Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Jeff,

I think i remember our discussions a year or so ago boiling down to whether it was more appropriate to call all hypo & albino morphs "albino" or whether it made more sense, given your issue that both deal with reduced levels of melanin, to call all hypo & albino morphs "hypos".

I argued: "hypo"melanistic means reduced melanin; "a"melanistic means no melanin.

It can be argued that an amelanistic animal has reduced melanin (yeah, it's totally reduced) but that it can't be argued that a hypo has no melanin.

To me, this puts the "call them all albinos" argument to rest.

It then makes MORE sense to have two terms, describing two different effects & appearances, which gives us more specificity, than one which is overly broad and not as descriptive. (In other words, it makes sense to distinguish hypos and albinos).

That, I think, is where i ended up after long, long discussions a long time ago. So people, jeff especially, throw your darts!

terry

note the above deals only with terminology, not with the biological concepts jeff raised in the thread below.

For those who care, the link below includes jeff's most recent post on the subject and my requests for more info and explanation.
click here for discussion of biological theories

With the current scientific descriptions I can see how someone could argue some of the "hypos" could be classified as "albinos", (not "amels". It seems the two (albinos,hypos)overlap each other in terms of their description, similar to sinaloa and nelsoni in regards to ring counts.

They would have to more clearly define the two (albinos, hypos)with sound scientific evidence for me to change the current accepted classification.

Hopefully the appropriate ones determining these classifications will look more closley at them in the future and put this debate to rest.

Until then, I will continue to call true "amels" albinos and the so-called "hypos", hypos. At this point, I feel calling some of these so-called "hypos" albinos would only add to the confusion.

Tad Fitzgerald

>>Until then, I will continue to call true "amels" albinos and the so-called "hypos", hypos. At this point, I feel calling some of these so-called "hypos" albinos would only add to the confusion.
============
Hi Tad,

I couldn't agree more. just out of curiosity, is there an albino definition out there other than one that's synonymous with amelanism?

td

Terry,

I must admit I was reaching when I came up with that but was trying to play the "devils advocate". I had read all the prevous posts and for the most part couldn't understand what Jeff was talking about. So I got Betchels book out and re-read the descriptions on the subject. Still confused on how you could call a "hypo" an albino I read the simple definitions in the glossary and it occured to me how someone might interpet it that way.

These are the definitions I'm refurring to: "albino-absent or deficient melanin, amelanistic-containing no melanin, hypo-decreased black and brown melanin".

The amelanistic definition is quite clear, while you could argue that a hypo does has deficient melanin therefore could be classified as an albino? I could be totaly ignorant and missing the whole point but honestly can't think of another theary that makes any sense.

Jeff,
Please elaborate more as I would also like to understand how you are coming to your conclusions.

Tad

Terry,quickly and simply I was just trying to prod others to open the morph discussion.Although it was aimed at what I still think to be a "lavender albino"/"extreme hypo"....I also tried to incorperate the obvious(to me anyways,lol)discrepancies in the nomenclature.That is NOT to say that any "marketing name"cant or shouldnt stick,just that I think it appropriate that we THINK these genes being "even".Further,I think it may be about time that we can get some MEANINGFUL numbers out of the ratios that occur:#1 the ratio of a morph occuring within any captive collection....and comparing that with the ratio of ADDITIONAL morphs popping up within morph lines.From these numbers we can see exactly how closely related a single species is in captivity(accounting for wc's as well)almost to a predictable point.I better post quickly before I get kicked off again,please follow,but understand the context.Thanks,Jeff

>>Terry,quickly and simply I was just trying to prod others to open the morph discussion.
can't quarrel with that, i guess. but how, and what we discuss...
>>Although it was aimed at what I still think to be a "lavender albino"/"extreme hypo"....
then let's pursue that. you've thrown that out before but i still don't understand the argument you're making...again, unless you're just calling a hypo an albino on an isolated definition not in accord with the broader use of the words. I enjoy focusing on the issue, so it's important i figure out what the issue is.
>>I also tried to incorperate the obvious(to me anyways,lol)discrepancies in the nomenclature.
that's always worthwhile.
>>That is NOT to say that any "marketing name"cant or shouldnt stick
i agree that we should stop saying albino and start saying amelanistic, but boy, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the effort wins much support
>>,just that I think it appropriate that we THINK these genes being "even".
have no idea what you mean by that. if you mean thinking that hypo and albino (or amel?) are "equal," then a) i have no idea what "equal" means--the same? different but equivalent--i mean they're both recessive, so they're equivalent in that way? and b) it's not appropriate to think of them as "even" or equal or whatever your intent is UNLESS THEY ARE, and that's what my questions are aimed at determining...so far, i haven't seen anything to suggest they're the same.
>>Further,I think it may be about time that we can get some MEANINGFUL numbers out of the ratios that occur:#1 the ratio of a morph occuring within any captive collection....and comparing that with the ratio of ADDITIONAL morphs popping up within morph lines.From these numbers we can see exactly how closely related a single species is in captivity(accounting for wc's as well)almost to a predictable point.
in the absence of numbers, is there even anecdotal information that persuades you that a new morph is likely to occur in a line that's already expressing a morph? maybe that's the crux of it, either you know something i don't or might be interpreting some results differently than i would?
terry

