Reptile & Amphibian Forums

hello,

i am wondering if anery and axanthic are the same thing when it comes to hognose?

i have read that axanthic takes out the brown and anery takes out the red in reptiles. i have read the technical definitions. maybe i misunderstood?

i see people using the terms interchangeably. for example, the post below by rg. he posted pics of his axanthic and someone replied about an anery.

so.... i would appreciate some clarity. is it the same thing or different with hogs?

thanks...
jonathan

my little axanthic male. or is it an anery? lol

jonathan

Its both.

my little axanthic male. or is it an anery? lol

It's Axanthic. Anerythrism currently doesn't seem to exist in Western Hognose snakes. There's a lot of ignorance about the differences in both terms and no, they are not interchangeable terms like many people seem to think, they mean very different things.

You can read more of what I wrote about this a couple of years ago. At the bottom of that post are 4 links that explain what I have researched and learned about the differences between Axanthism and Anerythrism:
Revisiting common genetic terms...
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

I'm glad you're leading the charge on this topic Troy...someone has to do it!

I remember when I used "Albino" to describe an Amelanistic Honduran, I was quickly corrected and never looked back!

Honduran Milks, for example, don't have a true Axanthic or Anerytherisic either...they are more correctly described as HypoErythristic...because they still have red/pink coloration, but are just greatly reduced.

Some people are interested in using the correct terms others don't really care...it's not a huge deal either way, I just try to use the correct terminology if known.

I'm glad you're leading the charge on this topic Troy...someone has to do it!

Thanks Rusty! For all those that have known me for the last 4 years when I really took an interest in genetics, know that I do try my best to educate myself on these topics as well as passing what I've learned onto others.

I remember when I used "Albino" to describe an Amelanistic Honduran, I was quickly corrected and never looked back!

And you my friend have passed along your knowledge to me about the differences between Amels and Albinos and helped me to shed my ignorance of those terms years ago. So, thank you for that!

Honduran Milks, for example, don't have a true Axanthic or Anerytherisic either...they are more correctly described as HypoErythristic...because they still have red/pink coloration, but are just greatly reduced.

That's the interesting thing about genetics, there are so many variations that exist that some traits can be easily overlooked and/or simply mislabeled.

Some people are interested in using the correct terms others don't really care...it's not a huge deal either way, I just try to use the correct terminology if known.

Unfortunately, once an incorrect label is attached to a trait, it's often difficult if not impossible to correct it. But like you said, it's not a huge deal as people are going to do or say whatever makes them happy regardless of whether or not they know the differences. Heck, I know plenty of people that still, out of habit, refer to Axanthics as Anerythristics even though they know the differences between the two traits and even admit that Anerythrism is incorrect, but they like saying Anerythristic better than Axanthic, so that's what they use.

At the end of the day, all that matters to me is knowing what I've learned from extensive study and from my colleagues in the hope that if someone asks me a question, I can hopefully give them an informed answer. The more we learn, the more we evolve.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

You do understand that verbage is accurate at different levels, don't you. That is, common usage is accurate, even when it differs from academic definition.

It actually depends of level of usage. For hobby level genetics(playing with snake genetics) those ignorants you speak of, are fine and accurate. They are doing great without your labeling.

What you are reading is verbage meant for teaching. To gain a general understanding. But where you seem to miss out is, it may not be accurate when applied to actual living situations(applied as compared to academic). They are loose guides. Those working with genetics, indeed modify the meaning of those terms.

What I see you doing and please, we all do something odd, is making ironclad rules, that simply are not meaningful. And you dismiss what you do not understand.

YOu commonly say, I don't know why the snakes do this or that, then add, no one does. In that, your wrong. Many people do, just not you. The point is, you get mad(crazy) is you think your being called ignorant, yet, with your googled up genetics, everyone else is now ignorant.

