Why Are They Not Hairless?

Well My Cousin breeds rats for our ball pythons both his and mine and he had a hairless male then we got some hairless females to try to breed them and get hairless babies . so the hairless male was put in with two hairless girls and after a few weeks one had a litter of babies. i come over about every weekend to get food for my snakes and stuff. he showed me the babies and i was like cool. i knew they get a littel fuzz on them then they lose their hair. but it was diffrent every week i came back they were a little more big but still had their hair. so then after they gor weaned all of them had fur just like any other rat and we just fed them of but kept 2 girls and put them in the colony. so does any one know why this happed thank.

Maybe the male is a double rex hairless and the females are recessive hairless?
Or visa versa?

Otherwise I'm not sure that's possible, as far as I know a recessive trait to recessive trait always produces recessive trait.

The answer is easy...

Genetics is not an exact science. It is based on tons of theories that have never been proven without error, doubt and/or guaranteed repeatability.

Suzuki. . . That is the stupidest post I have ever seen on this entire website! :rolleyes:


Genetics is a pretty damned exact science.
What happened with your rats is that your parents are most likely not hairless (hr/hr) but are double rex hairless (Re/Re). Is the hair curly or wavy?

It's also possible that you have gotten hold of a completely different hairless type gene.

Another thing to note is, if you DO get real hairless rats (hr/hr) then you shouldn't breed hairless males and females together. You have to breed a male hairless, with a female carrier.
There are many reasons for this, but a main one is that milk glands on female hairless rats, most often do not function properly, and your litter will starve to death.

Can you get us photos of your rats that you bred? It would help determine what they are, and what we can tell you about them. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

Suzuki. . . That is the stupidest post I have ever seen on this entire website! :rolleyes:


Genetics is a pretty damned exact science.
What happened with your rats is that your parents are most likely not hairless (hr/hr) but are double rex hairless (Re/Re). Is the hair curly or wavy?

It's also possible that you have gotten hold of a completely different hairless type gene.

Another thing to note is, if you DO get real hairless rats (hr/hr) then you shouldn't breed hairless males and females together. You have to breed a male hairless, with a female carrier.
There are many reasons for this, but a main one is that milk glands on female hairless rats, most often do not function properly, and your litter will starve to death.

Can you get us photos of your rats that you bred? It would help determine what they are, and what we can tell you about them. :)

---

I guess it ranks right up there with your false statement that African rodents are illegal (banned) huh?

Investigate the arguments (and their bases) against stem cell research to fully understand the statement that genetics IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE.

IT IS AN EXACT SCIENCE. Lol.

You tell me how it's not. :rolleyes:

If I breed an albino mouse, with an albino mouse, I will get 100% albino babies.
That's pretty exact.

You clearly don't know anything about genetics, so please don't make comments about something you don't understand being un-poven, just because you can't understand it. That's the wrong way of doing things.

There are people who understand it, and understand the science of it.
I suggest that you learn more about it, before you going spouting off that it's un-proven and not exact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

IT IS AN EXACT SCIENCE. Lol.

You tell me how it's not. :rolleyes:

If I breed an albino mouse, with an albino mouse, I will get 100% albino babies.
That's pretty exact.

You clearly don't know anything about genetics, so please don't make comments about something you don't understand being un-poven, just because you can't understand it. That's the wrong way of doing things.

There are people who understand it, and understand the science of it.
I suggest that you learn more about it, before you going spouting off that it's un-proven and not exact.

---

Boys boys boys, you are both correct in that you are both wrong.

It is an exactly unexact science. I can take two albino calkings and get all normal looking babies UNLESS I know that there are 2 forms of albinism that are not compatible.

I suppose the same sort of thing may be working with rats.

So, let's just all get along or take it to PMs, shall we?

I breed my hairless males back to a daughter, and usually will get at least one or two healthy hairless babies. Most of the time, you can then breed a big/healthy grand baby back and sustain a good breeder line of hairless to hairless. I throw in an occasional dumbo in the line to get the babies bigger, but alot of the babies will be patchy instead of hairless.
If you breed hairless to hairless, the clutch will be small, weak, and momma usually can't sustain enough milk, as posted above. Always breed a regular rat in the same tub, the moms will share milk, and the babies usually survive. Albeit, smaller and puny looking.
Rex and double rex are totally different from hairless.(as stated above). Nothing good comes from mixing in my experience!

It's not an exactly unexact science.

If there are two forms of albinism, and you know about them, and you know they're incompatible, then you know exactly what you're going to get if you breed them to a normal who is not carrying albino.

And if -you- don't know, then somebody else will. :P

Say, in mice.
You can have a pink eyed white, and you can have albino. They are not the same thing. But It is very much known what they will produce if bred, and what makes them the way they are. I mean, their entire genome is coded now. It's possible to litterally pick out individual parts of their code, and find out what that part is doing, and why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

IT IS AN EXACT SCIENCE. Lol.

