Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I hope everyone who has a thread of intelligence has realized there are not Leucistic Ball Pythons YET.

A Leucistic animal has a disruption in its Chromatiphores that inhibit its ability to allow pigment and iridescence to be expressed.

The Melanophores, Erythrophores, Xanthophores, and Iridophores are still active in a Leucistic animal.

Chromatiphores allow us to see certain pigments in snakes. In morphs, the way their pigments react with the chromatiphores is changed to give them an alternate appearance. (This is not in all cases) Other times Melanin, Xanthin, and Erythin are disrupted themselves, which can result in a deactivation.

Enzymes and protiens are the reason behind EVERY genetic mutation. Appearances are the result a variety in DNA, constructed by protiens.

Any other oddity is a fault of an environmental cause, and is not genetic.

The White Ball Pythons that exist are close to the APPEARANCE of Leucisism, but they are NO Leucistic.

"Leucistic
A form of albinism. Leucistic animals lack all pigment in their skin, but have blue eyes.

A creature that is an albino lacks pigment causing it to take on a pinkish-white appearance. These animals often have white hair or skin and red eyes. An animal that is leucistic has pigment, but that pigment is white. It may have partial pigmentation of its more typical coloration and usually has blue eyes."

http://www.answers.com/topic/leucistic

Ralph, Morph King, etc. produced a white snake with blue eyes (Lucy) by breeding Mojave x Mojave and Mojave x Lesser. I have a clutch of Mojave's expected to hatch by May 10th of this year.

-----
RC Reptiles
http://www.RCReptiles.com

The super mojave's have a greyish, blue head. I don't think they should count as leucistic. The lesser X platty are the only ones I've seen that look completely white. Of course I've only seen pics.
-----
Nita Hamilton
--------------
Ball Pythons
ballpythonworld.com

Nope, super mojos still count as lucys, they just aren't pure white. Mojo x lesser also produces a pure white snake and phantom x lesser, and about 20 other combos...
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

The phanotom lesser cross has a light brown stripe down its back just like an ivory has a yellow one, how is that a lucy? Each one is visibly different from another, you can tell super mojave, super lesser, phantom lesser, lesser mojave from each other than obviously they are not all white patternless snakes right?
-----
Nita Hamilton
--------------
Ball Pythons
ballpythonworld.com

look up the definition of luecistic
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

Super Mojaves also have a Purple back, when they are neonates. They do become white with age. I think you are the only other one that understands my point.

Nothing against these morphs, but they are not Leucistic.

Albinism is TECHNICALLY a LACK or A pigment. This can be Xanthin, or Erythin. Society USUALLY labels Amelanistic animals as Albino.

One form of Anerythrism in Corn Snakes is called Black Albino. This is the first case I have EVER seen in applying the CORRECT meaning of Albino to otehr mutations.

Luecisism can result in eyes of any color, blue, black and gray are the most common.

And I find it funny that you are working with a Blue-eyed White snake project so you find that you must justify your point.

Sorry, I am not trying to brandash the project, it is one of the most intrigueing ever. However, please try to understand the biology behind the genetic mutations you work with. Very few do, and this is the problem.

Also, SUPER MOJAVES, are NOT Leucistic by any means. I think Dan Sutherland was the first one to make this a strong point. He called them what they are Super Mojaves, and the Hypo Super Mojaves he called just that as well. Even though the Hypos were whiter than any other. The Supers have a PURPLE color, Ivories have a yellow stripe. Both are white when they are older, but they are NOT Leucistic.

Ralph Davis made a viable point, to call the various White snakes what they really were. Lesser Phantom, Lesser X Lesser, Lesser X Mojave, Mojave X Mojave, etc.

Do a little research, you WILL find that my definition is PERFECT.
Talk to an EXPERIENCED geneticist, not a ball python breeder.

Traits like Hypomelanistic, Hypermelanistic, Axanthic, Xanthic, Anerythristic, Amelanisitc, leucistic, Pieblad, Hyperxanthic... are all scientific mutations, that is mutations that are directly caused by understood faults in enzymes and protiens.

You don't have any idea what the biology behind these mutations is. Thus, you have no idea if by your definition they are lucys or not. Your just trying to stir people up.

Frankly, people can call them whatever they want and nobody will give a damn if someone tries to tell them otherwise.
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

I think you might want to get off your high horse.

making a scientific point, if you don't understand it sorry.

I find it funny that people ridicule what they don't understand.

"I hope everyone who has a thread of intelligence has realized there are not Leucistic Ball Pythons YET."

no, I do understand. It just the way you phrased it all, you sound like a snobe!!

my post as straight forward.

Don't mean to sound like a Snob. Thanks for understanding.

OK

As I interpret your post, you are saying that none of the present lucies are good analogs of the leucistic mutant gene in the Texas rat snake. And that we should wait until a better one comes along before naming it "leucistic".

If that interpretation is correct, I think you're right about most of the ball pythons that are being called "leucistic". I'm not sure about Vin Russo's, though.

Paul Hollander

Your post was a little confusing. But, are you saying that other than the Leucistic Texas Rat snake there is no good example?

If so, I agree. At least in the snake world.

I have a business card of Vin's, with a picture of one of his Blue-eyed White ball pythons. It has a faint "grayish" line on its back.

>Your post was a little confusing. But, are you saying that other than the Leucistic Texas Rat snake there is no good example?

