morph names and my opinions.

[nevinm]

I am not trying to start fights or arguments, I just want to get my opinion across with some of the names we have for our leos. so as all of you know I dabble a little with all the diff animals and as a general all the morph names stay the same across the boards. They use all the definitions in the same way. Argue with me or agree with me what ever you want, but I just want people to see where I have been coming from with some of my statements I have madein the past. Again these are just some of my own theories and ideas.

Ill start with the one I think is the most wrong. The blizzard. I DO believe the blizzards are leucistic. This is the definition of leucisim.

--A condition characterized by REDUCED pigmentation in animals. This results in either the entire surface or patches of body surface having a lack of cells capable of making pigment.

This means that even the piebald animals fall into a form of leucistic. This also explains those little spots and the yellow shades that they sometimes have. Lets not forget that we have line breed these animals to get more yellow.

--albinos typically have red eyes due to the underlying blood vessels showing through. In contrast, leucistic animals have normal, blue, or black colored eyes.

This explains the normal colored eyes in the “blizzards”.



The second one I’ll call out is the Mack snow. I do believe the Mack is actually a recessive, Anerythristic. Please read all of what I have to say before you jump to any conclusions.

--An animal lacking in all yellow, red, and brown pigment.

This explains the super snow. And I don’t think I need to go into any further explanation.

What I will give a good explanation to is why I have a theory the super snow is recessive. I’ll use the albino as a comparison. I would like to present the thought of the Mack snow as a visible het to the recessive super snow or as I would like to call it the anerythristic.

SS X SS = 100% SS
AB(albino) X AB = 100% AB

SS X MS = 50% SS, 50% MC
AB X HA (het albino) = 50% AB, 50% HA

MS X MS = 25% SS, 50% MS, 25% Nr (normal)
HA X HA = 25% AB, and the rest would only be possible het, and in theory would break down to the same percentage as the MS X MS. 50% HA, and 25% Normal

MS X Nr = 50% MS, 50% Nr
HA X Nr = all possible het, 50% HA, 50% Nr.

In theory this gives a perfect explanation.



Next lets analyze the snow and blizzard. The snow and blizzards are both combinations of the anerythristic and albino trait. This would mean that the super snow X albino combos would be the real snows and blizzards.



As for the co-dom trait, I to believe there are any true co-dominant traits in the leo world. By the definition you need to dominant traits to come together and make a new morph. Since there is only one dom triat (IE enigma) we can not have a co-dom trait. If we had another dom trait to mix with the enigma (Enigma X xtrait) we would get our co-dom leopard.



While I’m at it ill throw in the amelenistic AFT. There is nothing wrong with the name, but people refer to them at albino. The amel AFT has black eyes, not red eyes.


Argue with me all you want, these are just my theories and ideas based on my experience with other reptiles, and definitions pulled from the Funk & Wagner’s Encyclopedia.


Can’t wait for the fights
:main_lipsrsealed:nev:main_lipsrsealed:

 

[Halley]

I think the visual het of the super snow makes it co-dom :main_rolleyes:

Just look at the mack snow enigma, that’s obviously not a normal enigma…

 

[Okee Reps]

I would like to present the thought of the Mack snow as a visible het to the recessive super snow.........

I've secretly thought this for a long time.

Just look at the mack snow enigma, that’s obviously not a normal enigma…

While I will concede that I have seen some that look much different. I've produced some that are very normal looking.

 

[cassadaga]

I think Mack snows are more of an incomplete dominant than a codominant. The mack snows are definatly visual hets for the Super Snows, and the hets for Super Snow show a mix of normal and super snow traits. I would consider Super Snows to be an axanthic, though I guess it could be either.

As for fat-tails, they are amelanistic, and may not be truely albino, but then so are all three strains of "albino" leopard geckos. I think the term albino is used to make it easier to understand. Most people are more familiar with albino rats and other small mammals who lack pigment completely, but because they only produce melanin pigment in the first place. In the dictionary though albino is basically defined as a marked deficiency in pigment, or an inability to produce melanin. Though I always believed albinism was the inability to produce any pigment.