Tad,

yeah, i see what you mean. sounds to me like an inadvertent definition for albino in the bechtel book. it happens. or maybe there's some reason he couches it that way. i'll try to dig deeper.

Webster's isn't much help, simply defining albino as "lacking normal coloration"--heck, in that sense, lacking RED could make a tricolor an albino.

terry

First of all let me say that much of these questions are answered on a very technical scientific playing field. I think we are all on the same page when it comes to Amels in that they lack ALL melanin and where the black or brown pigment would be in a wild type animal we see white and the animal also expresses red eyes. The production of melanin is catalyzed by an enzyme called tyrosinase. I also think it has been determined that Amels lack this enzyme and therefore melanin is not produced or present in the animal. Now this is were the sticky part starts and I am in no way saying this is the gospel truth but just some of my understanding from reading about the tyrosinase enzyme. With hypo animals it seems that the catalytic workings of tyrosinase is somehow blocked or its completion of melanin production shortened. We therefore see an incomplete colored animal and depending on the level of completed catalyzation we may even see the red eyes show up that are normally associated with Amel animals. Really the eyes start red and the melanin is developed later in development?? In other words the tyrosinase never gets to the point were it adds melanin to the eye region. And so forth and so on with the variations of hypo animals. Then thru selective breeding we are able to pair up genes in similiar stages of melanin production. Animals like the "super hypos" are possibly a result of finally pairing the cleanest similiar mutant genes with incomplete melanin production. I think it is just a matter of everyone getting on the same nomenclature path. Amel is what we would call T- or tyrosinase minus. T or tyrosinase positive will produce an animal that has some melanin but I feel that T albino is not a good term and it seems that was picked up because of the red eyes or from the websters definition of albino saying an organism with deficient pigmentation. Anyway I have gone too long already and this is a tough subject to talk about in this setting. It would be easier to sit around the table and brainstorm and let everyone interject their knowledge on the subject. Lots still to be discovered and that is what drives us! Thanks for listening and comments welcomed.

Matt Woodhall

My opinion is until the animal expresses all the accepted 'amel" traits (pink eyes, pink tongue, absent melanin) it would add confusion to re-classify them. It's certainly an interesting topic to ponder though, and I understand the line of thinking.

Tad

And I agree! I think they would be better classified as T hypos or hypo tyrosinase of T deficient hypos--just not as catchy. Technically any animal that has melanin is T or there would be NO black or brown color. Whay is wrong with good old HYPO anyway? We have Type A and Type B Anery animals why is it so out of the question to think about differant hypo lines??

Yes, I think calling them t-hypos would be more accurate than t-abinos. I also thought "extreme hypos" was a good choice from a marketing perspective. It seperates them from the other hypo strains and also some what describes them.

Tad

is lost.Same for the "hypomelanistic"morph.I mean why cant we have a more descriptive term than basically "reduced black"or the marketing wizard's"extreme!!!"?? I think that an anomaly is an anomaly and that calling any single anomaly"albino"because it fits a "classic description"is just as wrong as calling a strangely patterned or pigmented snake "hypo".I think the fall back for naming a morph should be to that ORIGINAL description(like the oldest description of species or ssp.named)and that for all intents and purposes that there may not be much difference between the lavender albino cal/speckled/brooksi kings and that honduran milk.Allelic hybrids have been recorded and when(or if)another species/ssp.of lavender albinos are crossed what will the consensus be then?? I think we can agree that there are several different genes that can change the same colors/patterns on colubrids.Is one "albino"ever "more classic"than another?Why is it easier for others to think these "HYPO-2's"than "lav.albino-1's"?Just because they came from the "hypo"line??Without them having gone through ANY breeding trials who is to say that this "new morph"isnt a combination of 2 others?I just dont like to see the horse leave the barn too early here as we now know that NAMING a new morph is a "big deal",and once named they arent easily changed!Lets wait and get it right the first time,what do you say??Jeff

>>calling any single anomaly"albino"because it fits a "classic description"is just as wrong as calling a strangely patterned or pigmented snake "hypo".

but Jeff, what about calling it amelanistic if (or because) it lacks melanin so IS melanistic? what's inappropriate about calling a snake what it IS? or calling a snake that visually exhibits reduced melanin "hypomelanistic"? same logic. pls explain again (better?) why you think that's not appropriate.

