>>calling any single anomaly"albino"because it fits a "classic description"is just as wrong as calling a strangely patterned or pigmented snake "hypo".



but Jeff, what about calling it amelanistic if (or because) it lacks melanin so IS melanistic? what's inappropriate about calling a snake what it IS? or calling a snake that visually exhibits reduced melanin "hypomelanistic"? same logic. pls explain again (better?) why you think that's not appropriate.



>>I think the fall back for naming a morph should be to that ORIGINAL description (like the oldest description of species or ssp.named)



you are such a traditionalist! so we should call the black rat snake the "pilot" rat snake, because that name was used earlier, even though the current nomenclature uses a system that better distinguishes it, the black rat snake, from related subspecies ("yellow rat snake" and species ("red rat snake" ? if "albino" was used first to describe mammals, which have only melanin pigment so when lacking it are lacking all colors, must we continue using "albino" instead of amelanistic to describe an animal lacking only melanin but not other pigments, as is the case with amelanistic tricolors, for example? these two examples seem to be consistent with your argument but yield unwieldy or inferior results, imho.



>>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??



isn't that an incorrect assumption, jeff: I mean, aren't people calling them hypos because they exhibit reduced ("hypo" melanin, NOT because what line they came from?



>>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 I AGREE WITH YOU, pardon the caps. A morph shouldn't be officially named until it has been demonstrated to be different from existing morphs. Last year only one baby was produced from extreme hypo x extreme hypo, so it appears to be a recessive morph. But it won't be until we see some results of pairings this year, of super x "regular" hypo, for example, that we'll know whether it's truly recessive or not, whether it's a different allele from the "regular" hypo, etc. So I agree we should consider the term "extreme hypo" to merely be a working term to describe animals that look different at the moment, but only a PROPOSED name for them until they are demonstrated to be a diff gene. If it turns out they are merely points on a continuum, from light hypos to dark hypos, all produced from the same gene, then we'll have a different "naming" challenge on our hands.



terry

[ Show Entire Thread ]