Quote Originally Posted by asplundii View Post
I am sorry, I am really trying to get what you are saying here but it must just be way to early for my brain cause I am not understanding...

Are you saying that just because we say albino does not mean we are talking about the same type of albino in both animals?? If that is what you are saying then yes, I agree. That was why I clarified that if it is, genetically, the same type of albinism (i.e. T-) between both parents then the offspring will also be albino. If the type of albinism is different then obviously there will be a non compatibility and the offspring would effectively be double het. But that same principle applies to within species as well. Like if you breed an T- ball to a LA ball you get double hets that are phenotypically normal.
Well, first, I am sorry if you don't understand. My first language is french and not english, when I typed it yesterday it was late and it was just after a long day at work and university and watching a hockey game (with some beers).

You are right on what you are saying but that's not what I was trying to say.

I was trying to say that a albinism gene (T-) can differ from one species to another.

That geneticly they doesn't look the same (chromosome) but their effect are the same on the animal (not produce melamine).

A bit like the Cold virus (I know it's not a gene but it can help you understand what I am trying to say). There is a lot of variation of it, but the effect of it is the same.

The T- in the tiger/alligator/ball/burmese all have the same effect, keep the skin from producing melamine, but I am pretty sure if we were able to look at them under a microscopre, they wouldn't look the same and probably wouldn't been on the same loci.

Making the cross between both species (both showing albinism) not being albinos but het or double het.