As the others mentioned, it's POSITIVELY not a Sinaloan milk simply because of the fact alone that it is an amel (albino). There is no such animal as an amel (albino) Sinaloan (L.t.sinaloae), even though some people label and sell them as such here and there. The amel nelsoni gene has been inadvertently crossed into Sinaloans even before the amel Nelson's milk ever existed (1993-94), but afterwards on purpose to produce more $2,000 animals due to the shortage of nelsoni in the hobby and the Sinaloans being very abundant. Yours there actually keys-out as a very typical L.t.nelsoni, and not a Sinaloan. With that being said, this certainly isn't to say that ther isn't, or cannot be any past Sinaloan geneflow in it's lineage though.

Anyway, all of it's meristic features are also very indicative of a SOLID textbook amel Nelson's milksnake (L.t.nelsoni) even though it's red body ring count (RBR) from neck to vent is slightly lower than some (at 14), so you should refer to it as a definite Nelson's if you want to represent it as accurately as possible from now on. To represent it as an amel "Sinaloan" is simply a farse and a blatant misrepresentation. It looks like a very nice nelsoni as a matter of fact, the way the white rings arch out dorsally VERY abrubtly and the tail being obscured with white (which is normally black) on most all nelsoni.

If someone told you it is a "Sinaloan", they obviously know ZERO about either subspecie's history.....plain and simple.


Have fun with it, I really like it to be quite honest, but not as a "Sinaloan"..


~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]