The leucistic Texas rat snake is a good leucistic and the leucistic snake that people are most familiar with. So that's my leucistic example of choice.

There are a few other good leucistic snakes that have turned up, but they are very scarce. And they have either died without issue (like the leucistic Burmese python) or nobody has made a real push to breed them.

Paul Hollander

There are rumors about the end of the Burmese Leucistic.

One Leucistic that seems to be possible, I say this because they die, are Carpet Pythons from the Jaguar project.

The Black Eyed Leucistic....It is supposed to be a TRUE leucistic. I am guessing everyone here forgot about it because no one even made a comment about it. You get a black eyed Leucistic from breeding a FIRE X FIRE. Hope that helps clear this up. Thanks David

CAN be all White, but they also CAN have Yellow spots. Because they have yellow spots Xanthin is allowed to come through in some areas. As a result, not Leucistic.

Some Lesser X Lessers are PURE WHITE, but they are still not TRUE Leucistics.

How would you determine a true leucistic then? I haven't seen a pic of a lesser x lesser that had any color to it. Would you have to do genetic testing then? I'm not sure how you would tell.
-----
Nita Hamilton
--------------
Ball Pythons
ballpythonworld.com

Please post a picture of a black eyed with yellow spots, id love to see it.

http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/matrix/traits/lucy_black_eye.asp

The one Mike Wilbanks had in Daytona had two small clusters of yellow scales.

I will find a picture for you, but read what Ralph wrote.

Up till last season, ALL Super Fires had SOME yellow scales.

"Another key difference is that leucisim can also be localized and incomplete, affecting only part of the animal (whereas albinism, anerythrism, and axanthism always affects the entire animal); with irregular patches of white on an animal that otherwise has normal colouring and patterning. This produces what is known as a "pied" or piebald" effect; and the ratio of white to normal-coloured skin can vary considerably not only between generations, but between different offspring from the same parents, and even between members of the same litter."

There is alot we still dont UNDERSTAND about the how and why of the color morphs IN ALL SPECIES not just snakes.

Other than having an intellectual discussion who really cares. I look at the PURE WHITE Blue eyed snake and think, thats a nice lucy as does everyone else.

What else should we call it? Its a lucy because that to everybody, including the general public, is what a lucy is, PURE WHITE with blue or black eyes. (did I use too many ,,, in that sentence. Maybe an english major should chime in)

more proof on the leucistic gene in ball pythons...

http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/matrix/traits/lucy_blue_eye.asp
-----
red-

>http://www.ralphdavisreptiles.com/matrix/traits/lucy_blue_eye.asp

That is quite an interesting file. In the first part, Vin Russo says that he produced a blue-eyed lucy from two normals. Right below it, Ralph says he produced a blue-eyed lucy from a lesser platty x phantom mating.

This does not compute. Vin's statement is consistent with lucistic being a recessive mutant gene. Ralph's statement could mean he got a combination of two independent codominant (dominant?) mutant genes (lesser platty and phantom), or it could mean that lesser platy and phantom are alleles, or it could be that both of Ralph's snakes were heterozygous for Vin's recessive lucistic mutant in addition to being lesser platty and phantom.

Then there are the lucys that are supposed to be homozygous Mojave.

I think there is an awful lot of work to be done to figure out what's going on in this mess genetically. The biochemical aspects will probably take much longer to figure out. From what I've read, I think that Vin Russo's is the most likely to be analogous to lucistic in the Texas rat snake, if his observations are accurate. But until things are worked out, no doubt the word "lucistic" will continue to be badly overused. And sooner or later, there will be posts of the "I bred two lucys and none of the babies were lucys" sort.

Paul Hollander

Graziani did a breeding project that showed that Vin Russo High Yellow Lemon crossed with Mojave can also make a white snake. The hets for the Russo line (the High Yellow Lemons) do seem a little on the subtle side in pics I've seen but I wouldn't call them normals. However it was a little surprising that they turned out to be compatible with the larger Lesser/Phantom/Mojave group but they do have similar bellies.

It's sure looking like all the white snakes so far are co-dominant mutations and most are part of a large compatible group (alleles?). The Ivory does seem to be incompatible with the larger group and it's generally assumed that the Fire will be also but who knows until the cross is done.

This picture is from Mike Wilbanks' website. You can see it there for yourself. Notice the MULTIPLE clusters of YELLOW scales.

we can not tell. That is, there are not tests that can be done to reveal the needed information.

However, since EVERY combination that makes a White BP, either Blue or Black eyed, CAN have color other than white, they are obviously showing pigment. Because pigment is being shown, they are not Achromatiphoric, or Leucistic.

The Leucistic Texas rat snake is the BEST example of the mutation I know of in the animal kingdom.

>>The Leucistic Texas rat snake is the BEST example of the mutation I know of in the animal kingdom.

Using your definition, why is this a good example? Have you ever kept or bred Leucistic Texas Rat Snakes? They have random occurring clusters of yellow scales. Not all, but a good number of the babies develop these.

What difference does it make?

A clown isn't a real clown, a banana isn't a real banana, and hypos aren't really ghosts!

Leucistic inplys white snake and the last time I checked you didn't have to have a scientific reason for naming your snake.

Seems fitting enough to me. If the time ever comes where a true lucy is found or produced then someone'll probably want to saddle it with something a little more interesting than Lucy anyway. JMO
-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

Sounds like a good point to me... "hobbiests" anyone?

