Re: WS glades rat (pic)

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

Posted by KJ on August 24, 1999 at 12:41:10:

In Reply to: Re: WS glades rat (pic) posted by Tom Carpenter on August 24, 1999 at 07:45:40:

: : : With so many different snakes having proved that "white sided" is a simple recessive mutation

: : My Grandma can cook, Kasi's grandma can cook, let's assume Dwight's grandma can cook, but does than mean that you grandma can cook just as good, TC?

: There exists now and have been in the past several snakes from several genera that are fine examples of the trait now coined white-sided (remember the "partial leucistics"?).

I've often wondered why piebalds weren't considered "partial leucistics."

: The point I was trying to make is that with so many snakes from so many differnt genera having demonstrated this trait, why would someone be so quick to insist that the white sided glades rat is not the very same thing when they have no evidence to the contrary. Which is the greater stroke of arrogance, to insist it is, or to insist it isn't when someone else claims it is?

TC, the answer to that is simple: money. However, my point is unrelated to that. What I am asking is simple: would you rather err on the side of conservation or not?

: As for the analogous relationship between your granny and the argument over white sided glades, you picked a poor analogy. It's relevance is entirely lost on me.

I geuss you did. Get what you want out of it. I won't rehash it.

: : If looks proved everything, then south Texas emoryi would be a simple recessive aner and central LA corms could be a simple recessiver hypermelanistic corns. "As it was in the beginning, is, and forever shall be" is not only a misquote, but is not a fact in genetics.

:
: Where in my post did I state that "it looks like it so it must be"? Where did I state that because other snakes looking like that were simple homozygous white sided animals that these indeed were based on that alone?

When did I say that you did say that? (If I did, then it was not what I meant to say.) I was just implying WHY I wouldn't believe something to be genetic based on looks alone before anyone ELSE tried that crappy "logic." It tends to be a common rebuttal I hear -- even though it is unjustified.

: : However, if dg shows me a trait that has been proven to be simple recessive trait, I will believe him wholeheartedly.

: : KJ

:
: Kinda makes on wonder why you even posted then, to point out an mistake in my post that wasn't there?

But the mistake was there. I'm not arguing with DG -- I just put that there so that nobody thought I was. I currently no of NO reason to doubt him.

However, I did not say I would trust anyone blindly. Until I hear the evidence used to determine if it was genetic or not, I won't trust anything blindly. "Spoonfeeding does nothing but teaches us the shape of the spoon."

So, instead of starting a piss war between us or DG and the possibly rude breeder who calls him a lair (and if it is the guy I'm starting to think it is, I have no use for him anyway!), just have DG post the data used to "prove" it was "genetic." That data should be readily available with no problems of dispersal.

At that point it's a discussion over "Does that define 'gentic' by our usage of the word or not?" Or maybe an argument over the possibility of the data being faked, but I seriously doubt if any well-known breeder will post false data JUST to support his theory that he can later be proved wrong on.

Follow Ups:

KJ, dg 8/24/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : With so many different snakes having proved that "white sided" is a simple recessive mutation : : : My Grandma can cook, Kasi's grandma can cook, let's assume Dwight's grandma can cook, but does than mean that you grandma can cook just as good, TC? : : There exists now and have been in the past several snakes from several genera that are fine examples of the trait now coined white-sided (remember the "partial leucistics"?). : I've often wondered why piebalds weren't considered "partial leucistics." : : The point I was trying to make is that with so many snakes from so many differnt genera having demonstrated this trait, why would someone be so quick to insist that the white sided glades rat is not the very same thing when they have no evidence to the contrary. Which is the greater stroke of arrogance, to insist it is, or to insist it isn't when someone else claims it is? : TC, the answer to that is simple: money. However, my point is unrelated to that. What I am asking is simple: would you rather err on the side of conservation or not? : : As for the analogous relationship between your granny and the argument over white sided glades, you picked a poor analogy. It's relevance is entirely lost on me. : I geuss you did. Get what you want out of it. I won't rehash it. : : : If looks proved everything, then south Texas emoryi would be a simple recessive aner and central LA corms could be a simple recessiver hypermelanistic corns. "As it was in the beginning, is, and forever shall be" is not only a misquote, but is not a fact in genetics. : : : : Where in my post did I state that "it looks like it so it must be"? Where did I state that because other snakes looking like that were simple homozygous white sided animals that these indeed were based on that alone? : When did I say that you did say that? (If I did, then it was not what I meant to say.) I was just implying WHY I wouldn't believe something to be genetic based on looks alone before anyone ELSE tried that crappy "logic." It tends to be a common rebuttal I hear -- even though it is unjustified. : : : However, if dg shows me a trait that has been proven to be simple recessive trait, I will believe him wholeheartedly. : : : KJ : : : : Kinda makes on wonder why you even posted then, to point out an mistake in my post that wasn't there? : But the mistake was there. I'm not arguing with DG -- I just put that there so that nobody thought I was. I currently no of NO reason to doubt him. : However, I did not say I would trust anyone blindly. Until I hear the evidence used to determine if it was genetic or not, I won't trust anything blindly. "Spoonfeeding does nothing but teaches us the shape of the spoon." : So, instead of starting a piss war between us or DG and the possibly rude breeder who calls him a lair (and if it is the guy I'm starting to think it is, I have no use for him anyway!), just have DG post the data used to "prove" it was "genetic." That data should be readily available with no problems of dispersal. : At that point it's a discussion over "Does that define 'gentic' by our usage of the word or not?" Or maybe an argument over the possibility of the data being faked, but I seriously doubt if any well-known breeder will post false data JUST to support his theory that he can later be proved wrong on. : KJ

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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