 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by TravisG on March 03, 2003 at 22:56:39:
In Reply to: Monty Python..... what other reason do you need? posted by KJUN on March 02, 2003 at 06:47:54:
Ok, I see your point. Actually its a good one and I could agree with it. I have actually answered other posts, most recently in the corn forum, stating that albino and amel were synonomous in the herp world. Anyone know what albino says in the dictionary? I need to get a dictionary and look it up, I was under the impression that albino meant lack of any color. Regardless a red and yellow snake (maybe a little grey or black) couldnt possibly be albino without being amel.
:I disagree on the amel/albino argument. Albino was a term designed for amelanistic mammals. (Remember that since mammals only have one pigment (melanin), they are solid white with pink eyes). So, in mammals, an albino and an amelanistic animal means exactly the same thing.
:If you transfer it over to herps in that smae manner (e.g., albino and amelanistic being synonyms), then you must admit that an amelanistic snake IS an albino snake. That's the way the word was intended IMO. Oh, I agree that some people could claim that the word was intended to refer to the phenotype (white with red eyes) and not the molecular composition of the animal and have a pretty valid argument. However, to me, that's equivalant to calling any animal that LOOKS like a cornsnake a cornsake regarldless of if it has emoryi or getual or whatever genes in it. Phenotype is just too imperfect for me.
:I caqn see the flipside, but I can't agree with it. Guess I should just stay with mammals where these types of confusions aren't possible...lol.
:KJ