You honestly don't GET THE POINT.

Leucistic animals have a mutation that is given a DEFINATE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION. NO exceptions can be called Leucistic.

PERIOD!

A Clown is a Clown, why, because there is NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLAINATION for its appearance.

LEUCISISM in animals existed LONG BEFORE ANY Ball Python morphs were EVER bred.

Actually I do get the point - my point is - does it really matter?

I don't think anyone in the ball python world really cares if it is not 100% scientifically accurate - maybe if somewhere down the line when a "Tru-Lou" is produced someone will care but until then - why bother.
-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

why bother with anything.

I am not trying to say that we should call them something else.

I know Ralph and Dan refer to their snakes as the result of whatever cross they are. Why, because when they are bred the results will vary.

One will yield all Mojave,
One: all Lesser Platinum,
One: White, Lesser, Phantom,
One: White, Lesser, Mojave.

I am simply making a point of TRUTH!

What/Who makes you the expert on Genetics? I would really like to know the answers to my 2 questions. thanks David

claim to be the expert on genetics. I am just trying to explain some things that people (not all) are unaware of.

Why is it important to know who I am?
I don't know who you are.

White snake with dark eyes = Leucistic
White snake with Dark eyes = leucistic

It's that simple...No one said it had to be perfectly white, just white....Thanks david

Now you know who I am...

I have met you David and scientifically speaking RedArgentine is correct. Whether you want to disagree with him is your prerogative, but whether or not he posts his identity is irrelevant. Although Ralph Davis and most other reptile breeders for that manner are probably very knowledgeable people when it comes to the husbandry and reproduction of ball pythons, most are herpetoculturists not herpetologists. The anecdotal information given about genetics may be helpful and have some truth to it, but like anything it must be taken with a grain of salt. This isn't to say that observations made by non-scientists don't have any value; in fact many of the greatest discoveries were made by your average Joe's, but just because someone coined a mostly white snake as leucistic doesn't mean they are correct or should be without scrutiny.

I appreciate that. It is often hard to post with so much opposition.

I wanted to post raw information for people to learn.

Too me part of a hobby is to understand every aspect of it. That is part of the fun.

Anyway, I hope no one took anything the wrong way.

And neither does it mean they are incorrect...

Last time I checked, actual scientific informationon leucistic balls = 0

Therefore, there is no reason not to call a white snake a lucy until proven otherwise. And by most definitions of the word they are leucistic. Patches of yellow or slight coloration does not mean the animal is not leucistic by any definition I am aware of.
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

"A clown isn't a real clown, a banana isn't a real banana"...

GIVE ME A BREAK! Next thing your going to tell me is that Santa isn't really Santa! Stop the madness!
-----
Bryan, Atlanta GA

1-0-0 Rescued Ball Python - Apep
0-0-1 Rescued Bearded Dragon - Zeus
0-0-1 Rescued Non-Alpha Green Iguana - Bud
1-2-0 Rescued Rats... no wait... ROTTEN Little Cats - Ra, Bastet, Isis
0-0-1 Rescued Fit and Trim Panda Hamster - Mr. Fluffy
1-0-0 Horse... whoops... BIG Golden Retriever - Jake
0-1-0 Wife
2-0-0 Kids

your verbal irony!

get the party started. Out of curiosity, why did you decide to make this post at this time? I've seen your posts over the years and you are a sharp kid, though some may feel you need to polish those rough edges.

You did spark a good debate

-----
gail

_____

Anyone can cut and paste a bunch of tech terms.

Point is NOBODY really understands whats going on enough to get up on a soap box and start preaching.

It is fun none the less..........

But if you have read any of this kids posts over the last few years, he is a knowledgable young man. I think his tone in his posts could use a bit of lightening up, but it's difficult to know one's tone on a forum.
-----
gail

_____

and get good tips to help me love my hobby. good thread
-----
1.2.0 ball python (aragorn, arwen,`eowyn)
1.0.0 100% het pied (frodo)
1.0.0 columbian boa (squiggles)
1.0.0 rat snake (alabastered)
0.1.0 corn snake (baby)
0.0.2 whites tree frog (trevor, kirmet)
0.0.5 pacific green tree frogs
3.2.0 cats (rockie, bs, brownie, lerrado, kole)
1.3.0 kids (dilyen, dakota, chyanne, sierra)
Brian n Chrissy
"snakes are kind of like potato chips, you cant have just one"

Tech talk....

"A Leucistic animal has a disruption in its Chromatiphores that inhibit its ability to allow pigment and iridescence to be expressed."

So has he done the genetic test on the mojaves, black eyeds and what not to know if the animals are producing the enzymes needed to activate pigment be it black, red, or whatever even though they are white.

HE HAS NO POINT!

Thats my point! haha

Good times anyway.......its fun getting paid at my real job for mouthing off on the kingsnake forums all day! life is good!

"tech talk" Is TECHNICALLY CORRECT!

Anyway, there is NO NEED to do tests on the Super Fire (Black eye), Super Mojave, Lesser X Lesser, Phantom X Lesser, Russo Super.

All of them have a TRACE pigment. The Mojo has purple, the Super Fire has yellow scales (small clusters), the other Blue-eyes have trace faded lines on their backs.

