a couple observations

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ]

Posted by rtdunham on August 06, 2002 at 14:08:52:

In Reply to: Ah... and yet your meaning remains unclear... posted by paalexan on August 04, 2002 at 10:35:17:

patrick, i agree with you generally but do have a couple observations/questions that might make these dialogues as productive as possible.

You say, " An animal is albino if it has no pigment, as mentioned earlier. "

Dr Bechtel in his book on reptile variants makes the point you made about "albino" originating with mammals that have only melanin, while reptiles have other color-producing pigments as well. So with mammals, "albino" is synonymous with "amelanistic" whereas I don't think the terms are synonymous with reptiles. But i'm not sure of the validity of definitions relying on context.

My preference is to say amelanistic, and i believe albino is technically incorrect or at best imprecise or even misleading (for the various amelanistic milksnake or rat snake morphs). However, Dr. Bechtel seems to me to be tolerant of the use of albino for reptiles that are amelanistic. Read a few of the early chapters, where he addresses "albinism" and see if you don't get that same feeling. I don't like the usage, but his apparent endorsement certainly has its influence in wider usage.

In another place you lost me and I'd like you to straighten me out to what you're saying:

You said, " If anyone's calling a gene `hypo' or `albino', they're simply misusing the words. `Hypomelanism' and `albinism' are, as previously mentioned, descriptive of an animal's coloration (i.e. phenotype) and don't mean anything regarding an animal's genotype. `Hypomelanistic' simply isn't the name of a morph, nor, by its usual scientific use, can it be the name of a morph."

Here I have a question. What would ;you call the gene or the genotype for a snake that is phenotypically amelanistic? What better or more logical term than to say a snake is homozygous for amelanism, or is het for the gene for anerythrism, or whatever? these are morphs that influence appearance, so what better way to describe the gene than by a term descriptive of the change in appearance it brings about? You lose me a little with what you've said on this subject. (Unless you are very technically oriented and want a gene referred to as L471 or something, that would mean nothing to me nor to most other herpetoculturists). So, what's wrong with describing a snake GENETICALLY as a hypo or amel or whatever, to mean both that it is exhibiting that color change and that it (quite logically) has the genetic makeup that creates that appearance? Would we not say a human child inherited its parents' genes for blue eyes, or blond hair, or whatever? I feel like we're in that classic case of feeling different ends of the elephant and describing the same thing from different points of view.

I look forward to your reply and appreciate your contributions here.

peace
terry
albino tricolors
(yeah, isn't THAT name for my operation ironic!)
:

Follow Ups: