 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by rtdunham on August 06, 2002 at 14:34:36:
In Reply to: In response to the question about hypmelanism... posted by paalexan on August 03, 2002 at 20:59:59:
1. the term albino originated with mammals, which have only melanin pigment, so it wouldbn't surprise me if it's properly defined somewhere as "lacking melanin" which would make it synonymous with amelanistic. BUT what if it was defined instead as "lacking pigment"...equally correct for mammals, but having entirely different consequences if used with reptiles with multiple pigments. I suspect albino is defined both ways in different places, leaving us with the conundrum that albino mammals are "white" so we expect albino reptiles to be white, which may or may not be a correct conclusion.
2) "amelanistic" avoids ALL of that problem. So if we're seeking the terms that best communicate information, amelanistic is the only acceptable choice. imho.
3) by this same "use the best terminology" logic i like patrick's observation (NOT quoting here) that since hypomelanistic and amelanistic describe two different states, it would be ludicrous to argue for the use only of the more general (hypo) when properly used the two terms increase the commujnication of information. I think i was trying to make the same point on the milksnake forum but perhaps did not make it as clearly as patrick.
4) there's some discussion here of needing to establish "type a, typbe b, etc." to distinguish among different genetic characteristics that may have the same GENERAL effect on appearance. I have two thoughts:
a) you don't need to begin designating types b and c until more than the original occurs. I mean, isn't it a little ridiculous to call the first and presently only morph of a particular type "type a" ?
b) once a second type of similar consequence occurs, doesn't it make more sense to use a descriptive term to distinguish the two types, than to use "b" and "c"?
terry