Like you going on and one about albinos. Albinos is an accurate term when used for snakes lacking all black pigment. Its was never meant to include red or yellow. Simply lacking black. So what kind of ignorant are those folks that call, a T-positive, an albino or amel?? No, its not about accurate, its actually about use, those terms are of use. They worked fine and still do. Its not about ignorant. Is it useful?

Ignorant is making mistakes and keep doing it, even when you know better.

So your offended when I back a statement with supporting evidence and it makes you feel ignorant. Yet, you go on and on, calling all manner of folks ignorant.

Later sir.

At the end of the day, all that matters to me is knowing what I've learned from extensive study and from my colleagues in the hope that if someone asks me a question, I can hopefully give them an informed answer. The more we learn, the more we evolve.

That's a good way to put it Troy.

Why is the sky blue? Ahhh, cause God made it that way!

I always wanted to know exactly why.

Everyday I seem to learn something new... I really like learning in general and thankfully I have a few folks who I rely on to help me out (and no, not just snake stuff).

I'm not the best teacher however
So, thank you again for helping spread the genetic terminology.

I was just looking at the corn snake classifieds and I have no idea what those morphs are...they sound and look cool, but I would have to do some research to find out what it all really means!

"people are going to do or say whatever makes them happy regardless of whether or not they know the differences"

This really says it all. Most casual hobbyists know absolutely NOTHING about what most of the genetic terms actually mean. And most don't have a clue when to best apply any of them to the plethora of different types of snakes in the hobby either. I see this all day long, every single day as well. I have also spent many years deeply reaserching all this too. And which particular pigment cells are actually responsible for producing what colors in conjuction with the complex dynamics within these different chromatophores. As you know, most terms are simply regurgitated from hobbyist to hobbyist with little to no knowledge of WHY or HOW each term may, or may not apply in any given specimen.

Knowledge is power. It's just as simple as that.

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Sorry, but you seem to think I say rude things, yet you go on and on, about other peoples ignorance. I find that odd.

You may want to google up, English. That is, what the language is. Its a constantly changing language. Which means, if there is current or specific use, then that definition becomes correct. Think about it and do research it. Best wishes

Anery is lacking red. Axanthic is lacking yellow. With hogs its appears axanthics lack both red and yellow, so they are both.

In other species, there are anery's(lacking red) that have yellow, cornsnakes for instance.

I was told, that axanthics lack both in most snakes, but anerys only lack red. I can't wait to hike out a red and black hog.(axanthic) or a yellow and black hog(anery) best wishes

I was told, that axanthics lack both in most snakes, but anerys only lack red.

This is basically correct. Axanthism is defined as the lacking of yellow pigmentation but it also can include red pigmentation as well. Anerythrism is basically a subset term of Axanthism and is defined as only lacking red but can and will exhibit yellow pigmentation if it is present.

Anery is lacking red. Axanthic is lacking yellow. With hogs its appears axanthics lack both red and yellow, so they are both.

Your statement here is actually contradicted by the above statement you made in the same post. Hognose cannot be both Axanthic and Anerythristic because if it was Anerythristic, then it would have to be exhibiting yellow pigmentation which it is not. Being that Axanthism already is defined as lacking yellow and sometimes red pigmentations, it is the only term that is relevant to hognose.

In other species, there are anery's(lacking red) that have yellow, cornsnakes for instance.

Correct, and again, if hognose were in fact Anerythristic, they would exhibit yellow pigmentation which they do not.

To put it simply, all Anerythristics are actually Axanthics, but not all Axanthics are Anerythristics.

I will refer to the definition stated by Dr. H. Bernard Bechtel who was a Dermatologist. In Dr. Bernard Bechtel's book Reptile and Amphibian Variants he states quite clearly (page 65):
"Axanthism is a hereditary defect of xanthophore pigmentat metabolism, resulting in absence or decreased amounts of red, yellow, and intermediate pteridine pigments.".

