Lesser X Mojave???

I will pull quote from that same wiki

Quote:

---

The stem leuc- is the Latin variant of leuk- from the Greek leukos meaning "white"

---

I'm hardly splitting hairs, your taking something yellow and calling it white. While we don't know if they are truly lucy (no pigment vs defective parts), but they at least look lucy. Many of the animals you posted don't even look it, then followed with...

Quote:

---

all of these are blue-eyed leucistics. they are not white, but all of them are legitimate BELs.

---

which is flat out untrue. I'm not even being technical. I think you will find your line is very lonesome.

As for the pictures...

Quote:

---

This results in either the entire surface (if all pigment cells fail to develop) or patches of body surface (if only a subset are defective) having a lack of cells capable of making pigment.

---

@ OhhWatALoser


I really respect you a lot and i love your website and the information you put together. but here we have to agree to disagree.

I call BPs that are homozygous for a gene in the BEL gene complex or that have two genes from the BEL complex BELs. Even if they are not white. And no offense, pulling a 2200 year old root out of a word is impressive, but i dont see how that matches up to a modern definition that says its a reduction in all pigment. Reduction, not elimination. And the birds are cute :D and someone considers them to be leucistic :D

Language is one of these things humans make up as they go along, and i just call a mystic potion a BEL. Maybe that changes one day, but i see no reason to change it right now. I like white BELs, but i also like non-white BELs, and i challenge you to come up with an alternative to "non-white BEL" that is different, but not longer, and that carries the same explanatory power. It still needs to imply that its two genes from the BEL complex or homozygous for a gene in the BEL complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

@ OhhWatALoser


I really respect you a lot and i love your website and the information you put together. but here we have to agree to disagree.

I call BPs that are homozygous for a gene in the BEL gene complex or that have two genes from the BEL complex BELs. Even if they are not white. And no offense, pulling a 2200 year old root out of a word is impressive, but i dont see how that matches up to a modern definition that says its a reduction in all pigment. Reduction, not elimination. And the birds are cute :D and someone considers them to be leucistic :D

Language is one of these things humans make up as they go along, and i just call a mystic potion a BEL. Maybe that changes one day, but i see no reason to change it right now. I like white BELs, but i also like non-white BELs, and i challenge you to come up with an alternative to "non-white BEL" that is different, but not longer, and that carries the same explanatory power. It still needs to imply that its two genes from the BEL complex or homozygous for a gene in the BEL complex.

---

Yes you are right it technically doesn't have to be white, but still need a reduction in all pigments, some of them have an increase in a pigment, not even fitting that definition. Why do you need to group them in some way? Do you call every two mutant gene snake in the yellow belly complex an ivory? This is the first time I've heard them being grouped in such a way. Normally we just say these genes are part of the same complex. I'm not sure why you feel this needs to be done. If it's a super special call it a super special, no reason to be calling it a BEL, no one else does and it doesn't even make sense (not that there aren't established things that don't make sense). Reserve the BEL label for things that actually look like a BEL.

Also the lucy part of the bird is referring to the white patches aka piebald, look at a normal one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iscula-001.jpg

also while googling I found this and I now want one:https://www.google.com/search?q=leuc...irrel&tbm=isch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmiles50

So, I realized Lessers and Mojo's make BEL's when bred to each other. Do you also get super's (BEL) when you breed a Lesser to a Mojave???

---

Mojave genotype = mojave gene paired with normal gene
Lesser genotype = lesser gene paired with normal gene

Offspring from a lesser royal python mated to a mojave:
1/4 normal (two normal genes)
1/4 mojave (mojave gene paired with normal gene)
1/4 lesser (lesser gene paired with normal gene)
1/4 BEL (lesser gene paired with mojave gene)

A super should have two copies of the same codominant mutant gene. A snake with two copies of the lesser gene would be a super, and a snake with two copies of the mojave mutant gene would be a super. I would not call a snake with lesser gene paired with a mojave gene a super. On the other hand, there are some pretty strange definitions of "super" floating around, including one that claims a snake is a super if it looks like a super. In this case, a snake with a lesser gene paired with a mojave gene looks like a super with two lesser genes. So it may come down to which definition of super you are using.

However, super is not a standard genetics term. Using standard terms, a snake with a lesser mutant gene paired with a mojave mutant gene is a lesser/mojave heterozygote, and a snake with two lesser genes is a lesser homozygote.