Ok, to clear up the hypo controversy... The term, hypomelanism, refers to an animal that displays reduced amounts of melanin, possessing smaller amounts than would the norm for that population, be it species, subspecies, or local. So, when determining whether a certain specimen is hypomelanistic one must compare it to a sample population, and the size or type of that sample population can often be the factor that determines if that specimen is going to be considered a hypo or not. For example, a Hogg Island Boa Constrictor is often considered a naturally occurring hypo, and this is true, only if you are looking at Boa Constrictors in general as a species. However, it is not true if you are just looking at the island(s) where they occur, as that is their “normal” coloration for these Boas in that area. Hypomelanism is a very broad, and often confusing, term covering everything from animals with simple recessive genetic mutations such as leucism, albinism, and amelanism to animals that are on the lighter end of the spectrum of what is considered to be normal for them. However, when most people think of a “hypo” they are usually thinking of something that falls somewhere in between these two extremes. Most people in the hobby consider a “hypo” to have reduced amounts of melanin to a lesser extreme than that of the amelanistics and albinos, but to more of an extreme than that of a light specimen that still falls within the range of what is expected for that species, local, or population. In addition, many people do not consider something to be a “true hypo” unless there is some reproducible genetic marker that is responsible for causing the melanin reduction. Weather that genetic marker is co-dominant or a simple recessive trait, usually depends on the species being discussed.
Michael, as irritating as it might be, Chris is well within his right to advertise his Boa for whatever price he wants (even if it is totally unrealistic). Proving false advertising on the hypo thing is not ever going to happen just because of the broadness of the term and its many interpretations... This probably is not a very good reason to bring this here, but I think maybe his veiled threat that he made to you in the discussion might be. I could be wrong though. Any other thoughts.
"Don't post here again, you've been warned. Chris."
Chris this bothers me. These kind of threats are not appropriate here. The fact is Michael can post a comment if he wants to (even if you find it to be irritating).
"Mr. Michael Shelton,
Well, first off, unless you are bidding on my snake, it really isn't any of your business now is it. I don't come to your Web site, if you have one, posting negative crap about you and yours. So, why do you feel in necessary to crap in my backyard? "
Ahh Chris, this is not your website now is it, and it is not your backyard either.
"He was warned NOT to contact me again or to be slanderous to me or mine. I will deal with Mr. Shelton in the Legal System. He is being flaggrantly slanderous."
Chris, you are just sounding ignorant now. The term is Libel, not slander. And good luck proving either.
