>>Why conclude that's a myth?
>>
>>If it lacks erythrins it's anerythristic, right? Who's to say whether a million years ago (hypothetically, of course!) there were cal kings with red in their normal coloration--maybe their white rings were orange then, or red--and then an anerythristic mutation occurred. If it was a recessive trait, then it wouldn't get the traction to displace the normal phenotype, but it would persist, usually hidden, as is the case today with splendida or hondurensis (ok, those are hypoerythristic, but you get the point). But if it were a dominant trait, the "anerythristics" would eventually displace the "normal" or wild type. If it were a more recent mutation event, the hyperrythristic, or whatever it would be called, trait would persist in hidden fashion as gets, like the anery splendida. But if it happened very early in the subspecies' evolution, it could have been eliminated. I think when we argue that wild-type snakes that lack red pigment aren't anerythristic, we're being shortsighted. I might be off on a few of the details here, but I think the concept is valid.


Terry....as I once stated....I agree with all that and it is certainly a possibility, but you know as well as I.......Rainer just doesn't think that way......LOL

BTW.....I think the black and white or blue Splendida are Axanthic......not Anery....hehe
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

[ Show Entire Thread ]