>>I think the fall back for naming a morph should be to that ORIGINAL description (like the oldest description of species or ssp.named)

you are such a traditionalist! so we should call the black rat snake the "pilot" rat snake, because that name was used earlier, even though the current nomenclature uses a system that better distinguishes it, the black rat snake, from related subspecies ("yellow rat snake" and species ("red rat snake" ? if "albino" was used first to describe mammals, which have only melanin pigment so when lacking it are lacking all colors, must we continue using "albino" instead of amelanistic to describe an animal lacking only melanin but not other pigments, as is the case with amelanistic tricolors, for example? these two examples seem to be consistent with your argument but yield unwieldy or inferior results, imho.

>>Why is it easier for others to think these "HYPO-2's"than "lav.albino-1's"?Just because they came from the "hypo"line??

isn't that an incorrect assumption, jeff: I mean, aren't people calling them hypos because they exhibit reduced ("hypo" melanin, NOT because what line they came from?

>>Without them having gone through ANY breeding trials who is to say that this "new morph"isnt a combination of 2 others?I just dont like to see the horse leave the barn too early

HERE I AGREE WITH YOU, pardon the caps. A morph shouldn't be officially named until it has been demonstrated to be different from existing morphs. Last year only one baby was produced from extreme hypo x extreme hypo, so it appears to be a recessive morph. But it won't be until we see some results of pairings this year, of super x "regular" hypo, for example, that we'll know whether it's truly recessive or not, whether it's a different allele from the "regular" hypo, etc. So I agree we should consider the term "extreme hypo" to merely be a working term to describe animals that look different at the moment, but only a PROPOSED name for them until they are demonstrated to be a diff gene. If it turns out they are merely points on a continuum, from light hypos to dark hypos, all produced from the same gene, then we'll have a different "naming" challenge on our hands.

terry

don't read anything else into them.
td

I follow the line of thinking that it may be complicated to define precisely 100% if in fact we are looking at an example of hypomelanism or albinism, but what is the point?

If in fact we are not sure wouldn't it be MORE resposible to continue to use the current nomenclature until we ARE sure?

Honestly, everyone may have their opinions or theorys but we need to look at the current facts regarding this and represent our animals as such.

If you are arguing that in spite of these current facts we are still misrepresenting them, I can't understand that. Maybe that's the part I'm missing? Please explain further and try and use more simple explanations so I can more easily follow along.

Tad

First,without using the term amelanism,I believe there to be MORE than 1 type of albino(more than 1 code involved).From THAT theory "true albinos"cannot really exist...there cannot be one that is "more" albino than another.Second,the suggestion was that this 2nd(potentially)gene is in fact a lavender albino and not a 2nd type of HYPO.I think that gene and anomaly is equivalent to other morphs in other LAMP ssp(fl king,spec king,cal king,etc).If you agree,then the naming of the gene falls back to the first naming of the gene....not of the gene appearing in a different ssp..I mean with all the hoopla and impossibility of renaming all "improper"genes now known to the marketing in the hobby...it would make the most sense from my point of view to be cautious and not jump to conclusions.MAYBE that is not a single gene but a double-hypo of some kind....only breeding trials will prove any of this.
Bottom line,why on earth would every other colubrid with a similar gene be called a lavender albino and this one called "extreme" or anything else?? I think the only reason is that some people dont accept it as a "classic"lavender albino either--but this will only go to show that there can be more than 1 type of LAV albino as well!! Do you now appreciate my arguement?? Jeff

Do you have or know where I can view any pics of Hypos with Pink eyes like Amels have? I have never seen any. For me, this debate is interesting but the "extreme" snake is extremely orange and this is why I will refer to it is a Hypo, for now anyways. When I try to imagine a Lavender Albino Honduran I visualise a snake with banding that is wide, and purple. Not a snake resembling Hypos with a little Purple on it. If there's some scientific reasoning for the snake to be called Albino my bet says they will still be called Hypos by hobbyists. A good example is how many people actually call the Anerys Hypo-Erythristic? I think if the extreme snake had pink eyes like Amels, it would be easier to grasp the concept of it being an Amel/Albino. Tom