the great white tarantula?

[Woody]

amelinistic is a form of albinism... it is a lack black pigment. there is also anerythristic, and axanthic, which is a lack of red and yellow pigment. all are forms of albinism. leucistic is different in that it can be a partial lack of pigment, or a total lack of pigment, sometimes called piebald. most examples have blue eyes.

but i still dont see why a tarantula cannot be albino, because by definition, albinism is lack of pigment.

 

[Phillip]

Actually amel and albino are different. If a corn snake for instance could be albino ( which it can't ) it would also lack the reds and yellows since they are pigment. Albinism occurs in humans but not many animals due to the pigment being different. With most snakes you actually have 3 separate pigments coming together to create the overall color. With humans you do not.

Phil

 

[Woody]

hows about that blizzard corn?! no yellow, no black, no red; well, except the eyes...

http://www.snakeshed.com/blizzard.htm

 

[Phillip]

Yeah I've seen blizzards and they rock. Blizzard is both amel and anery if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong on that part though as there are a kazillion corn morphs out there and I don't have them all committed to memory. Pretty much a snow taken a step further. Another thing to note on the blizzards is that all are not created equal. Some show a faint hint of patterning while some are nearly milk white. The pattern is there it is just greatly reduced.

Per Merriam Webster Albino a person or nonhuman mammal lacking coloring matter in the skin hair and eyes.



The important word being mammal. Albino is an incorrect term when used on non mammals. It isn't that they don't appear to be albino but rather the coloring agents being different and working in a different way.

Phil

 

[Woody]

what exactly should a colorless kingsnake, pine snake, corn snake or tarantula for that matter be called then, if they are not "albino"?

http://www.cornsnake.net/gallery/gallery.php3?id=7


im sorry, but i do not agree, i could call the picture of that corn snake a true albino, as it lacks color and has red eyes. what would YOU call it? (and dont tell me "blizzard corn snake", lol)

 

[Phillip]

I thought I explained what I would call it. Amel and anery would be the closest thing assuming I have the anery thing right. Like I said before mucho corn morphs and I don't have the recipe for each one committed to memory.

You can call it whatever you like but the fact remains that snakes aren't albino despite the common use of the term since they are not mammals. Albinism is a term used on mammals and does not apply to reptiles. While I agree the traits seem to be the same they arrive at it in different ways. Try to think of it in the Tyronaise positive and negative way of thinking. Both animals appear as amels or albino if you wish but they arrive at it through different allels and the traits are not compatible.

As I said before the term albino is highly used and I am guilty of it myself quite often but in the technical sense it is incorrect. That is the point I was attempting to illustrate.

Phil

 

[belewfripp]

Blizzards are amelanistic, anerythristic and axanthic. You can't get all the pigment out of them, but most of it is gone. The scales of corn snakes also possess a structural quality that lends bits of color in different kinds of lighting. I believe this is mostly confined to the underside but I am not 100% sure as I have read on the subject but am far from thoroughly knowledgeable about it. As for what you would call them, for a trade name blizzard is fine, and if you're discussing it scientifically, then they are amelanistic, anerythristic and axanthic.

Adrian

 

[Woody]

albinism occurs when a trait is inherited that that stops the making of melanin. therefore, if a reptile, or insect, or mollusk, or martian lacks melanin, it can be considered albino. yes there are other pigments found in animals, however, if they lack melanin, they are amelanistic, yes, but that is considered albino. i dont care what type of creature it is located in.

so, i will agree with you on the tarantula thing, as they do not have melanin, i guess they can not be considered albino in a technical sense, as you described before, Phillip and belewfripp. however, i dont see why there could not be a strand of DNA found in a tarantula somewhere that would interrupt the production of a certain pigment found in tarantulas, perhaps forming a "great white tarantula", in which case, in the words of Pip from South Park, "I'll pay $50 for one!" lol.

"true albinism in any animal is caused by a genetic condition that disrupts the metabolism of melanin" quoted from http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/ecoview/Eco17.htm

 

[belewfripp]

Originally posted by Woody
however, i dont see why there could not be a strand of DNA found in a tarantula somewhere that would interrupt the production of a certain pigment found in tarantulas, perhaps forming a "great white tarantula"

I agree; and I think if you go back, you'll see that I have essentially admitted as such already. Personally, I'm doubtful, because I wonder if pigment plays a strong enough role in T coloration for its interruption to create an entirely white T. That said, can you magine the looks of a B. smithi with the black changed to white? We'll likely never see such a thing but it would be remarkable nonetheless.