You tell me how it's not. :rolleyes:

If I breed an albino mouse, with an albino mouse, I will get 100% albino babies.
That's pretty exact.

You clearly don't know anything about genetics, so please don't make comments about something you don't understand being un-poven, just because you can't understand it. That's the wrong way of doing things.

There are people who understand it, and understand the science of it.
I suggest that you learn more about it, before you going spouting off that it's un-proven and not exact.

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

if it were that simple they could eliminate diseases, deformaties etc. It is not an exact science.

And you can breed an albino rat and an albino rat and end up with rats with color. I have done it MANY times. You can breed two colored rats and end up with an albino rat. You can breed two tailed rats and end up with a manx.

How does curing a disease have anything to do with understanding genetic causes for things? There are plenty of genetic problems which we understand, but cannot cure. Simple.
But there are also genetic problems that we've found, and FIXED, or at least explained through genetic science.

And do you not understand how that happens?
Those are called recessive genes.

Breeding an albino rat, with an agouti rat (assuming they both carry nothing else) will produce 100% agouti rats.
Breeding an agouti rat from that litter, to an albino rat, will produce albinos and agoutis.
Breeding an albino from that litter, to an albino rat, and you will have 100% albinos.

Albino, is recessive.
You cannot breed an albino rat to an albino rat and get a rat that isn't albino.
An albino rat is genetically c/c, meaning that it is heterozygous albino.

Breeding a c/c to a c/c will only produce more c/c.
If you know what a punnet square is (something you learn in middle school biology) you would be able to calculate the probability of getting albino by breeding c/c to c/c, and it's 100%. How much more exact do we need to get?

You can breed two coloured rats, and get albino, IF both rats are carrying the recessive albino gene. Meaning that a rat which is a/a C/c would be black, carrying the albino gene. and if you bred it to another rat that is a/a C/c then you would get 25% albinos, and the rest would be black.

It's possible that you crossed two rats with incompatible hairless types.
That would produce babies that are normal furred (assuming both hairless types are recessive, and neither are double rex) but are carrying both types of hairless. If I were you, I'd try crossing a female baby, back to it's hairless father. If that doesn't produce hairless for you, then we'll have to try again! :P

Quote:

---

if it were that simple they could eliminate diseases, deformaties etc.

---

I wasn't going to really get into this until i saw this statement.

You think pinning down the science of genetics will allow us to cure all diseases and deformaties? Not everything is genetic. I am a biology major in college and have considered genetics as my graduate study, and my dad works with some of the top people in the biochemistry field within the study of the epigenome.

Genetics is not the key to elimnating diseases. Did you know the evolution of cancer was most likely caused by the evolution of humans? Some of the traits you carry will most likely be "stolen" by cancer and invade your body with ease. Such as the angiogeneis properties of a placenta, or the large amount of Fatty Acid Synthetase used to create fatty acid for the membranes of neurons, which makes out brains larger than other species.

Genetics is not the answer. No one science is the answer. It is a constant collaboration. We will never elimate disease. The viruses that kill us are in many ways much more evolved than you or I. Disease is a part of life. We need to die. You may think curing the disease and deformaties is simply fixed by genetics, but they are not.

Genetics is not just matching up an albino to an albino. It involves the entire genome of the organism. Its an extremely complex science, and to try and argue about it is pointless. One because few people on here have a solid and deep understanding of the science of genetics, and two, because there is so much too it, it can not be discussed on an online forum.

Sorry, yes. I seemed to be focusing on just the colour aspect of it, because it was a simple place to start, and it related to the topic at hand.

Thanks for that post Red. :gj:

Genetics is NOT an exact science.

Mutations are the proof that genetics is not an exact science LOL.

Oh, and for the record...some recessive traits are more recessive than others LOL.

I don't know why you produced no hairless babies.

If one of the animals was a recessive hairless and the other was a double rex hairless then most of the babies, if not all of the babies, should have been rex het for recessive hairless.

If they all have normal coats then I don't know what to tell you except...get ready...

genetics is not always exact LOL

Give me an example of genetics not being exact in the terms of rats, and mice.
Mutations are not proof that it's not exact. Mutations are well mapped, and understood in genetic terms, especially when it comes to the coat and colour of rats and mice.


What happened here is that he probably has 2 different types of recessive hairless, that do not produce hairless hen combined. Maybe one is hr/hr and the other is my/my (for mystery) so when you put them together, they make a litter that are all Hr/hr My/my meaning they carry both recessive types of hairless, but have a normal coat.