He even went so far to call Anerythristic corn snakes Axanthics because Axanthism helps define the specific subset term Anerythrism and eliminates confusion caused by both terms (page 66):
"Because of the predominance of red pigmentation in their pattern, corn snakes are also called red rat snakes. Their red pigment is synthesized by xanthophores, the same pigment cells that synthesize yellow. When xanthophores fail to function, neither red nor yellow are synthesized, but since the wild-type corn snakes are so overwhelmingly red, the absence of red in axanthic specimens is their most conspicuous feature. For this reason, they are called anerythristic (without red). While anerythrism is perfectly correct, I prefer to call all snakes with this mutation axanthic. This describes the mutation, and avoids stumbling over what to call tricolored kingsnakes with this mutation, since they clearly are both "without red" and "without yellow".".
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Lets see, Axanthics are represented by two gene lines in western hogs. So what are going to say when an axanthic is found with yellow????

next, I asked this question to my mentor(in hogs) If Axanthics hogs are lacking both red and yellow, then why do many individual axanthics have brown on the face and tail? Remember, I am new and full of questions. And most do have small levels of brown. His answer, they do, and I don't know why.

You have clearly made my point, many here are "experts" in genetics, but have a lack of understanding of the animal. And in comparison, the animals are simple.

The problem is, behavior comes with a wide range of responses to one question, The reality is, so does genetics. Other then pure recessives,

In the case of that conda to normal, producing all condas, if that occurs a couple more times. I would question the genetics of the normal. So what about the brown on axanthics? Thanks and Best wishes

"In the case of that conda to normal, producing all condas, if that occurs a couple more times. I would question the genetics of the normal."

FR.
I will repeat what I posted earlier.
Firstly, because it's a very cute point that I think may have been missed by many people and certainly would be appreciated by the more mathematically minded.
Secondly, because your above comment is incorrect.

If both parents were anacondas, the probability of all six being condas would have been exactly the same as if one was a conda and one was a normal - about 1.5 %.

As Troy pointed out, for each baby it would be 1/4 for super and 1/4 for normal. Therefore, it would still have been 1/2 for anaconda.

please understand, Those type of percentages are academic period. That is, there is not set rule that works, If it was higher, then you say, oh I got lucky, if it was lower, you say, bummer that sucks.

The point is, those ratios are academic, those hatched eggs are not. As I said, if you receive many more or many clutches like that, then I would look at it.

For the rant part, Keeping animals, is not academic, its applied and always receives results. Such things as those genetics are academic and do not require results and actual results do not have to fit. They are indeed suggestions of possibilities.

Again, your 1.5% is academic. The results do not have to fit that. Also, all those names such as super and non super, are all products of the same set of overall genetics.

If your hatch was mind, I would indeed investigate. You have an opportunity. You can run with it, or make it academic.

As a field herper and keeper, academic thought is great, and should be kept in mind, but does not ever rule reality. Whats in your hand is reality, like phenotype, it doesn't matter what it is, if real, it is what it is.

In all reality, your results, BEAT the odds, therefore it is not that. If it keeps doing that, its supporting, its not that.

Those percentages are based on numbers, Say 100 or more, the higher the more accurate. But trends can be observed with numbers as low as 20 to 25.

If yours keep doing this, you sir have a new combination, with a new set of percentages. Whether you understand that or not, it is occurring on a regular basis with morphs.

All your inbreeding, line breeding, and morph breeding is exactly about creating new genetic combinations that have RESULT are real, the rest is academic.

A morph breeder is one that looks for traits that beat the odds. Best of luck

What a load of waffle !!

You obviously didn't understand a word I wrote.
But the truth is I wrote it for others with more open minds.

No offense, but your only going by some click attitude. I am new here and the definition used here is closed. That is what I question.

Of course, that attitude is great if that's what you choose to use.

The truth is, it doesn't mean a thing to me. I just questioned its use here. No more, no less. That you folks do not like to QUESTION is again odd.

