indicate that something along the way happened and one of these dudes popped out of the water, then was bred to produce more like it. So if it was just lighter, or "albinoish", either way it had to be selectively bread to make more. Just like the camo auratus, light blue Azureus, and green footed Leucs.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

So chocolate leucs are a color trait (like red/roange beardies) and not a recessive gene (ie albino leopard geckos)? Im thinking about getting some down the road (and some fine spots and bandeds, gotta collect em all!).


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

That I don't know. There are some "deep" threads on the topic, and basically the people in the thread argued terms till they were blue in the face. Here's the thread I'm thinking of: http://dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17898


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

The way Patricia told me, she found a white egg among a normal leuc clutch. thought about tossing it, didnt toss it, and ended up with what is now called a chocolate leucomela. she said chocolates would throw only chocolates so I dont know if that makes them a recessive or dominant trait.


----------



## porkchop48 (May 16, 2006)

So what i get out of this post is it is a trait that some people breed towards. So i guessing that I really should mix. Am i wrong here? If i mix chocolates with reg leucs then i dont know what I will end up getting if by chance they breed. SO i might be better off with staying with reg leucs?


----------



## SeaDuck (Nov 8, 2006)

Kristy,

"Chocolate" is a recessive gene that is affecting the color. I lost interest after finding out that it was a mutation so I didn't go so far to find out the exact kind of color mutation. So pairing with a normal frog would produce normal looking froglets Heterozygous for the trait. It would follow simple recessive genetics from there.

Robert


----------



## a Vertigo Guy (Aug 17, 2006)

Goin off of my limited reptile terminology, wouldnt this be an example of "hypo melanism" or something like that?


----------



## Herperboy (Jan 9, 2007)

Patricia sent off multiple animals to be genetically tested, and they all came back as being albino (hypomelanistic), she decided not to call them albinos because of all the hassles she got from people because they didnt believe they were albinos.


----------