If this can be SEEN, they are not TRUE Leucistics.

They CAN and DO have pigment.......in some cases

I would say there is a difference between knowledge and verbal diarrhea
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

feel free to find the place where I copy and pasted this.

TRUST ME, I didn't.

I have been talking with many breeders about this for years. Before the first BP Leucistic. Leucisism is the most exciteing mutation to work with, at least for me.

I will agree "Rough edges" I just consider myself overly blunt. No BS.

I posted this now, well because there are so many idiots in the Ball Python business, the constant complainers of the market and such.

I wanted to see WHO actually understands genetics. It seems most people are either (1) willing to learn, (2) completely ignorant, or (3) allready knew the stuff.

I may be asking this a little off hand...

Do you know who I am? Not to sound rude, I am useing an alias name and was just curious.

I didn't know if you did or not.

If you do know my real name, just reply with a yes. I like to keep this stuff silent.

No, I do not know your real name, and it's none of my business. There are many people that post here that don't use their real names. I was just stating that you are a smart kid, you just are as you say, blunt, no BS. Which by the way, I like but others see as rude. That's life and you can't please everyone now can you.

-----
gail

_____

>I hope everyone who has a thread of intelligence has realized there are not Leucistic Ball Pythons YET.

I guess if you want to jump on everybody else you should get your facts straight first.

>A Leucistic animal has a disruption in its Chromatiphores that inhibit its ability to allow pigment and iridescence to be expressed.

There is no real scientific definition for leucism, it depends on the class of animal, but it can be generally interpreted to mean non-functioning chromatophores. They do not inhibit the ability of pigments to be expressed, they fail to either make or accumulate pigment.

>The Melanophores, Erythrophores, Xanthophores, and Iridophores are still active in a Leucistic animal.

Active how? Active would indicate that they produce pigment, which they do not do. Do you mean present? Then yes, chromatophores are present. Iridiphores, for your information, do not make pigment. Iridiphores cause the refraction of light which manifests as color.

>Chromatiphores allow us to see certain pigments in snakes.

Chromatophores do not allow us to see pigments, they produce and accumulate pigment.

> In morphs, the way their pigments react with the chromatiphores is changed to give them an alternate appearance.

Wrong. In morphs, pigment is either not present, produced to an intermediate state, not accumulated, or the chromatophores are not distributed in the normal pattern during embryonic development.

>(This is not in all cases) Other times Melanin, Xanthin, and Erythin are disrupted themselves, which can result in a deactivation.

Wrong. Melanin, Xanthin and Erythris are pigments. They are not disrupted, but they can be partially produced or not produced at all. Deactiviation would be at the level of the multiple enzymes responsible for producing these pigments.

If you are going to come on here and call people stupid, get your facts straight so you are not the one who looks stupid.

Leucism is a scientific mutation, so there is a definition. Chromatiphores do gather pigment so that we see it.

>Active how? Active would indicate that they produce pigment, which they do not do. Do you mean present? Then yes, chromatophores are present. Iridiphores, for your information, do not make pigment. Iridiphores cause the refraction of light which manifests as color.

Active in that they still function normally. I am aware that Iridiphores do not make pigment. I expected that people knew their job, as the name implies.

>Chromatophores do not allow us to see pigments, they produce and accumulate pigment.

Which is what we see. Nothing but our own eyes allows us to see pigments, but it is the Chromatophores that hold the pigment for us to see.

>In morphs, pigment is either not present, produced to an intermediate state, not accumulated, or the chromatophores are not distributed in the normal pattern during embryonic development.

True.

>Wrong. Melanin, Xanthin and Erythris are pigments. They are not disrupted, but they can be partially produced or not produced at all. Deactiviation would be at the level of the multiple enzymes responsible for producing these pigments.

They can be partially produced because something in their formation was disrupted, such as the activity of Tyrosinase in Amelanistic animals.

>If you are going to come on here and call people stupid, get your facts straight so you are not the one who looks stupid.

I don't see where my information was WRONG. I do see places where is was not clearly stated.

Leucistic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leucisim is one of two conditions that produces apparently anomalous white animals from parents that are otherwise normally coloured.

Leucisim is often mistaken for albinism, due to the similarity in the white colour exhibited by some animals. Leucistic animals lack all colour in their skin, fur, and feathers; but have normally coloured eyes. Like albinism, leucisim can be inherited by offspring, though not as consistently or reliably, and the gene does not appear to be fully recessive as is the case with albinism.

While albinism results in an animal lacking the normal melanin (and occasionally other) pigment cells, leucistic animals retain the cells; but lack an enzyme needed to activate the pigment. Albino animals -- most notably reptiles and birds, though the phenomenon has some parallels in fish as well -- can still retain colour from erythrin (red-orange) and xanthin (yellow) pigments; unlike leucistic animals, which do not have any active pigments.

Another key difference is that leucisim can also be localized and incomplete, affecting only part of the animal (whereas albinism, anerythrism, and axanthism always affects the entire animal); with irregular patches of white on an animal that otherwise has normal colouring and patterning. This produces what is known as a "pied" or piebald" effect; and the ratio of white to normal-coloured skin can vary considerably not only between generations, but between different offspring from the same parents, and even between members of the same litter.

-----------------------------

-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

The causes of Leucism, in theory, are affecting certain areas of the animal in Piebald examples. At least according to this information.

