HERE, I'M QUOTING THE PREVIOUS POSTER:

"...just curious as to how they were named axanthic when there are normal (non axanthic) white banded California kings already that are not considered axanthic."



HERE, I'M ASKING WHY HE CONSIDERS BLACK AND WHITE CAL KINGS NOT TO BE AXANTHICS: why should the black-and-white "normal" cal kings not be considered axanthic? I think sometimes we fail to consider what's obvious.



Marshall McLuhan said whoever it was discovered water, you can bet it wasn't a fish.



My point is, why is a black and white produced in captivity considered axanthic, and a black and white in the wild not considered to be axanthic? If we found an amelanistic in the wild, it'd still be amelanistic, right?



NOTE the term can be used two different ways: 1) to describe a phenotype, or what the animal looks like, or 2) to describe the genotype that produces the appearance



Or both, of course.
Link

[ Show Entire Thread ]