Posted by:
Jeff Schofield
at Tue Apr 13 22:05:08 2004 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Jeff Schofield ]
is lost.Same for the "hypomelanistic"morph.I mean why cant we have a more descriptive term than basically "reduced black"or the marketing wizard's"extreme!!!"?? I think that an anomaly is an anomaly and that calling any single anomaly"albino"because it fits a "classic description"is just as wrong as calling a strangely patterned or pigmented snake "hypo".I think the fall back for naming a morph should be to that ORIGINAL description(like the oldest description of species or ssp.named)and that for all intents and purposes that there may not be much difference between the lavender albino cal/speckled/brooksi kings and that honduran milk.Allelic hybrids have been recorded and when(or if)another species/ssp.of lavender albinos are crossed what will the consensus be then?? I think we can agree that there are several different genes that can change the same colors/patterns on colubrids.Is one "albino"ever "more classic"than another?Why is it easier for others to think these "HYPO-2's"than "lav.albino-1's"?Just because they came from the "hypo"line??Without them having gone through ANY breeding trials who is to say that this "new morph"isnt a combination of 2 others?I just dont like to see the horse leave the barn too early here as we now know that NAMING a new morph is a "big deal",and once named they arent easily changed!Lets wait and get it right the first time,what do you say??Jeff
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Its my thought that its in trying to define the ALBINO that the definition - Jeff Schofield, Tue Apr 13 22:05:08 2004 