Lastly, the opinions used here are based on one or two animals. If you look at another recessive morph, amels or albinos, Each wild caught individual, can carry different traits.

I did ask one real question, why do axanthics have brown? is there an answer out there by the genetics experts?

Questions are great !
What you need to work on - is listening to ANSWERS too !!

You go on and on and on and on about how much we will all learn if we follow your humble advice and ask questions.

Yet you display a complete inability to hear what others have to say in response to questions posed.

Asking questions is a completely useless if it is accompanied by an attitude that refuses to hear what others have to say.
It seems your questions and comments aren't so much about gaining knowledge, but are more about knocking down what others have to say.

Unless of course you really are much smarter than all of us, and your questions are just to help us absorb your pearls of wisdom.
In which case, I stand corrected and thank you for interrupting every thread and pointing out to us how little we all know.

Jonny nailed it.

If anyone (FR, or any herp keeper) has lessons that you've learned over the years please share it will the masses!

Do we really need to be baited into a discussion, then berated and verbally beat down to gain any knowledge?

Yes master, you are correct, I am nothing!

Maybe if we just had a post, something like:

Had this issue back in the day...

Solved it by doing these things...

Too simple?

Help me, help the animals...that is what it is all about, right?

LMFAO!!!........

Yep, you have the perfect depiction there Rusty. It portrays his entire demeanor towards others for the hopes of elevating his own self-image of himself. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with snakes, or any other "ANIMALS" (blah-blah blah). The only thing it is ever about is himself. It's the most bizarre behavior I have ever seen from an older so-called "adult". But it is what it is.
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Is that really Frank ?

His wife's hot !!

The truth is, it doesn't mean a thing to me. I just questioned its use here.

You accidentally added a few extra words (along with typos), what you meant to say was "The truth doesn't mean a thing to me. I always question it's use here."

Regardless, I'm done answering your questions, not because I can't but because your "questions" are used as a bait and switch method just to fight with people here. You bait us with questions and then switch into attacking our knowledge and character. That makes you a despicable person.

I really did try to give you a second chance this last time I tried to engage you in an honest intelligent conversation and all I got out of it from you was a lot of resistance, static and personal attacks. You've made it abundantly clear time and time again that you don't ask questions to learn, you ask questions to attack. Trust me, I won't make that same mistake with you ever again.

For the last time, I'm washing my hands of you.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Remember my friend, don't feed the trolls and psychological/emotional vampires, cloaked as herpers in disguise.

Keep being an incredible asset to this forum. Your knowledge is very well respected and do nothing but add and make forums such as this flourish with intelligent conversation and subjects.
-----
Genesis 1:1

I appreciate your kind words and support along with everybody else that has emailed me and called me to voice their support. I am deeply humbled by all of you!
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

you said.....

"The truth is, it doesn't mean a thing to me. I just questioned its use here.

You accidentally added a few extra words (along with typos), what you meant to say was "The truth doesn't mean a thing to me. I always question it's use here."

Regardless, I'm done answering your questions, not because I can't but because your "questions" are used as a bait and switch method just to fight with people here. You bait us with questions and then switch into attacking our knowledge and character. That makes you a despicable person.

I really did try to give you a second chance this last time I tried to engage you in an honest intelligent conversation and all I got out of it from you was a lot of resistance, static and personal attacks. You've made it abundantly clear time and time again that you don't ask questions to learn, you ask questions to attack. Trust me, I won't make that same mistake with you ever again.

For the last time, I'm washing my hands of you.

Very well put...........this is absolutely spot-on, and 100% PRECISE!!!! This is why trash and garbage should be taken out of the home. Otherwise it only smells up the entire dwelling (home, forum, whatever it happens to be).

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

I'll try to say it again without being 'academic' or discussing percentages.

It is irrelevant how many eggs are in the clutch.
If both parents are anacondas, the likelihood of all the babies being condas is EXACTLY the same as if one was a conda and one was a normal.