Piebald is recognized as an independent mutation on an animal.

If anyone has information on Pieds, other than how appearance is described I would like to hear it. I have never looked at the breakdown of what causes the mutation.

In humans and mice piebaldism is a mutation in the c-kit protooncogene that results in a defect in melanocyte development. It would be assumed in reptiles that the defect is early-embryonic and manifests prior to chromatophore differentiation.

I am going to have to do a little research. FUN STUFF!

Well 20 minutes digging thru the online journals and studies via my college library provides me with the following:

Piebaldism - is actually the most common form of Leucisim. Yes even in animals - birds, amphibians, reptiles, etc.

Studies of leucisim in amphibians show that true lucys are generally rare and the truest lucys usually have a dorsal stripe and often black eyes - some blue. (hmm sound familiar?)

Seems to me in my ignorance of the whole thing that since leucisim can be partial (reads need not be completely white) unless you have done the testing and research to know for a fact that these animals are chemically unable to blah blah blah blah blah blah then you can't say for certain one way or another whether they are true lucy or not.

Your arguement is based on presumption and theory and not facts and therefor holds no weight - at least not enough to be all bragerty and obnoxious about it.

So I go back to my original - who cares!

Thanks for playing.
-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

I'm sure you get the point

I would also like to add that I wasn't aware that we had to be scientists to call a White snake with dark eyes a leucistic. Thanks David

For a guy who leads with this statement, "I hope everyone who has a thread of intelligence has realized there are not Leucistic Ball Pythons YET." you certainly changed by the time you reached this statement, "I am going to have to do a little research. FUN STUFF!"

As we also later learned, the definition of "leucistic" seems to be a matter of debate in itself. Some people apply the term to any animal that has some areas of its body that are without pigment, and others apply the term only to animals that are completely white with the dark eyes. I've heard the term more from birders describing birds that had unusual patches of white feathers. In that case, the bird was closer to what herpetoculturists would call a "piebald," but I never heard a birder use that term. In the course of earning three engineering degees, I've seen highly educated people in the scientific community have the same kind of petty squabbles over semantics that two five-year-olds can have over a silly game. These people can generate a great deal of heat with their arguments, but in spite of all their degrees and their education, they often fail to generate any light.

You're trying to promote a very narrow definition of "leucistic." It's a free country. You're certainly welcome to promote this narrow definition. I do wonder why you are so passionate about this narrow definition, especially in light of the fact that the term isn't always applied so narrowly in zoology. I'm enough of a cynic to wonder whether you believe that you have what you would call a "true Leucistic Ball Python" and are making an issue of the semantics as a marketing strategy.

As long as you are researching, I'd suggest that you take another look at this statement: "If this can be SEEN, they are not TRUE Leucistics." Another thing that I remember from talking to birders is the claim that no bird on earth produces blue pigment. Birds produce feathers with many color pigments, but they don't produce blue. Instead, birds that appear blue have feathers that refract the light in a way to show a blue color. Most other color feathers can be crushed and still show their original color. With blue feathers, once the structure of the feather is broken so that the light can no longer refract, there is no more blue color.

Maybe that assertion about blue feathers and pigments isn't true. I'm not a zoologist, so I don't know. However, let's apply the principle to snakes. Could the slight tint that you say some of these snakes have be a result of refraction based on the structure of the scales and not based on pigment? If so, then a truly leucistic ball python may have a slight color cast of some kind. That cast wouldn't change the fact that the snake is leucistic.

Personally, I'm not all that enthralled with the idea of a pure white snake. When I think of the ideal piebald, I think of an animal with about 40 to 50 percent white area on the body. Pieds that have more white don't appeal to me that much. Likewise, the albinos that I find most attractive have a very deep yellow so that the pattern is easy to see. A "white snake" would be neat in many ways, but the difference between the "true leucistic" that you describe and a snake with a few yellow scales or some faint markings would be meaningless to many of us.

On the positive side, I think you've earned a mention in the WIR. It's fun to author a post that leads to that honor. Congratulations.

Bill
-----
It's not how many snakes you have. It's how happy and healthy you can keep them.

I don't have a true Leucistic. But wouldn't that be fun!

In fact, I don't keep Ball Pythons. To be honest, I don't like the people working with Ball Pythons.

I do follow BP morphs though, there is a lot to learn from doing so.

Projects like the White Smoke Albino, Lesser Platinums, and understanding the Blue-eyed White snake, are all things that will keep going long after every morph combo is produced.

The heart of any hobby is education.

I appreciate your post in regards to birds. And I will acknowledge that my definition is a narrow one. The problem I have is with people accepting new things, or simply correct information contrary to their "beliefs".

And I will acknowledge that my definition is a narrow one. The problem I have is with people accepting new things, or simply correct information contrary to their "beliefs".

Introducing new ideas to how people think about a subject is good. Defining the current state of knowledge and where that knowledge could go is also good. I do these things in some areas and have enjoyed that part of your posts.

Making an occasional plea for more precision in how terms are used can also be a good thing. For many terms, there is no real debate about what the real definition is, but people apply the term widely and inaccurately. Often, most people know what they mean, but these mistakes can cause confusion in technical discussions.

On the other hand, when the "correct" definition of how narrow a term should be is still open to debate, I'd avoid starting a thread with inflammatory statements about anyone with a "thread of intelligence." Intelligent, honorable people can disagree about how narrowly a term should be defined. I suspect that "leucistic" is one of those terms. I like what you are trying to do, but that sentence hit me funny as it did others.

