 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by paalexan on August 05, 2002 at 22:02:00:
In Reply to: PINK eyes dont define Albinism posted by jeff schofield on August 05, 2002 at 20:30:59:
:Patrick, so I take it that your claim of "HYPO" has to do with a "standard" definition and the fact that albinos have PINK eyes?
Well, an amelanistic snake has no melanin, and melanin is responsible for dark eye coloring, so under the only definition of `amelanism' I know of, amelanistics must have pink eyes.
: I think it unusual that these hatchlings DO have some pink in the eye.
If a snake has less melanin than normal, it'll have pinker eyes than normal... hence hypomelanistics have pinker eyes than usual, but not so pink as amelanistics...
: Maybe its not "classic" amelanism, but I dont think albinos HAVE to fit the standard.
As it is, we've got a term for snakes that completely lack melanin, and a term for snakes that have some melanin, but less than usual. What would be gained by muddying the waters by saying that amelanistics don't have to lack melanin? Then we wouldn't have a term for a snake that completely lacks melanin, and we'd just have to make a new one in order to talk in a useful way about them.
: And how do you account for the black rats that Dwight Good found/posted here last year that were albino with BLACK eyes?
I'm not familiar with the snakes you're referring to, but if they had black eyes, they weren't albinos... that's just the way the definition works.
: Further, by placing a relatively arbatrary name like "HYPO" on the morph opens it to scrutiny.
What's arbitrary about `hypomelanistic'?
Patrick Alexander