This is not just 'academic'.
It is a FACT.

And if it happens several more times it still leaves no reason to 'question the genetics of the normal', because it had no relevance to the outcome.

FR: "In the case of that conda to normal, producing all condas, if that occurs a couple more times. I would question the genetics of the normal."

Caracal:"It is irrelevant how many eggs are in the clutch. If both parents are anacondas, the likelihood of all the babies being condas is EXACTLY the same as if one was a conda and one was a normal.

This is not just 'academic'.
It is a FACT.

You are exactly correct Jonny. It doesn't matter one single bit if it's Anaconda x Anaconda or Anaconda x Normal.

Caracal: "And if it happens several more times it still leaves no reason to 'question the genetics of the normal', because it had no relevance to the outcome."

Precisely!

So what if you breed this pair over and over and consistently get all Anacondas. All that might prove is that the genes from the known Anaconda seem to be virile/dominant enough to keep producing all Anacondas, it doesn't validate the female as an Anaconda because of this outcome. You could also breed this pair and ultimately produce all Normals, it doesn't invalidate the fact that the male is an Anaconda either. The producing of all Anaconda clutches, as improbable as it is, especially on a consistent basis, is still acceptable. It is also conceivable, though also improbable, that you can breed 2 Anacondas consistently and never produce a Superconda or actually produce an entire clutch of Supercondas.

Regardless. None of the current or future results will prove anything about the female being anything but Normal unless she actually produces a Superconda from this type of pairing, her to an Anaconda. Only then would we would have to accept that she would be in fact a low expression Anaconda based on the fact that she could produce a Superconda. Everything else produced from this pairing, Anacondas and/or Normals, is inconclusive regardless of how improbable or interesting the outcomes are or what we think they should be.

The only other test, other than her producing a Superconda from an Anaconda pairing, would be to breed her to any known quantity Normal and see if she produces any Anacondas. If she does, then she would have to be considered an Anaconda. If no Anacondas are produced, then the female is obviously just a normal and nothing more.

And for the record. The only time you can expect to produce an entire clutch of Anacondas is from pairing a Superconda to a Normal which is the only time that probabilities won't factor in as it's a pure given outcome based on the fact that Anacondas are the het form of Supercondas, Superconda x Normal (AA x aa = Aa). Anything else, Superconda x Anaconda (AA x Aa = AA and Aa), Anaconda x Anaconda (Aa x Aa = AA, Aa and aa) and Anaconda x Normal (Aa x aa = Aa and aa), can and will yield various results as there are more than one phenotype that can be produced from the parental gene types.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

Stop ranting

I know, I'm such a troublemaker for trying to engage in intelligent conversation.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

I really don't like statistics...I call it "fuzzy math" because it's not definite!

But I also like to gamble (BlackJack anyone?) and I love genetics!

The clutch I just produced is the exact opposite of the all Conda clutch you are referring to...out of 6 eggs, 5 were normal, and the only Conda wasn't healthy (deformed), what can you do?

But coin flip odds are really nice...I'll take them any day, for snakes or for gambling!

The odds I'm used to are typically well below the 50% mark!

Double Down!!!

Some of the endless drivel and 'round in circle riddles above was actually making my eyes roll back in my head.

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

i ask a legit question and it seems to turn into a rants. seems like some people just like trying to prove that the other person is wrong. possibly more like domestic disputes on the forums rather than people trying to share knowledge sometimes

maybe it should be standard reading for people to read and follow "netiquette" on these forums

i for one like to keep it simple. from what i have gathered in between the rants is that it is indeed axanthic. that is nice to know. thanks for the clarity. i have seen some labeled "anery" but it might just be mislabeled.

i am a hobbyist who tries to use the correct terminology. i don't plan on going into an in depth study of the different reactions and causes behind the colors and such. if you do, then that is great for you. i don't knock that one bit. knowledge is a great thing. i think that some people get some and their head swells immensely.

it would be nice to read this forum and it not just be mostly people bickering back and forth.

i read forums to gain knowledge, see what other hobbyist are doing in the trade, and to some extent socialize between shows and events. if i wanted drama, i would turn on soap operas or jerry springer.

just my 2 cents...

jonathan

If I have done anything to instigate this "drama", I do apologize and please know that it was not my intention to do so. I realize that this post might be considered as "stirring the pot", which again is not my intent, I just want to clarify my stance in order to eradicate the demonization that one person consistently tries to imply upon me because of his own prejudices.

