Reptile & Amphibian Forums

is it just me? (and I'm not an expert by any means) but does the white on the pieds look more white than any "white" snake that has been produced. I don't own any of the above mentioned snakes, but everytime someone posts pics of pieds next to lucys,ivories,or any other, the pieds still look more white.............this might even go back to that debate a few months ago on how someone was saying that the white snakes produced so far aren't even real leucistics??
-----
Jon F

could just be it looks more white because its next to the normal coloring. just a thought.

ep
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
1.1. balls
1.1 corns
1 everglades rat
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
2.1 cats

I notice this as well!!! Are lucy's as white or do the pieds look more white because they are contrasted against their own areas of normal coloration?
Glenn

the Blue and Black eyed White Ball Pythons not being TRUE Leucistic animals. And I still stand by that.

Going off of the definitions placed by science for the TRUE cause of Leucism and Piebald animals, I will say that each would have the same white. However, since the Ball Python examples are not truely Leucistic, the white on a Piebald may be purer. Now I am sure that some of the Blue and Black Eyed White BPs will have PURE WHITE, but you are looking at the whole animal, I believe.

I do not have the Leucy post typed up, but will be happy to re-write it if needed.

I certainly notice the more brilliant white on the piebald as well and Ive always felt that played an important role (whether conscious or not) with the popularity and stable value.
The closest Leucistics to the white of a pied in my opinion are the super lessers and possibly the black eyed lucies (despite the B.E.L. get yellow dots).
I saw these pics on an earlier post. I hope the owner does not mind me using them. These animals are not mine but its a good group photo.


The two darker ones dont look like ivories to me so Im guessing their super mojaves. I could be wrong. If they are super mojaves then they are arguably not a good example of a leucistic snake. Unfortunately, to me, they seem rather dirty and considerably dark compared to a super lesser or lesser mojave. The super mojave may not be as bad as the pearl but it certainly isnt convincing enough for me to want one as my "all white BP".

You can see the yellow stripe on them. Super mojaves do not have a yellow stripe.

Chris
www.coilsserpents.com

I certainly notice the more brilliant white on the piebald as well and Ive always felt that played an important role (whether conscious or not) with the popularity and stable value.
The closest Leucistics to the white of a pied in my opinion are the super lessers and possibly the black eyed lucies (despite the B.E.L. get yellow dots).
I saw these pics on an earlier post. I hope the owner does not mind me using them. These animals are not mine but its a good group photo.
The two darker ones dont look like ivories to me so Im guessing their super mojaves. I could be wrong. If they are super mojaves then they are arguably not a good example of a leucistic snake. Unfortunately, to me, they seem rather dirty and considerably dark compared to a super lesser or lesser mojave. The super mojave may not be as bad as the pearl but it certainly isnt convincing enough for me to want one as my "all white BP".

You post pictures of animals that you don't even know what they are, and at the same time you say that the darker "white" snakes must be Super Mojaves because to you they don't look like Ivories.

You go on to say how dirty and dark they are and then you bring the Pearl into it as well by saying they aren't as bad as the Pearl ...

You cast aspersion on animals without any pictures to represent that what you are saying is true ...
-----
gail ....
_____
Snakebytes

So what else would you call these snakes???
-----
Louie

How about Beautiful Gods creatchers or Ball Pythons .
because when it comes down to it it's still just
a Ball Python isn't it!

Super Mojave, Super Lesser, Lesser X Phantom, Lesser X Mojave, Super Butter, etc.

In short, a true Leucistic animal could also be called Achromatophoric. As albinos are amelanistic and either don't produce melanin, or it isn't shown, a Leucistic doesn't have chromatophores or they don't work.

Chromatophores gather the pigments (xanthin, erythin, melanin) and combine them with iridiphores so that we can see the snakes with all the colors they have as well as their iridesense.

Because each of the white ball pythons has some color other than white, they can't truely be leucistic. This is just process of elimination. While I have seen Super Lessers, and Black eyes that have not other pigment, some Super Lessers have a faint stripe and some black eyes have yellow spots. Since this occurance is random, and both CAN have other color, they aren't a true leucistic mutation. The Leucistic does provide recognition, and I don't really have a problem with it being used. I just think people should realize what the animals really are. There is already enough missunderstanding on genetics.

BTW, my spelling is a little off.

Does it really bother you that much? or am I reading too much into it. Lucy, white snake, super(_) does it really matter?
-----
Louie

I understand and am fine with the Leucy label. Why? Because it is identifiable with the phenotype. I just feel that people should know that they aren't real Leucistics. Also, because of the different possibilities when breeding the different Leucys to other morphs, I think that it is just simpler to call them whatever cross they are.

For instance. I can buy a Leucy, it might be a Mojave X Lesser, or it might be a Phantom X Lesser. The Phantom version can produce one set of designer morphs, while the Mojave version produces another. See where I am comeing from?