Adrian

 

[Woody]

a B. Smithi with white instead of the black would be SICK! i would love to see one of those, let alone own one of em.

this whole subject is very interesting, but im afraid only time will tell what can/will come of our beloved pets.

 

[Phillip]

Thought I left something out forgot about the axanthism.

While I don't completely rule out by any stretch that a lightly colored T could pop out eventually the point I was trying to make is that it wouldn't be albino and that technically it would be correct to call it something else.

I wasn't trying to make a debate of the subject but was merely pointing out where the term was used incorrectly by most folks myself included. Sorry Woddy but you can consider amel and albino the same all you wish to but it doesn't change the fact that the definition of albino applies to mammals only. That is the key and where the logic of calling them one and the same is flawed regardless of ones personal interpretation of the meaning. Simply saying that the animal lacks color so it is albino does not make it so although I can see the logic behind the train of thought there.

Phil

 

[Woody]

Originally posted by Phillip


Sorry Woddy but you can consider amel and albino the same all you wish to but it doesn't change the fact that the definition of albino applies to mammals only. That is the key and where the logic of calling them one and the same is flawed regardless of ones personal interpretation of the meaning. Simply saying that the animal lacks color so it is albino does not make it so although I can see the logic behind the train of thought there.

Phil

first off, my name is woody.

i agreed with you on that an animal lacking color is not technically albino, as i said on one of my last couple posts, and said that albinism is lack of melanin. i agree with you on that, and that there cannot be "albinism" in tarantulas as they do not have melanin. however, i have read from several sources of albinism being found in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and mollusks. i cannot comprehend as to why you are saying albinism can only be found in mammals.

 

[Woody]

do me a favor, will you phillip?
explain an albino cockatiel to me.

 

[Phillip]

Heh heh sorry there Woody was typing fast.

As I pointed out the only reason I brought it up was to bring to light the wrongly used wording.

Why I say it applies only to mammals would be because that is the literal definition of the word. The fact that we choose to apply the word to a non mammal does not make us correct nor does it change the definition.

To explain the albino cockatiel see above.

Like I said folks I use the word myself just thought it would be of interest to some that it is used out of wrongly in the pet hobby.

If you disagree with the definiton you'll have to take that one up with Webster as I didn't write it.

Phil

 

[Woody]

Originally posted by Phillip
Heh heh sorry there Woody was typing fast.

Phil

haha its quite alright, i was just busting your stones. :}


about the definition of webster's...

"Main Entry: al·bi·no
Pronunciation: al-'bI-(")nO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
Etymology: Portuguese, from Spanish, from albo white, from Latin albus
Date: 1777
: an organism exhibiting deficient pigmentation; especially : a human being or nonhuman mammal that is congenitally deficient in pigment and usually has a milky or translucent skin, white or colorless hair, and eyes with pink or blue iris and deep-red pupil"

key word ORGANISM

and that word especially.... let me explain that...

it would be the same as you saying that you like the colors blue, red, purple, and ESPECIALLY yellow. that does not mean you dont like the other colors, it just means you like the color yellow the most. in the definition, it says especially because it seems albino mammals are most common, and most familiar to us, as seeing albino mice and rats and rabbits and such is pretty common, and is very easy to describe, as they all have relatively alike traits, such as the white hair and red eyes.

on the other hand, reptiles and other animals have other visible pigments than melanin, therefore, they may retain color from those other pigments. however, they are still albino. using the word albino to describe other animals than mammals is not incorrect, by webster's definition.

 

[Phillip]

Merriam Webster 2003 college edition

Albino a person or non human mammal lacking coloring matter in the hair skin and eyes


Dunno where you got your definition but mines staring me right in the face.

Phil

 

[Woody]

that definition came straight from the merriam webster webpage, word for word.

http://www.m-w.com/

and when you look at the bottom, you see a copyright, dated 2003.

 

[Phillip]

Well it appears we have stumbled upon two definitions by the same folks.

Phil

 

[Woody]

yes, it does seem as that they came up with 2 different definitions, for whatever reason they may have for that...