What strikes me as odd, is that some people get so upset over words that are actually not insulting at all but actually are descriptive of what the person does not know. Obviously I am refering to my usage of the word "ignorant". It simply amazes me that some are totally offended by that word. I do understand however that the ego is a fragile thing and that it does not take much to upset a person with an ego, especially people who can't stand to be wrong. Regardless, the word itself is not insulting, it's descriptive of a person that lacks knowledge about specific things.

Anybody that knows me well enough and has spoken to me whether by email or phone can attest that I often use the word "ignorant" towards myself when confronted with issues that I admittedly have no clue about. A couple of weeks ago I was on the phone with a good friend of mine discussing the differences between Codominant and Incomplete Dominant traits when he asked me what I knew about the Spider trait in Ball Pythons, I readily told him that I was completely ignorant of the majority of Ball Python traits including the Spider trait and that I really had nothing to say about it as my realm of knowledge about Ball traits was nil.

There's no shame in admitting ignorance, at least I don't think so. Everybody on this planet is ignorant of something or another. It would seem to me that some people think that ignorance and stupidity mean the same thing and that my usage of the word ignorance translates into me saying that people are stupid. This could not be more wrong as both words have two completely different definitions from each other. It doesn't mean a person is stupid just because they don't know something, stupidity means "a lack of intelligence" which is entirely different than ignorance which means "lack of knowledge". What's funny is that people have no issue with saying "I don't know" which basically equates to saying "I'm ignorant", in both cases you are admitting lack of knowledge. Here's actual definitions for both words, you decide which one is insulting and which one isn't...

Ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.

Stupid: : slow of mind: lacking intelligence or reason.

Again, I apologize if anybody felt that I was trying to instigite any drama here, that was not my intent.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

insanity... repeating the same process and expecting different results.

if you are never able to get the other person to understand your point of view, why keep arguing and plugging up the forums?

i see people arguing and ranting back and forth. IMO intelligent conversation can be made in such a way that it doesn't plug up most of the forum. there is a very definite difference between intelligent conversation and people ranting.

it gets discouraging getting on this forum and just reading about people arguing back and forth.

just my 2 cents...

jonathan

"insanity... repeating the same process and expecting different results."

I have to ask, were you expecting a different result with your second attempt?

So much for apologizing (for something that I haven't even done) and trying to clear the air for any of those that might have been offended by my usage of the word ignorant because of how someone has tried to malign my character.

Ironically though, you seem to be causing as much drama here as the other character and yet seem to be directing your frustration at me all the while complaining about the unnecessary drama.

You seem to like quotes such as...
"insanity... repeating the same process and expecting different results."

How about this one?
"Hypocrisy is saying one thing while doing the opposite."

So much for trying to share my substantiated knowledge with you. There is a reason why this forum has become a ghost town and I don't actually blame it all on Frank as he can easily be ignored. It's because of ungrateful people such as yourself. Did you once even thank me for taking my time to help you? I never once saw a thank you anywhere, and honestly I never expect thanks from anyone because I don't help people to get kudos. But instead, what I do get is a bunch of static from some guy that I tried to help that obviously has nothing to add to this forum other than the same kind of drama that he condemns others for.

