Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Terry and All,I posted here on 7/22/02 with the same concerns about nomenclature as well as definition.I think it very important to simply consider all morphs a "form" of "albino"....let me clarify:It is/was my opinion that chromataphoric expression was equating an equivalent with a filter over a light.....Differing genes are differing filters,not a more complicated chemical "multi-phoric"mess that alot of scientists favor.To call one "albino"and another "hypomelanistic" is and always will be comparing apples to oranges.It is much more appropriate to call one gene A,another B,and the combined AB.....Another thing I wanted to bring up is that it IS more likely that a NEW gene would be found in already condensed genetics that is a morph line....The fact that what I think to be LAVENDER ALBINOs has occured within the HYPO line has been blurred.These "NEW" morphs may indeed be a single new gene,a MUTATED older gene,or even a possible combination of the 2.Only years and breeding trials will prove anything.It would be VERY interesting if we could prove ANY other type of gene....other than recessive ones.Jeff

http://forum.kingsnake.com/milk/messages/10680.html

Jeff,

I love exploring new concepts and seeking new ways to understand the things that happen with our animals. Your ideas may be new breakthrough insights. Unfortunately, they don't make sense to me. It's not that I can't agree with your conclusions, i really don't understand most of what you describe as the path that gets you to them. I'll confess the cause of my failure-to-follow-you may be my own ignorance. (Ego also requires that i admit i think you are just entertaining some unfounded speculation ) But the point is, you've raised ideas that challenge current genetic thought, and that requires thorough consideration. You could help ME a lot--i can't speak for others--if you'd explain further some of the basic concepts. I've tried to ask for that kind of help specifically, below:

>>I think it very important to simply consider all morphs a "form" of "albino".
this will require a LOT of explanation, since you've got to provide a foundation for this idea making sense. Let's consider all plant leaf colors a form of "brown", for example. Is this really a fruitful path of discovery? In humans, should all morphs--blond hair, blue eyes, olive skin, etc--be considered simply a "form" of albino (or any other single gene, for that matter? If not, that suggests the argument is flawed.

Perhaps you mean to limit your argument to COLOR morphs, and more specifically SKIN color morphs. If you mean skin color, I'll concede the hair & eye color examples in the previous paragraph are slightly less pertinent, but only slightly so, partly because I recall your arguments in the past have incorporated considerations of eye color .

>>...let me clarify:It is/was my opinion that chromataphoric expression was equating an equivalent with a filter over a light.....
"equating an equivalent"? ok, you admit this is just an opinion you have, please understand i'm not getting it, it's like talking greek, so you've gotta explain it and the filter-over-light idea in greater detail to help me keep up with you...

>>Differing genes are differing filters, not a more complicated chemical "multi-phoric"mess that alot of scientists favor.
What's your evidence for this? and dismissing the currently accepted explanation as a "mess a lot of scientists favor" isn't very persuasive! Again, help me understand: how exactly in the tissues of snakes do these filters work? There's a huge difference in your example of filters over lights, which may carry a full spectrum for example, and are radiating light and color, vs components of snake tissue which, for given species, may have the biological capability to produce only some, not all colors, colors which are deposited in the skin. Help me understand.

>>To call one "albino" and another "hypomelanistic" is and always will be comparing apples to oranges
I THINK i agree with you on this one. Bechtel's explanations, for example, would say that changes on different genes have produced animals that produce (or don't produce) certain colors, or in varying degrees, and that the resultant animals -- different genotypes -- LOOK different as well. So considering them apples and oranges makes sense to me. Just to help me understand, do you consider anerythristics as part of this same discussion, or ARE they something separate? Are you linking the amel and hypomel situation only because both involve melanin?

>>.It is much more appropriate to call one gene A,another B,and the combined AB.....
why? you lost me a long time ago, so help me get to the point this makes sense, even if i elect to disagree. And how do you reconcile the fact that hypo x albino (wouldn't that be A X B in your example) gives us normal-looking babies? How does that reconcile to your "combined AB"?

>>Another thing I wanted to bring up is that it IS more likely that a NEW gene would be found in already condensed genetics that is a morph line....
This might be a case of forming a hypothesis based on a flawed premise or assumption. What exactly do you mean by condensed genetics? And what's the foundation for your belief that a "morph line" is "condensed genetics"? An amelanistic honduran, for example, has no more condensed genetics than another honduran with wild type coloration but an expressed genetic trait for low triad count, or yellow instead of white in the narrow rings, etc. They both have the same number of genes. According to what i've read, one simply has a gene that has modified so that it switches on or off the production or utilization of chemicals in the body so that they no longer produce color the way they did before that gene expressed itself. I can't understand where you're coming from so i can't argue on this one with you, except to suggest it might be based on an erroneous concept.

>>The fact that what I think to be LAVENDER ALBINOs has occured within the HYPO line has been blurred.These "NEW" morphs may indeed be a single new gene,a MUTATED older gene,or even a possible combination of the 2.Only years and breeding trials will prove anything.
Gosh. It's hard just to think of the questions to ask! So you think a lavender albino has occurred within the hypo line. Of Hondurans, right? OK, please tell what you think is an example of a lavender albino. If i recall correctly, you were saying the "extreme" (then called supers) hypos were actually lavender albinos. There are two issues here, having to do with nomenclature:
1) if "albinos" are amelanistic, as is generally accepted, and if amelanistics are animals with no melanin, as is the general definition, then lavender albinos would have no melanin.
2) if melanin produces black and brown, and extreme hypos have the black rings reduced to a very light gray or tan, then some black or brown (melanin) is present.
So why call an animal with evidence of melanin "amelanistic"? I know you addressed this a year or two ago, i didn't understand it then, it would be useful if you'd explain again in this current thread.

>>It would be VERY interesting if we could prove ANY other type of gene....other than recessive ones.
jeff, you probably know i bred exotic birds, including color morphs, for 20 years. While I don't know of any dominant or sex-linked genetic traits in colubrids (that's not to say there aren't some) i think the boid people have a few examples, and there are certainly examples with birds, numerous examples. it's fair to consider those in exploring your concepts, isn't it? what sort of example of such genes with birds would be helpful to you in this discussion? or maybe someone else can provide boid examples. Better yet, don't forget that WILD TYPE is dominant to any of the recessive morphs of hondurans, so there's a dominant gene morph (wild type IS a phenotype) if such an example helps you explain your hypothesis.

So the discussion is launched again! Remember you started it I think if anyone argues current theory about our animals is flawed, they have two options, 1) just raising their concern, asking, "does that seem right?" but if they 2) put forth a new hypothesis as you have done, it needs to be vigorously challenged, and vigorously defended. If it can't be defended, it should be put to rest. Otherwise every conspiracy theory and alien abduction story will be repeated over and over.

Oh wait, that IS what happens, isn't it!

I look forward to more ideas.

Terry