In any case, you ignited one of the more interesting discussions of the week. While my first areas of interest in snakes would be those that would help me to keep my snakes healthier, the discussion of how a morph becomes a morph is fun.

I think the refraction issue is worth more consideration on the question of "white" snakes with some cast to them. My snakes change color when they are ready to shed, but I doubt that they are producing a different pigment. The more likely explanation is that changes in the skin and the layer between the old skin and new skin are bending the light in some different way. I think this subject is interesting, but I suspect that the experts already know the explanation.

Bill
-----
It's not how many snakes you have. It's how happy and healthy you can keep them.

On a daily basis I work with some of the most over educated people you would ever be likely to meet. People who have devoted their entire lives to academic pursuits. People who strive to learn, teach, and learn by teaching. You see, I would consider myself a scientist. Even as I might consider myself a poor scientist as I lack creativity, I do know when to throw the bull crap flag. It is easy to spot someone that has no scientific credibility.

The first thing to look for is someone who doesn't have an argument. When engaging a discussion, a well informed individual would first state why they are engaging in such a discussion and what their purpose is. Attacking the individual (for example ...everyone who has a thread of intelligence...) would be your first clue that the person really doesn't have anything knowledgable to say. When it comes to scientific discussions, a scientist or even someone who is well informed would never state things in absolutes (i.e. never say leucism is xxx and there is not such thing as xxx). What you don't know can certainly take away from any credibility you might have had and furthermore science can never prove anything, only disprove hypotheses (I learned that in grade school). The biggest mistake that wannabe knowledgable people make is that they pretend to know what big words mean and how things work, when it is obvious to those that do, that indeed the individual does not. For example, no geneticist or biochemist or chemical biologist that I know (let say out of about 300 individuals that I have regular interactions with), would mispell protein multiple times, let alone state things like "protiens are the reason behind EVERY genetic mutation." This statement uses an absolute, and it is absolutely wrong. There are numerous genetic mutations that manifest themselves only at the DNA level or RNA level and certainly proteins are not the "reason" behind genetic mutations. A scientist/knowlegable person might have made the following statement. "MOST genetic mutations which affect morphology do so through their perturbation of enzymatic activity." Furthermore, people who know what they are talking about can always backup what they are saying with credible peer reviewed information.
Finally, people who actually know what they are talking about rarely bother to argue about issues of semantics or are at least aware that they are arguing on an issue of semantics and can make a reasonable effort to explain why the semantics should be altered (and not try sound like they know what they are talking about in scientific terms, while completely missing the real issue). Words are defined by the people that use them, it is a waste of breath to try to change that. Why bother telling people that "gas" is actually a liquid and has nothing to do with gas at all.

So in short, to sound more credible, don't state things in absolutes, know the points you are actually trying to argue and clearly state them, don't resort to Ad hominem falliciousness, and at least try to stick to things you are well informed about. Correct spelling of importantly common words never hurts either.
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

overly educated group. I am an Ivy League student.

At any rate, spelling isn't my strongest area. Regardless, my information is still valid.

Did you know the I.Q. of the average American is 100?
I personally don't think these should be the people who design the meanings of words.

Yeah the average of an IQ test is 100, because that is its definition. 100 = average on an IQ test. To put it another way, all of the scores are totaled up and then the average score is assigned a value of 100. I guess they don't teach statistics at this, what did you say the name of the school was, University of Ivy. Never heard of it. But, let me guess, you are getting your bachelors at princeton?

Most graduate students I have met in the sciences that come from ivy league schools never make it because they provide some of the worst undergraduate educations available in the US. Too focused on their Law students and Med students to give a crap about the rest of them. Pitty really.
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

it is Columbia University for engineering. But, that's besides the point.

that most psychologists (I am studying to be one) do NOT consider I.Q. tests to be a valid measure of inteligence? Just a little FYI. Also, the community college that I started out at, Cape Cod Community College, trounced Harvard's debate team a couple of years ago, so Ivy League just means that you are from an influencial familly or that you had absolutly no fun in high school. As for My stance on Lucism, I think that I am with Tosha. Who cares? Come back with some lab tests.
-----
I have Balls!

I'm not at Harvard, lol. Cool story.
Also, thanks for the info on IQ tests. I still wouldn't consider the average American to be too intelligent though.

BTW, my dad didn't finish college, no one from his side of the family did. My mom went to small schools and state colleges. I'm the first to go Ivy. And I would consider High School an awesome time, I won't lie about parties and drinking.

Things aren't always what they seem!

Ivy league schools are ranked in terms of their graduate departments including business, medical school, and law school.

In all actuality, their undergraduate programs are some of the worst you can find in the US. I always think it is funny when someone is really proud of getting their BS or BA degree at an Ivy league school.

You could get a better education at just about any community college or state funded school.

Pretty much, if you want a good UNDERGRADUATE education, you cannot go to a school that is ranked the 20 in your field of study. These schools will be way too focused on the graduate students, you will get nowhere near the kind of attention and opportunities you could get at a school that is more undergraduate based for your field. Once you are a graduate student, pursuing your PhD, then you should go to one of the top 20 schools...

The dirty little secret of top ranked colleges...
-----
when life hands you lemons, make super lemons, bumblebees, etc...