I'm really starting to rethink why I even bother coming here or helping anybody I don't know. Apparently, it's thankless and degrading for all the effort that I put in here. So thanks for the enlightenment Jonathan! I'll simply exert my energies on more positive things elsewhere, like so many others have already done by leaving here.
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

troy, you are correct. i did not thank you for sharing. my apologies. you did share some good info. i actually read through your post. IMO, by the time i was ready to respond, it had already turned into a back and forth bickering session. i have read it numerous times on this site. the knowledge was helpful. the bickering gets old.

caracal, i guess it was. lol #3 just for clarity?

rg, i actually already do hours of searching on the internet. i was looking for answers, and got them. it is just a shame that there always has to be all the drama to go along with it.

jonathan

Thanks Jonathan! And you are totally welcome.

it had already turned into a back and forth bickering session. i have read it numerous times on this site. the knowledge was helpful. the bickering gets old.

If you really examine what was going on, and it's not even really worth the effort, you will find that there was no real back and forth between Frank and I other than my discounting his erroneous post on saying that hognose were both Axanthic and Anerythristic. Other than that, I ignored him, even after he chose to respond with personal attacks and tried to instigate things here with me and others.

In fact, if you notice where there is a lot of back and forth drama here, you'll find that there is one common denominator that is almost always present in the equation. Some of us try our best to have pleasant and helpful discussions but sometimes we are also forced to defend or clarify ourselves when we are attacked or feel compelled to dispute some of the more ridiculous claims that are sometimes made here.

Unfortunately, no matter which forums you like to participate on, there's always going to be those certain individuals that like to rile people if for no other reason than their own twisted brand of entertainment. It's just something that we all must live with, endure and hopefully try to ignore as best we can.

All I will say at this point is, the majority of us here really do hate the drama as much as you do, trust me, we do! It's just an unfortunate side effect that happens with being on a public forum with many different and sometimes conflicting personality types.

It's all water under the bridge...
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

If you're ignorant on the definition/use of the word ignorant...how do you get out of that loop!

WoW!

I really have seen it all.

Someone that is completely ignorant on genetics asks a good, complex question...you answer it, and provide detailed information so someone can do their own research to verify what's stated (instead of just blindly trusting the answer provided) and maybe even come up with their own independent conclusions?

NOOOOOOOOOOO, they choose to focus on the drama that only a few people cultivate/initiate (and it's not you Troy, IN MY OPINION)!

You're doing your best to address the question and not reply to wacko rants (that go off topic instantly) and you get this kind of "thanks"?

WTF is wrong with people?

Referring to "netiquette", this is how it should have gone:

Thanks for all the detailed information! You saved me hours of internet searches!
A lot of this information is way over my head, and I don't really care to do my own research or understand what it all means, I just wanted to know what to call it to be as correct as possible...but thank you very much for your help!

SIMPLE!

If I can be so bold (and speak to what the intent of all this information is)...no one is trying to change anyone's mind...this is about sharing information.

You have folks that like to stir the pot and others that come out directly and give you the answer.

Troy wasn't cryptic, he didn't ask you what you thought it was...and then go into detail why you are wrong.

He just simply laid it out there...and tried to help.

I wonder who these people really are...I wish we had IP addresses visible/listed after our "user names" that way we would really know who's who...that's the only thing that makes sense to me at this point!!!!

" Troy wasn't cryptic, he didn't ask you what you thought it was...and then go into detail why you are wrong. "

Agreed. Troy showed himself to be a prime example of what this forum, and other forums, need. Quick answer, helpful attitude, and always willing to be thorough and detailed.

Hats off to Troy!!
-----
Genesis 1:1

LOL!! I couldn't believe what I was reading either. Your animated GIF certainly does describe the insanity very spot-on.

The entire problem on these forums is always caused by Freakin Retardation!!

