Posted by:
Rextiles
at Tue Aug 24 23:23:01 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Rextiles ]
Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion about this type of terminology and what it means between different people. I like to look at the dictionary for definitive examples of what these words mean when I can find them (which isn't always possible with some of these genetic and taxonomic words). Fortunately, we can define what hypo, short for hypomelanistic, should mean just from a simple look-up in a Websters Dictionary.
Melanism:
n.
1. abnormal development of dark pigmentation in the skin, hair, feathers, etc.
2. darkness of skin, hair, eyes, etc., resulting from a high degree of pigmentation
melanistic adj.
So, what we have determined here is that melanism is an association of dark pigmentation, no news here, everybody will agree to the definitions presented here.
Hypo-:
prefix
1. under, beneath, below
2. less than, subordinated to
3. Chem. having a lower state of oxidation
I would say that definition #2 for hypo-, "less than", is the most useful in regards to what we are dealing with. I think the foremost thing to keep in mind here is that "less than" basically means "less than" normal. It does not mean a complete absence of.
So, if melanism means dark pigmentation and hypo- means less than
and we put the two together, we are basically defining hypomelanism to mean "less dark pigmentation than normal". In other words, dark pigmentation is still present, just less than it would be in it's normal/wild caught state.
I think this is where the real problem is with certain animals that don't always have a lot of black pigmentation to begin with, it's hard to define what really is less than normal when normal is pretty much "less than" to begin with. With typical WC Western Hognose, there is a definite variation in, not always so much in dorsals, but in ventrals where it can range from solid black to about a half black and half yellow/gold checkered pattern. I would say that animals, such as yours, that show a predominately yellow ventral with very little and yet diffused black are quite a bit more uncommon if not rare. If we were basing hognose just on these facts alone about ventral scalation coloring, I would think that an animal such as yours would fall under the term hypomelanistic.
Now where does that leave us with the Evan's/Lazik Hypos? Are they actually hypo animals at all? Can that dark purplish belly be considered a form of melanin which would then deem them as being hypo-ish? Of the 4 "Hypos" I have, none of them exhibit any black or dark coloration on their dorsals and they all have the typical purplish colored checkered ventrals.
This is why I raised a point a year or so ago about the Toffeebellys and their definition to hypomelanism versus the term paradoxing regarding the black speckling that is associated with them. Stefan and Raimo claim that every Toffee, to some matter of degree, all have this black speckling. This causes us to now review what the word paradox means...
Paradox:
n.
1. a statement contrary to common belief
2. a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact (Ex.: Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink)
3. a statement that is self contradictory and, hence, false
4. a person, situation, act, etc. that seems to have contradictory or inconsistent qualities.
It would seem apparent to me that definition #4 best suits our definition of paradox.
So, back to the Toffees and their paradox label. If the meaning of paradox is meant to be contradictory or inconsistent to the true nature of the appearance of an animal, then that would mean that there would be "normal" animals of the same genetic background or lineage that these Toffees can be compared against. For example, I made a challenge in one of my last posts about breeding an American "Hypo" to a German "Toffee" to see if the phenotypes were in any way comparable or if they would in turn merely produce normal WC het animals. If they were compatible, then I would be lead to believe that perhaps the black speckling might be a form of paradoxing due to the fact that it exists alongside the Toffee genes even though the Toffee genes and the "Hypo" genes are basically the same. However, if the 2 lines prove to be incompatible, and all Toffees always exhibit black speckling, then how is that consistent with the definition of what paradox means, contradictory and inconsistent? If anything, if half of a clutch of Toffees were born that had black speckling while the others did not, that might be a form of paradoxing. But if all Toffees are born with it, then it seems pretty consistent with me and it doesn't necessarily contradict any coloration convention that these are currently named as. Now, I've seen some pictures of Albino hognose that have black speckling, that is contradictory to the coloration of a typical Albino and probably very inconsistent to reproduce. That is what paradox truly is and how the word should be used. So in my way of thinking, using the word paradoxing to describe the consistent and common black speckling of a Toffeebelly is not correct but more used for the effect of marketability at this point. I will be more than happy to concede this if someone can show that the black speckling is an entirely different heritable gene or at least prove that is a single gene simply locked with the Toffee gene which is why the 2 traits are seen together.
Going back to the "Hypo" vs. "Tpos Albino" clash though, I'm in the "Tpos" camp as it seems to be more defining of what these animals are, a different type of albino. If there were remnants of black scalation or if someone could prove tha the purplish bellies were really remnants of melanism showing itself, then I might concede that then they probably are in fact a "Hypo". Unfortunately, these aren't being proven out as such and I think we're stuck with trying to come to terms with how we want define out animals. Heck, look at the 2 divisive camps in regards to Axanthics vs. Anerythristic. I thought I made some good points about the stark differences between those 2 terms and nobody seemed to want to get involved in those discussions and yet there's a big division even amongst big time breeders and the carefree use of these terms. It's either one or the other, they are not the same and not interchangable. 
I hope some other people share their well thought out view points on these topics. 
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Definitions - Rextiles, Tue Aug 24 23:23:01 2010