leucistity...little help please

Same thing with tyrosine.

You know, it just occured to me that you didn't actually write "Tyrosinase", I just assumed it was what you meant based off the direction the discussion had been going...

Did you mean that you don't believe in the existance of actual Tyrosine, the synthesized, non-essential ammino acid used to strengthen the function of nerve cells?

Most gene mapping has been done in mice and humans. I'm not saying that the same rules don't apply to reptiles, I'm just saying that there is no reason to assume that they do. Genetic studies in snakes have been based on phenotypes not genotypes and most have been done by hobbyists in a less than scientific way.

Oh and your right I didn't tyrosine. And I am not questioning the existence of anything. Simma down now.

What I meant to say was that I didn't mean tyrosine. You're getting me all flustered.

I'm not saying that the same rules don't apply to reptiles, I'm just saying that there is no reason to assume that they do.

Since Mammals don't have xanthin or the ability to produce it and the word was coined specifically for use in non-mammilian animals... Using the lack of genetic studies done doesn't apply in this instance.

The fact remains that there is SOME form of yellow pigment and associated cells for producing it and the term applies since it was used specifically to describe it...

And axanthic is not the same as anery, they are different terms used to describe different conditions. There really is no reasonable debate about this subject since it's a discussion about a condition that exists in a closed system and the terms are easily defined.

As to flustered... No offense intended here but... Good. It means I'm presenting a strong argument for my end of what has apparantly become a debate.

I'm gonna have to throw the towel in on this one. I was kind of talking out of my uh...ear in hopes of getting someone's attention. I'm not sure if I believe your definition of axanthis since you didn't site a source but you seem to know what you are talking about. For the record though:

Thetre is a method of debate that works on lowering the confidence of your opponent by easily dismissing their arguments in a condescending way. This is a very effective method and one that I certainly used to use myself. However effective is not synonymous with ethical or even polite. You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge to share. Don't spoil it by shareing it in a condescending way.

P. S. I'm not saying your posts were rude necessarily but they were getting pretty close to the border. I am certainly not offended but I think if you communicated with some others it would quickly have started a childish fight. Thanks for the input.

I'm not sure if I believe your definition of axanthis since you didn't site a source but you seem to know what you are talking about.

Please feel free to verify anything I say with whatever additional sources you like, I'm nowhere even close to being an authority and I do make mistakes as well as word things very badly which can lead to confusion with regards to my meaning. There are several examples of it on these very boards.

If you find a credible source that will make the contention that xanthin is responsible for red coloring in reptiles, I'd love to see it.

Thetre is a method of debate that works on lowering the confidence of your opponent by easily dismissing their arguments in a condescending way.

They were dismissed because I disagreed and I "Know" (lets not get into the validity of universal truths) that they were incorrect. If someone claimed that heloderms were really an amphibian and what we knew was just the larval stage and they eventually grew wings and turned into red tailed hawks... would you give credence to their arguments? Of course not... because you "know" they are incorrect. I said nothing insulting to you and if you found my statements condescending, it was merely your own perception, the statements I made were without bias and were mere presentation of facts as I understand them.

You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge to share. Don't spoil it by shareing it in a condescending way.

See above...

I'm not saying your posts were rude necessarily but they were getting pretty close to the border.

I never once insulted anyone or insinuated insult or slight, I fail to see how they were even approaching "rude"... If making a statement that something that has been said is incorrect and then supplying the correct information is "rude", then so be it I guess. I will admit that I am not inclined to baby anyone through a concept nor am I particularly sympathetic to anyone who chooses to argue with me when I am clearly in the right, my frank manner of addressing issues does not constitute "rude" however.

Now... if I had responded with something akin to "What are you, stupid?! That ain't right! And the horse you rode in on!" I could see you finding me less than polite... But I did not and will not conduct myself in such a manner and I'm a bit perturbed that I am being accused of antagonistic posts merely because you attributed meaning to them that wasn't there.

I think if you communicated with some others it would quickly have started a childish fight

Ah yes, those playground fights of my youth... Arguing over the origination and use of terms to describe reptile coloration until someone gets shoved into a mud puddle with leaves stuffed down their shirt and gravel rubbed into their hair...

Then after lunch underneath the slide, we'd get into terrible fights over the validity of taxonomic changes until someone ended up in the nurse's office with bite marks.

And the moral debates over hybridization out by the bike rack that quickly devolved into a brawl over the basic concept of darwinistic evolution until someone's shirt got ripped and their mother had to write a nasty note to the school demanding we be supervised.

Sorry didn't mean to falsly accuse. You seem pretty civilized. Here's a quote you might be able to relate to.

"I wouldn't argue with you if I wasn't right."

BTW cool name. I used to have a dog named Seamus. Don't take offence to that, I loved that dog more than I love my mother.

Uh oh, I think this might be an off-topic post. Ummmmm........
So anyway, you never did state an opinion on my "leucistic" theory. Unless I missed it. Whatcha think?

So anyway, you never did state an opinion on my "leucistic" theory. Unless I missed it. Whatcha think?

Well... Leucistic just means "White" and the reasons for the patterning can vary from species to species or even, theoretically individuals of the same species... It's also thrown around a lot when other terms don't really apply properly. Out of the color and pattern terms for herps, it's one of the ones with the poorest application to the displayed trait.

I do sort of question the likelyhood of the animals being axanthic, amelanistic and anery all together though, especially with the descriptions given for how the breedings work out, if it were really a combination of three reccessive traits, crossing the offspring would result in all sorts of heterozygous animals and those displaying just some or one of the traits that would combine to form that all white patternless "leucistic."

What seems most likely is that there is a mutation that has an effect on all pigment producing cells, which would apply to all of the above traits with a single recessive gene... The reasons for an animal to appear amelanistic or axanthic can vary from species to species too and there are different kinds... Take amelanism... there are species with populations of both tyrosinase positive "albinos" and tyrosinase negative "albinos"... The outward appearance is very different, in the first form, melanin is produced but it doesn't end up sequestered in the melanophores so the animal has that dirty brownish look... in the second, melanin is simply not produced at all, so they have a crisper, whiter (where there would normally be brown and black) look.

I'm really not too familiar with the leucistic pitouphis or what they look like superficially, but based off the manner in which is seems the breeding progresses, I'd guess it's either a simple recessive or codominant trait that has an effect on all pigment producing cells, halting production altogether on a physiological level and affecting all pigments...

If someone who breeds them could give a more specific description of how the generations progress when animals displaying the trait are bred, I might have a better guess but no guarantees... this post sat here for a long while unanswered, so chances are good that the underlying cause isn't fully understood (or at least not understood and made readily avaliable to the public).

One other question... do the leucistic pits have functional irridiphores?

Well the thing with these pines is that they have pigment in the eye. A light blue or gray. The young show a lot of pink on top but become whiter as they mature. It just occured to me that maybe they just came from a pink patternless line that just got really light. Then again I don't understand the patternless trait either, let alone the pink part.
I don't know what irridiphores are.