N
Nigel4less
Guest
Halley said:
Actually Blizzards were white when they were first released.
True Leucisitc leopard gecko
- Thread starter Halley
- Start date
Actually Blizzards were white when they were first released.
Paulh explained it well.
Because the red color DOESN'T come from the eclipse gene :main_rolleyes: The Diablo Blancos are blizzard, eclipse, and albino. The solid eyes come from the eclipse, but the red color comes from the albinism.
In the end, all this words (albinism, leucism, etc) have really vague definitions and most of the time relate to a resulting phenotype and not really to the genotype, so we can't say "If it affects this gene, it's this. If not, it isn't".
An "albino" is an animal lacking melanine and a "leucistic" is an animal lacking all skin pigments. But T+ albinos don't truly lack all melanine, just have some inhibition to produce it and resemble the definition of "albino". Since albinism is a well known mutation, we have have bothered to define different types of albinism and all. I think that different types of leucism could be defined as well and that the blizzard could be one.
In the end, it's a matter of opinion: if you think that a leucistic must lack all skin pigment, then the blizzard isn't one; if you think that it's enough if it lacks most of it, then it could be. Some people don't even think a leucistic can be considered as such unless it has blue eyes (I don't know why is that).
Since we are talking about looks, it's irrelevant if the mutation is recessive or dominant. I guess an animal lacking melanine would be called an albino even if it was a result of a dominant mutation.
However, I would refuse to call albino an animal lacking black pigment because of line breeding (not that it can be done, anyway), as well as I wouldn't call leucistic an animal that lacks all pigments because of mutation combos (such as a Super Snow Patternless). I'm quite flexible on what I would consider an albino or a leucistic, but it should be the result of a single mutation.
Long post
Edited: After thinking a bit about my last comment, I realize that people do quite often call with the 'scientific name' different line-bred traits, such as hypomelanistic or hyperxantic. If it depended on me they would just be called "normals with reduced spotting" and "normals with enhanced yellow coloration". But well, more reason for me to think that these terms only refer to looks and not really genetics.
LeopardLunatic said:
Because the red color DOESN'T come from the eclipse gene :main_rolleyes: The Diablo Blancos are blizzard, eclipse, and albino. The solid eyes come from the eclipse, but the red color comes from the albinism.
In the end, all this words (albinism, leucism, etc) have really vague definitions and most of the time relate to a resulting phenotype and not really to the genotype, so we can't say "If it affects this gene, it's this. If not, it isn't".
An "albino" is an animal lacking melanine and a "leucistic" is an animal lacking all skin pigments. But T+ albinos don't truly lack all melanine, just have some inhibition to produce it and resemble the definition of "albino". Since albinism is a well known mutation, we have have bothered to define different types of albinism and all. I think that different types of leucism could be defined as well and that the blizzard could be one.
In the end, it's a matter of opinion: if you think that a leucistic must lack all skin pigment, then the blizzard isn't one; if you think that it's enough if it lacks most of it, then it could be. Some people don't even think a leucistic can be considered as such unless it has blue eyes (I don't know why is that).
Since we are talking about looks, it's irrelevant if the mutation is recessive or dominant. I guess an animal lacking melanine would be called an albino even if it was a result of a dominant mutation.
However, I would refuse to call albino an animal lacking black pigment because of line breeding (not that it can be done, anyway), as well as I wouldn't call leucistic an animal that lacks all pigments because of mutation combos (such as a Super Snow Patternless). I'm quite flexible on what I would consider an albino or a leucistic, but it should be the result of a single mutation.
Long post
Edited: After thinking a bit about my last comment, I realize that people do quite often call with the 'scientific name' different line-bred traits, such as hypomelanistic or hyperxantic. If it depended on me they would just be called "normals with reduced spotting" and "normals with enhanced yellow coloration". But well, more reason for me to think that these terms only refer to looks and not really genetics.
Last edited:
Visit our friends