"And I will acknowledge that my definition is a narrow one. The problem I have is with people accepting new things, or simply correct information contrary to their "beliefs"."

It seems to me that while people are interested in your definition, they are pulling ones from their own resources, and your response has been biting criticism. Seems to me that you are getting upset over being questioned on this and are responding by belittling them. To have beliefs questioned is life, and you learn by exchanging ideas and resources. Blunt, I can respect, but some of your comments, including the one that was pulled, were out of line and just rude, and made you look unreliable and unbelievable.

These people who have posted something contrary to what you have posted are all listing their sources for the information, but I have yet to see where you are getting your information, or where you picked this up at. That would be interesting to compare the sources. It seems from your prespective, it isn't a lucy unless it is SOLID WHITE, and from the others that the slight pigmentation qualifies. Vast difference there. Are you a zoologist, scientist, biologist? Where did you get your information? That might make people a little more apt to accept what you are saying vs. people that have listed their resources.

I will say for tosha and the others out there, they are very intellegent people just for the simple fact of doing their own research and not just accepting what they are told. Personally, I would like to know the answer to this because it is very interesting, and boy would a "Tru Lu" really shake things up a bit if you are right.

is from discussions with some of the top Ball Python breeders, Multiple geneticists, and a number of molecular biologists I am fortunate enough to work with at school.

So...there isn't any personal research, this is all word of mouth? That by no means says that it is false, I did not mean to imply that. The problem is that you can't point to this resource and say I got this from x, so go check x. Did you check out any of the information that was posted in response and the links that were left? Do you have any doubts about your theories after checking these sources out? I would. To have your idea's and theories thrown back at you is how you are going to learn, and you are not handling it well by being rude to these people. While you attitude might fit in well in your current environment, it isn't going to get you very far in the real world.

I have my opinions on each.

I won't post the names of the breeders I talked to, for their privacy. If they want to come forward they will.
I would consider geneticists to be pretty good judges on Leucistics than what is posted on public sites.

To make the best decision, and to learn, one must be willing to listen to all explainations and formulate their own opinion. I do do this, and have done this long before I posted.

You see the problem is this....

First you came on this board and basically called everyone idiots.

You presented your theory and proclaimed it absolute truth.

You provided no factual evidence to support or negate your theory or the existing one.

I'm not saying your sceince is wrong, I'm not saying your theory is wrong. I'm saying you've provided no proof one way or another and until you do it's all conjecture.

The reality is that whether or not these animals are scientifically Leucistic - no one really cares.

Please feel free to continue to study this matter further and when you have some solid scientifc data to support your theory let us know.
-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

why is it that no one seems interested in WHY their snake looks the way it does?

It seems that everyone just wants to know what to pair together to make what they want, and don't want to learn WHY.

WHY does it have that color, WHY when it is bred to that do you get that, WHAT caused this morph in the first place.

Ball Python people are overly concerned with money, and aren't at all interested in understanding genetics. When genetics should be the first thing on their mind, it is what drives the morphs, and what drives the business.

If no one cares, why so much heat?

I am tired of this.

The "heat" is simply a result of your attitude.

No one cares why because it's not of importance - these animals are like art - noone really cares what made the color just that the color is there and wether or not it can be reproduced.

Yeah - there are those that like the genetics side of the hobby - but for the most part it's a non-issue.
-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

to NEVER buy anything from breeders unwilling to expand on the hobby. Few breeders care about the causes to the mutations they work with, but I have my list.

Personally, I don't think it is not caring, I think it is the fact, that people don't understand. So instead of looking like they lack intelligence, they just say they don't care. It's like students who say "I'm smart, I just don't try."

Trust me - if the white is there it doesn't really make a difference if it's there just because there is a lack of pigment or because there is an inability to properly produce the pigment, or because the pigment doesn't display properly to the human eye or you can only see the pigement with a microscope. It just matters that it is there.

Balls are not a sceince experiment - we own and breed them because they are great animals and we like to look at their pretty colors and patterns. Once the genetics are established and breeders know that it can be reproduced then they figure out how it interacts with other mutations. But that's pretty much the extent of most peoples "why" factor.

You can look at it this way ...

How many people really care about the science behind their car? they just want to be able to get in it and drive, Do people care about the science behind their cell phones - no they just want it to work - hell sceince is telling us that cell phones give you brain tumors but that aint stopping a lot of people from using them. Do people care about the science behind the food that they eat or the house that they live in or their pets - some do mostly because it's their job to know these things - most don't. Thats just the way of the world. I'd be wiling to be most people could tell you that last five American Idol winners but not one of the winners of a Nobel Prize in sceince in the past 5 years. Does that make people bad people - not at all - people have other priorities - science for a lot of people just aint one of them.

So whether or not a Lucy is a true leusistic - really isn't going to change how a majority of people perceive the snakes. I personally hate those all white suckers - Lucy or not.

