Genetically is seems that (the hybino) should or has happened. If not why has it been so difficult to achieve? I want to believe but am still not convinced that "Hybino" is an accurate term.



HI ADAM,



See my other (long post) in this thread, i think it'll answer most of your questions--or i hope so, at least. Yes, i agree it very probably has happened. Statistically it very likely has.



I don't thin there was anything particularly difficult about it--it's as simple as any of the other double morphs, EXCEPT that we don't yet know how to visually identify them. But the genetics of it is the same as producing snows, for ex. And the fact that it CAN be done (that both gene pairs can exist on the same animal) is proven by the fact that i've produced hypos and albinos out of double hets, for ex., so the parents have to be harboring the genes for the two traits on different gene pairs.



As for "hybino" being an accurate term, not sure what you mean. The term "hybino" was proposed by St Pete, FL herper Doug Beckwith when i first did the albino x hypo cross in pursuit of that double-morph. It's just a label. It seemed to be an accurate term that people would also understand--it designates animals that are hypo and albino. Can you elaborate on your reservations about the term? Certainly "hypo and albino" would be more descrptive or thorough, but so would "amelanistic and anerythristic" but "snow" is a lot easier-- and note "snow" doesn't incorporate the two separate morphs it displays at all, the way "hybino" does for what it represents, So i'd argue hybino is better than snow, and snow seems pretty widely accepted--even though snows are NOT snow white, so snow is not even a real good descriptive term. (and to complicate things, "anerythristics" aren't! they're clearly hypoerythristic, maintaining a slight but observable degree of the effects of erythrins, so the more accurate term would have the "hypo" (reduced) prefix instead of the "an" (lacking or absent) prefix.)



Naming's a [bleep]!



Tyrosinase-positive - an albino not able to synthesize melanin, but capable of synthesizing tyrosinase, which results in lavender-brown or a greenish tint to it skin color. Also referred to as T-positive



Tyrosinase-positive - This is what I feel that the "Extremes" could or should be called.



That's an interesting explanation. If your definition is a widely-accepted and accurate one (not questioning you, merely expressing my own ignorance) then it's a well thought out argument. The issue(s) remaining would be how a tyrosinase-positive albino gene popped out of a LONG line of traditional hypos. Another question will be if it can be isolated from the hypos from which it appeared. If the parents were hypos (or hypos & hets) with ability to produce hypos, then are the extremes animals that are BOTH traditional hypo AND t-positive albinos? If so, what will an animal look like that is "JUST" t-pos albino?



Is the coloration in the originallyh black rings on "extreme" hypos comparable to the appearance of formerly black areas on other t-pos albinos? (cal kings are an example, right? or is it different? and in the case of any of the "t-positive albinos", do we know they're t-positives from skin tissue analysis? Or are they being designated that--in at least some cases--based on appearance and people's conclusion that, well, then, "that must be what's going on"? Both appear to involve a lightening of formerly black areas: how do we distinguish t-pos albino from simply a different hypomelanistic gene that reduces the mealanin to a diff degree than on the nominative hypo, the one that showed up first and that we associate with hypomelanism?



Gonna take some noodling still--and considerable more test breeding--to figure out all that.



peace

terry

[ Show Entire Thread ]