 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Terry on July 24, 2002 at 18:31:19:
In Reply to: Bechtel on hypos posted by terry, albino tricolors on July 24, 2002 at 12:17:52:
kidding aside, he says they are hypomelanistic. He defines it the way we have been--reduced but SOME melanin. He doesn't extend it to "classic" albinos (see his book & he makes that distinction very clear). He says they range from the ALMOST classical albino (meaning very light but NOT amel) to nearly normal, which we've been saying.
I agree with all that, but i would disagree with him to argue that hypo phenotypes are no more variable than normals, though the range of colors might not be as obviouis in normals. (If he means instead that hypos of one species or subspecies often look quite diff than hypos of another species or ssp then i'd agree with him, but not find that surprising or contradictory to what we've been talking about: all "amels" might undergo roughly the same change because ALL black/melanin is being eliminated. But hypo is a reduction, so the degree of reduction can be (figuratively speaking) 50% in the hypo morph that occurs on one species or ssp, 10% on another and 90% on another, which he also alludes to). And although people might refer to yellow alibnos, or xanthic or red albinos, a) I don't know what those animals look like and b) if they are amelanistic, have no black/melanin, fine, they're albinos, and if they have any melanin they are not. Finally, in terms of predictability, I've seen at least 100 hypos, probably hundreds. I've talked to dozens of people ;who have bred them. I've hatched a bunch myself. And I've never gotten or heard about any results that didn't conform to expected simple recessive genetic expectations. that's pretty predictable. Zippity do-dah, end of story. LOL :)