Genetics is very exact. There is an explanation for this situation, and we're trying to figure it out. If you guys are going to keep saying that it's just chance, and it's not exact science, then move along, because you're not helping solve the problem that the poster is asking about. :P

Almost everything that has been said by everyone has been right.

Genetics is exact in that the mutation can be explained by shifts, deletions, additions, etc. On the other hand genetics is not exact in that mutations do happen. There is never a perfect organism that doesnt experience mutations. We all have mutations, thankfully many of them are in parts of the genome that do not severly affect us. Or the mutation codes for the same amino acid.

Neither side is going to prove one way or the other since there is no one answer.

The mutations don't make it a non-exact science though. The mutations are just new information, and are usually quickly explained.
We understand about mutations, and what causes them, and how to create them.

We can CREATE new mutations. Satin mice, for instance, were created in labs using radiation. :P

But mutations cannot always be predicted. That is what makes it inexact.

Not being able to predict the unexpected, doesn't make it inexact. :P
It's very precise.

It will never be exact. Its still a roll of the dice. If you breed an animal that carries only a recessive trait to an animal that is heterozygous for that same recessive trait, genetics tell us that half of the babies will express that recessive trait.

Well, last I checked, that is an approximation. If you have 12 babies rats from a dumbo x het dumbo breeding maybe six of them will be dumbo, maybe two of them will be dumbo, maybe none of them will be dumbo, maybe all of them will be dumbo.

It is still a roll of the dice. It just means that each baby has a 50/50 chance of being a dumbo rat. That does not mean that exactly half the babies will be dumbo. A quarter can be flipped heads or tails. Does that mean that it would be impossible to flip heads 1,000,000 times in a row. Theoretically it is not impossible.

This is why genetics is not exact. You aren't always guaranteed to get exactly what you were aiming for.

If you don't think that's true try breeding Manx rats some time LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

Not being able to predict the unexpected, doesn't make it inexact. :P
It's very precise.

---

You're absolutely right. If I got some rat sperm and somehow separated the ones with the genetic information that I wanted from the rest of them and then combined them with eggs that had the genetic information that I wanted I'm sure that it would be 100% exact.

I keep giving my rats the little sample cups and the newest issues of "Rat Hustler" but they never get me any sperm samples to take to get analyzed LOL.

Your sarcasm isn't making your case very strong. :P

This whole argument seems like a matter of semantics and opinions, if you ask me.

Yes, it's pretty darned predictable that IF you breed a homozygous recessive to one exactly the same...then you can reasonably expect all the babies to also be homozygous recessive. So...in that respect, a person can be accurate in saying it an "exact science."

But it's NOT exact if ALL the facts aren't know...just as they aren't known in this particular question the OP brought up.

The problem is, that is not ALL of the science...it's just one minute little surface aspect of it. Huge strides are being made in genetic science and understanding...but there are still tons of mystery as well.

To claim that because you can predict that an albino ball x an albino ball will produce all albino balls makes this an "exact science" is rather short sighted. Or maybe not so much "short sighted" as it is simply not an accurate way to describe the predictability of certain known basic genetic traits.

My point is, if -you- personally don't know your animal's genetics, someone does. So whether or not one person can predict it, SOMEONE can. :P


I think we need to get some moderation in here. We've completely hijacked this post. :rolleyes:

:hijackd:

My head is now spinning after reading through this thread.. But I got a good answer for the original poster.. You said after a few weeks one of the Rats had a litter, could it have been a little less then a few weeks, and maybe only a couple weeks? If so there is a possibility that the female was actually pregnant when you got it and the Father was a normal. That would explain all the Babies having Fur, but they are HET for hairless..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

My point is, if -you- personally don't know your animal's genetics, someone does. So whether or not one person can predict it, SOMEONE can. :P


I think we need to get some moderation in here. We've completely hijacked this post. :rolleyes:

---

And what about if no one knows the genetics? What if this guy and his cousin have a new strain of hairless genetics that haven't been documented yet? How about the various bp ghost genes that LOOK the same but aren't compatible? How does one go about predicting those? I guess MY point is that while many of us may be very familiar with the simple aspects of recessive genetics, there is also a LOT more to it that no one has figured out yet.

And I don't think anyone is gonna moderate the admin. :P I think the thread hasn't been hijacked as the discussion is relevant to the original question....even if the argument IS rather pointless in the long run.

one of the major flaws of genetics is that it is impossible to know ALL of the animals heritage and background since animals like rats existed in theory before humans.

Tom, this conversation sounds like one you argued with me pre Manx rat huh?

Manx+ het manx= manx...how's that working out for you? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

How does curing a disease have anything to do with understanding genetic causes for things?.

---

tons of genetic diseases exist. If genetics was such an exact science we could make HUGE stride in medicine.

Let's not forget about line bred traits that are sort of heritable.

