Posted by:
Dwight Good
at Tue Oct 2 18:38:59 2007 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Dwight Good ]
>>For my two cents, hypomelanistic is just a description.
Mark,
I follow what you are saying, but in my opinion the label "hypo" should only be applied to specimens that actually have the hypomelanistic genotype. By that I mean just because a snake looks like it has "reduced melanin" that doesn't make it a hypomelanistic. While it is certainly hypomelanistic by definition (as you stated), in actuality it might be within the range of individual variation of the normal phenotype. Its hard to put into words what I am trying to say. Let's say you went out and collected 15 corn snakes from the wild and placed them in a large container. You picked out the most "reduced black" male and female from the group. While by definition they might be "hypos".. do you think that would be correct? (Maybe a bad example since hypo corns are often found in the wild.. lol) Its been a long day.
>> Doug's snake clearly has fainter than normal striping and less melanin wash beneath the orange. Those two snakes look clearly different as babies but Doug's adult definitely has reduced melanin and that is what hypo means.
Doug's snake? Do you mean my snake? Or Frank's? I'll go back and re-read the threads, I might have missed a pic?
>>What about this snake? She has no trace of visible melanin anywhere so, by the straight definition, that makes it amelanistic. Any debate there?
Mark, I'd say your snake is a really nice hypo. But like I mentioned in my email, sometimes the terms are used interchangeably in the hobby. At a reptile show one seller might call them "hypos" and the seller across the room might call them "albinos." Which is correct? I don't know. I call mine hypos since that's what Kathy Love called hers. 
dg
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: why not hypo? - Dwight Good, Tue Oct 2 18:38:59 2007