-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

rg, i was trying to refrain from responding, but this was kind of bothering me. i would normally go to someone privately, but you want to make statements on the open forum, then i will respond here.

first, i am not completely ignorant of genetics, as you stated. i have been keeping and breeding reptiles as a hobbyist for over 20 yrs. i was confused by people using the terms anery and axanthic interchangeably. i know that in other reptiles they were totally different things.

second, you don't need ip addresses with me. seemed like you were trying to imply something by that statement. i use my real name and have been around for awhile. i don't advertise my personal information unless i am selling something. i have met up with numerous people in the hobby in the central florida area. up until now, it has always been for good social reasons or for business. if you want to track me down like your statement implies, then just pm me. we can exchange personal info and go from there.

the figure beating the head against the wall is what it seems like when people start arguing back and forth with fr. yet it happens repeatedly.

jonathan

I try to avoid these situations as well, there is never any fruit in it, but I too could not stop myself after reading your thankless response.

I think everyone's replies are clear, so I won't rehash... however I will clear up one part just so I'm not misunderstood.

IP addresses, can be used to determine someone's computer and general geographic location...rarely can you track someone down like a street address (unless you have some government connection)!

*****DISCLAIMER***** I am not a computer nerd...the above is my general understanding.*****DISCLAIMER*****

I made the IP statement/comment because I just couldn't understand how ANYONE in the world could be so confused on who is causing the drama and BS on this forum!

My wacked out thought was that FR simply made a new user name just to "poke the stick" at Troy. Yeah, seems nuts to me too, but not out of the realm of possibilities either.

Anyways, Best Wishes!

If someone asks a question about genetics as Jonathan did, then he deserves an intelligent, informative response about genetics.
Responses such as:

"It's both" and
"You do understand that verbage is accurate at different levels, don't you. That is, common usage is accurate, even when it differs from academic definition,"
are not particularly helpful and are just an excuse for someone to give an opinion when he has nothing of substance to add.

Similarly, if someone makes a point about the math behind the statistics involved in breeding mutations, then the information should be viewed as informative and responded to in kind, not trivialized just because a third person has nothing intelligent to add to the thread.
We all know snakes don't read the books or follow the rules, but knowledge of statistics strengthens our ability to maximize our successes, and of course the snakes are valued and priced in accordance with this 'academic' reality.

Rusty, when I play Blackjack, I do follow the basic principles to maximize my chances, even if statistics is "fuzzy math"

Jonny

The big headed folks you are referring to are the one's that you should be asking!

But for you? You should definitely go with the small heads in the future...I think they will give you what you want and need, just a simple answer...of course that may or may not be the correct answer!

Forgive me, I did not read the above posts. But your right on with this, many here act as if it really hurts to think. They want it all about right or wrong, no inbetween, A or Z.

They feel that's important to them. As a field herper first, there is no right or wrong, theres data and that data combines to indicate something, until that is proven different with more data. So on and so forth.

To me, there is a complete lack of science on this forum. WAIT, don't yell yet. Science is to question and keep questioning. And that includes questioning science. Please understand, every paper, every study, is supposed to be questioned and debunked. That is the design. The honor or glory of any paper is how long it stays valid. Not staying valid forever.

It appears here on this forum that religious science is followed, that is, blindly believing in literature.(without question, which is unscientific)

Its a bit like this, years ago, I was doing some work at the L.A. zoo when this article hit the papers and the news. It was about this petshop iggie guy, I think it he was called "Henry lizardman". He did all this and that with his iggies. The news lady said, so your an expert iggie man. He paused, thought, then said, no, I have expert iggies.

That is it, the animals are the experts, we just do what we know at the time. In this case, the hogs are indeed the book, the paper, the article they are the real deal. What we write or read in books is, an attempt, a guess, the best we know at the time.

So, I say stuff and hopefully cause folks to think, hmmmmmmmm

Me, I am interested in hognose, the real animal, whats inside those beautiful colors and patterns you guys produce. I have nothing against morphs and genetics, I simply wonder why people do not understand that inside of those skin morphs, There is a wonderful animal inside. Cheers

p.s. that big headed girl is HOT!