Not enough is known about the hypomelanism in False Water Cobras but that seems to be both genetic and line bred, or co-dom, or what have you.

It's easy to do a punnet square for one or two or maybe even three or four traits, but far more than those tiny numbers are in the mix.

I've bred blues to blue hooded and gotten no blue anythings. Odds, yes I know, but it really shouldn't work that way.

One of the things I really like about breeding the rats is the surprises you get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suzuki4life

one of the major flaws of genetics is that it is impossible to know ALL of the animals heritage and background since animals like rats existed in theory before humans.

Tom, this conversation sounds like one you argued with me pre Manx rat huh?

Manx+ het manx= manx...how's that working out for you? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

---

I'm going to keep going generation by generation until my original male dies or he produces another manx male for me LOL.

I am my second generation of females now and still haven't hit one yet.

If he makes it another two generations and he doesn't make another manx for me I'm going to ask for a refund...oh wait...I didn't pay anything for him.

Not knowing all of the genetic background of an animal, isn't a flaw of genetic science. It's easy to map an animals complete genetic background by test matings and by genetic testing.

Don't confuse reptile genetics with mouse and rat genetics. They are extremely different. Rats and mice are extremely well documented, since they have been studied, and bred for hundreds of years with hundreds of variants that are well traced, tracked, documented, and studied.

isnt manx known to be "non-genetic" and not work "normally" ? more of a random mutation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

isnt manx known to be "non-genetic" and not work "normally" ? more of a random mutation?

---

Manx is absolutely genetic, but like you have co-dominant traits like rex in rats, or tiger retics, or hypo boas, I like to think of manx as super recessive.

You have to breed a manx to a normal, then the het back to the manx, and then the het from that litter back to the manx and so on. A few generations down the line you start getting "some" manx.

This is what I have learned from everyone I know that breeds them. I'm still working on mine.

I might produce 50,000 rats next year and 5 manx LOL.

I just picked up a hairless manx and will be getting her brother and mother tomorrow. I'm going to breed the boy to his sis and mom and a few dumbos that might have the hairless gene.

The manx is out of a hairless the guy got from me a few months ago but he doesn't what male knocked her up.

Should be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

isnt manx known to be "non-genetic" and not work "normally" ? more of a random mutation?

---

we produce manx cats about 30% of the time with a manx to manx breeding. So what do you determine as "random" if I can guarantee that every litter will have atleast 1 offspring with the trait? (she has been producing 3+). So is it genetic in mammals? IMHO yes, it is in cats. What Tom is experiencing it that he does not have a female to do a straight breeding with to determine if it wil be sucessful or not. His manx was produced from two parents with normal tails. THAT itself is the feat. If I mix 2 red paints together the outcome is normally predictable. When that outcome falls off the graph, that is when things get interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

Not knowing all of the genetic background of an animal, isn't a flaw of genetic science. It's easy to map an animals complete genetic background by test matings and by genetic testing.

.

---

it is impossible to map genetic science if you were not present to see it. It is possible to speculate...and that is a flaw what causes many theories to be discredited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suzuki4life

it is impossible to map genetic science if you were not present to see it. It is possible to speculate...and that is a flaw what causes many theories to be discredited.

---

That makes no sense at all. Weren't there to see what?
And do you have -any- scientific data, or papers that are credible where people are questioning any of the theories you are talking about?
Do you even know what theories you are talking about?
Do you even know what a scientific theory -is-?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

That makes no sense at all. Weren't there to see what?
And do you have -any- scientific data, or papers that are credible where people are questioning any of the theories you are talking about?
Do you even know what theories you are talking about?
Do you even know what a scientific theory -is-?

---

if you believe in evolution then science states that rats existed before humans.

research the pros and cons of stem cell research and you will read plenty of research showing genetics is a "flawed science".

Blue to blue makes...
Unless those blues also make Siamese...
http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/s...s/PICT1276.jpg

After many litters of blue to blue making all blues I popped the first of my Siamese rats out of a Blue x Blue breeding and have been making them ever since...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suzuki4life

if you believe in evolution then science states that rats existed before humans.

research the pros and cons of stem cell research and you will read plenty of research showing genetics is a "flawed science".

---

People don't believe in evolution, they accept it.
You really didn't answer any of my questions. And your statement about 'believing' evolution, makes me think you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhasputin

People don't believe in evolution, they accept it.

---

Really?

Heh.

are you laughing at Rhasputin like I am?

I'm sorry? Laughing at what?
Evolution is one of the nearest things to a scientific fact that is scientifically possible. You don't get to believe in it, or not believe in it, you have to accept it, or reject it. You get to believe in fairies or unicorns, or whatever. You accept that the earth is round.

Suzuki you still haven't answered -any- of my questions. Which leads me to believe that you are not qualified in any way to be participating in an argument about genetics.