 

[eyelids]

I think Blizzards are co-dom... :main_lipsrsealed:

 

[KnECritters]

*hits head on wall* These morphs and such are kicking my butt...lol

 

[nevinm]

As for fat-tails, they are amelanistic, and may not be truely albino, but then so are all three strains of "albino" leopard geckos. I think the term albino is used to make it easier to understand. Most people are more familiar with albino rats and other small mammals who lack pigment completely, but because they only produce melanin pigment in the first place. In the dictionary though albino is basically defined as a marked deficiency in pigment, or an inability to produce melanin. Though I always believed albinism was the inability to produce any pigment.

the problem with what you are saying is that the leopard geckos are T+ albinos. they exist in most animals. the diff is the amel AFTS have normal looking eyes, where as the T+ albino leopard geckos do not have normal eyes

 

[nevinm]

I think the visual het of the super snow makes it co-dom

nick this doesnt make sence. you might as well start adding things just for the hell of it. if it is a visual het that makes the end animal a ressecive trait

 

[Halley]

nick this doesnt make sence. you might as well start adding things just for the hell of it. if it is a visual het that makes the end animal a ressecive trait

I’m saying if it has a mack snow as the visual het, which is obviously a mixture of the super snow and normal appearance, then it has to be co-dominate

 

[Retribution Reptiles]

I was following all the way up to the T's, that's where i got lost. Time to go pull out the old Genetics for Herpers book and see what this is all about. grrrrrr.

 

[nevinm]

I’m saying if it has a mack snow as the visual het, which is obviously a mixture of the super snow and normal appearance, then it has to be co-dominate

that would not make it co dom. because the mack snow wouldnt be anything more than a het. because mack snow is not dom to begin with. ill say what i said above, you need 2 dom traits, we only have one the enigma. there are no other dom traits. co means working together. dom means dominaint trait. so you would need to dom traits working together. that is the oposite of what i am saying aobut the mack snow being a visable het.

 

[Ian S.]

There are no other dom traits.

We see them all the time and call them normals, classics, wild types.( I know I sound like a wise guy) but it's true.

 

[nevinm]

we arent talking about normals. this whole thing is about none normal traits.

 

[Ian S.]

I'm with ya on the leucism thing but blizzards are recessive. Xanthics and anery's have not hatched super forms or visual hets in both corns and balls. Therefore leaving something out of the equation is just as detrimental. (mack super snow)
snow corns & snow balls are from two recessives. Xanthic x albino or albino x anery.

 

[nevinm]

i get what your saying ian, but just because it hasent been done in the corns and balls doesnt mean its possable. im going by strait deffinition of the animal. im mean technicly speeking, the super snow could also be a piebald animal. im leaning more twards anery though. and again, these are just theories that i have come up with that i think make sense.

 

[crotaphytidae]

Nevin your are 100% right the Mack snows are not co-dominant they are actually Incomplete Dominant. The difference is this if they were co-dom with normal they would show both normal and snow look in blotches, whereas them being Incomplete Dominant they show an intermediate form of the normal looking animals and the super snow, They blend. Lets say you have two flowers one Red and One white and they are from the same species well if they were codom the respective offspring would be red and white in pieces. A white flower with red spots or vice versa. Now if those same flowers were Incomplete Dominant then their respective offspring would be pink. It is the same with the mack snow gene in Leos the way the gene behaves is text book Incomplete Dominance with a blending of the normal and mack phenotypes.

 

[nevinm]

ramsey, i know exactly what you are saying, and that is the kind of response im looking for from people. i do believe that it is eather a visable het or more likely an incompleat dom. i do still believe no matter what any one has to say, that by the deffinition the SS is a form and anery

 

[acpart]

We have, as a group, been back and forth in the past about whether Mack snow is co-dom or incomplete dom. This has been an interesting thread. A couple of questions:

--Is there any difference between "incomplete dominance" and "visible het"?

--Are there any other examples of visible het and could these be considered incomplete dominance as well?

--can one really call Mack snow/super snow "recessive" when there are 3 levels of outcome (normal, snow, super snow) rather than 2 as in tremper/normal?

I think these 3 questions are really the same question, just worded 3 different ways.

Aliza

 

[nevinm]

there is a diff between them, and no there are not any other examples. not off the top of my head

alize go back and look at the original post. that explains that there arent just 2 levels when i compaired the snow to the tremper.

 

[ariana]

oh my..
i think i liked it better when i had no idea what morphs were which....
my small brain IS NOT comprehending this AT ALL!!!
ouch..my head hurts now.