And I'm certainly not trying to speak for the majority but, the majority of people have expressed a disinterest. Maybe its the way you presented the issue, maybe if you can come back with some really hard solid facts to support your theory you might get a little more interest and a more accepted thread. Ball people are not unwilling to learn and accept but you need to appeal to them on their level.
-----
Tosha

"Nihil facimus sed id bene facimus"

6.34.0 Ball Python (Harry and Fluffy and gang)
1.0.0 Angolan Python (Anakin Skywalker)
0.0.1 Green Tree Python (Verdi)
0.1.0 Bredls Python (Smurfette)
0.2.0 Feline (Pippen and Pandora)
0.0.1 Desert Tortoise (Pope John Paul aka JP )
2.2.1 Fish (1,2,3,4)
0.0.4 frogs rescued from pool skimmer
0.0.0 Lizards of unknown origin

you say that ball people are only interested in money. to a point some are, however each species that there is a known morph has the exact same problem (if that's a problem). With that last statement, you are saying that those working with corns know exactly what is causing their snakes to display the same traits that balls show, this couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is, most people would like to know, but the resources aren't there to do genetic studies on these abnormalities. As soon as a respected research company decides to start testing the genetic make-up of our pets, I'll send some samples and stand by to get factual information. Until then, your theory is just a theory and we will still be breeding these animals to achieve the colors and patterns we desire.

PS. has there been any genetic work to see which pack of wolves each breed of dog was originated from, all those dog owners are just dumb for not knowing the genetic make-up of their pets.
-----
Josh Hutto
JKReptiles

2.3 het pied (RDR, alan bosch x 2, BHB x 2)
1.0 Spider Ball python (Ballroom pythons south)
0.1 High Contrast Albino (Gulf Coast)
1.1 het albino (ben siegel, Gulf Coast)
1.2 het citrus ghost(Gulf Coast line)
1.0 citrus ghost (Gulf Coast line)
1.1 graz pastel female
1.6 05 normal bp's
0.6 04 normal bp's
2.5 adult normal bp's (some need breeding to see if norm)
4 various corns
0.1 brazilian rainbow boa (alan bosch)
1.0 american pit bull terrior
1.1 taco dogs (ankle biters)
1.0 grey cat
0.1 bearded dragons

a BAD dog is MADE not bred, support the American Pit Bull Terrior as the greatest breed of dogs on Earth!!!!!

Well, from everyhting i have seen and read looking online, Leucistic is basically defined as "lacking all pigmentation" and resulting most commonly in Blue eyes. Now, I know in the Leopard Gecko worl, A Leucistic is a Yellow colored Gecko with no spots at all... also called patternless... Now, wouldn't that be a bad term for that animal? I mean, the BLizzard Leo is white... it isnt concidered Lucy... ?? I agree with you all in all that in the correct term if the word Leucistic, it would be an animal that is COMPLETELY white, with absolutely no colration, be it brown, light brown, Grey, or whatever... it would be a 100% ALL WHITE snake, lizard, whatever....

Well, from everyhting i have seen and read looking online, Leucistic is basically defined as "lacking all pigmentation" and resulting most commonly in Blue eyes.

This part isn't what I remembered from bird watching forums, but different fields may be defining the term differently. Your comments about the geckos are interesting and add another perspective to the issue.

Thanks,

Bill
-----
It's not how many snakes you have. It's how happy and healthy you can keep them.

the Blizzard Leopard Gecko that first made this point.

The Leucistic label was improperly given to the patternless Leopard Gecko. It is yellow.

The originator of the Blizzard went further to say that the Blizzard was a true Leucistic. Which, until proven otherwise, I believe.

I'll see if I can find the information.

"Our first project together was to name this new white gecko. We thought this was going to an easy task, but we were wrong. The most obvious name was 'leucistic,' but unfortunately this had already been misused for the patternless (leucistic) leopard gecko. We also considered calling it a 'true leucistic,' but decided against it for the same reason. I wanted to call it a 'snow leopard,' but some one had given that name to another morph that was light colored with black spots. Finally we came up with the perfect name, "The Blizzard Lizard". This name best described our cool white lizard with slate blue eyes."

one of the longest threads I've seen in a while.
-----
gail

_____

yes red does have a way with words but he does know what hes talking about and has throughly researched everything he says before he says it and if you guys only knew who he really was. i will also say he gets on a high horse about lots of things that he expects people to know which in turn leads people to miss his points becuase they become blinded with angry or feel a need to one up him believe me we got into a huge thread on the hybrid forum when a guy tryed to say in-breeding was hybrization but it sucks when a couple of teenagers know more about the trade then people pre-tending to call them selves experts

courage to take on this forum. I have read his posts on other forums and I know he's a smart kid. Are you his cousin? I think he lit a fire under a lot of people and I find it amusing. This forum can be very mundane and Red made a lot of people think.

Snakebytes

-----
gail

_____

haha i think ks deleted my post but yes i am his cousin he is my protege and will one day be half as good lookin as i am lol

it appears that my post was deleted as well.
Snakebytes

-----
gail

_____

I can't imagine what mine got deleated for. I didn't say anything offensive, I thought
-----
I have Balls!

"Enzymes and protiens are the reason behind EVERY genetic mutation. Appearances are the result a variety in DNA, constructed by protiens. "

DNA is the reason behind every genetic mutation..Not proteins. Notice the word genetic is "gene", not "proteinetic" some word made up word I just came up with.

DNA makes RNA, RNA makes proteins that's how it works. Enzymes are proteins get that straight too....A protein can't be the reason behind a genetic mutation, because the genes come first, THEN the protein is eventually made...
-----
Uroplatus sikorae 1.1
Uroplatus henkeli
Ball python
Hogg Island Boa Constrictor
Several species of tarantula