Interesting read

[Egapal]

Yeah I have to agree, lots and lots of ego there. I am sorry but Wikipedia is not the bane of information and mispronunciation is not a sign of being uneducated. Its a sign that you don't have enough educated people around you to talk to. I know plenty of very smart people, usually younger, who have an incredible thirst for knowledge and know a great deal as a result but have not had people in their life who share their passion. When someone mispronounces a "big" word in front of me I usually say "I don't think that's how its pronounced but lets look it up," and if I am right I say "Don't worry about it, its a side effect of learning by reading and latin not being taught in schools anymore." I met this guy named Matthew that really seamed upset when I called him Matt. You know what I call him now? Nothing, I don't surround myself with people who get upset about things like that. Oh and going back to Wikipedia, if its wrong then fix it. It only takes a few minutes to make an edit. Correct information tends to stay up believe it or not.

[JLC]

lol I don't understand why people are getting so offended by the pronunciation part? lol I got the same thing on KS. I don't know, I didn't take it that way when I read it. I like learning things especially about things I am interested in. Sorry if the post bothered any one I was merely wanting to share some real information about some genetics in our hobby.

He did say and use both forms of the word knowing that it will most likely stay being pronounced with the c and not k.

I don't think anyone implied that there was anything wrong with sharing the article. It certainly did contain some interesting information.

But...it did come across as arrogant and condescending. It was not nearly as professionally written as his arrogance and self-importance would imply. In fact, it was a very poorly written bit of work and based simply on that context, it does not surprise me that he's not more published in the scientific journals.

This is NOT to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's obviously very well educated and passionate about his work and his knowledge. He's just not particularly adept at passing that knowledge along to his audience, unfortunately.

[OhhWatALoser]

so is it pronounced "Luke-is-em?" He gave other examples but never really said how leucism is supposed to be pronounced.

anyways...Good read, i always knew super fires and mojave combo BEL wern't true "Luke-is-tic"(something like that). but what im confused about is if something like a lesser/butter x lesser/butter would atleast look like the definition of leucistic (obviously their not true lucys eigher since the same genes are in play) he mentions the eye color, but does blue eyes mean its not leucistic? if not then what the heck does a leucistic eye look like then, white? what animals are true definition leucistic?

by chance can anyone answer these?

[JLC]

by chance can anyone answer these?

Doubtful...because we're just ignorant hicks. No PhD's in genetic sciences or engineering around here.

[LotsaBalls]

I have a phd. Goted it off a cerel box. good read though. Answered a few things I've wondered about. Thanks

[Matt K]

by chance can anyone answer these?

Eye pigment is unrelated to leucism. An animal can still be a true leucistic and have colored eye pigment, as the defect causing leucism is rooted solely in the skin of the animal. This would explain why no matter what you mix with a leucistic, it always lacks color--melanin or pigment cells of any sort die in the skin as a result of the defect. Super Lessers and Butters are true leucistics, while Super Fires and Mojaves aren't, as their skin can clearly support even trace amounts of pigment. By the standards of this paper, the classic yellow-blotched look of Super Fires/Sulfurs might actually be a form of Piebaldism, but you'd have to see if normal pigment could be sustained by the white patches of skin to prove or disprove this I suppose.

Cheers,
-Matt

[Matt K]

PS--this guy is so full of himself it nearly hurts my feelings. As was said previously, mispronunciation is in no way indicative of intelligence or education, simply a lack of root-language understanding and/or peers who know and use the correct pronunciation. Unfortunately, not everyone here can attend med school to gain the respect of people like this, we just have to learn from books and friends. This doesn't mean we haven't made a true effort to educate ourselves, and judging people via mispronunciation is really low in my opinion, especially for a "well-educated" person. Give us the correct information, as you did, it's appreciated. Don't make us feel bad for having it wrong in the first place. It's not peer-pressure, we're not all feeble-minded and weak, we just haven't been corrected, and haven't been given this information before.

Cheers,
-Matt

[OhhWatALoser]

Eye pigment is unrelated to leucism. An animal can still be a true leucistic and have colored eye pigment, as the defect causing leucism is rooted solely in the skin of the animal. This would explain why no matter what you mix with a leucistic, it always lacks color--melanin or pigment cells of any sort die in the skin as a result of the defect. Super Lessers and Butters are true leucistics, while Super Fires and Mojaves aren't, as their skin can clearly support even trace amounts of pigment. By the standards of this paper, the classic yellow-blotched look of Super Fires/Sulfurs might actually be a form of Piebaldism, but you'd have to see if normal pigment could be sustained by the white patches of skin to prove or disprove this I suppose.

Cheers,
-Matt

But are they true leucistics or do they just look like true leucistics? Thx for clearing that up tho.

[jsmorphs2]

If some Super Fires produce pigment while others are pure white then wouldn't all Super Fires not be true leucistics? I was thinking this because their skin does have the ability to support pigmentation but that pigment production just varies between individuals. Or is it possible that Super Fires that have pigmentation just have a defect in that genome that allows some skin cells to support pigment? And that that individual is not a true leucistic but that pure white Super Fires are? Too many questions, my head is spinning.


The idea that they could be a type of piebaldism is an interesting one.


P.S. I like the way leuSistic sounds better than leuKistic

[Serpent_Nirvana]

I think the proper pronunciation would be "loo-KISS-tic," or "loo-kism," because, as he says in the three paragraphs at the beginning, the root word is "leuco/leuko" (meaning "white") and that's pronounced with a hard "K," as in "leukocyte."

Then again, I may be undereducated on the subject -- in my seven years of an sci and veterinary school thus far, I don't think I've ever heard a professor say the word out loud.

(Do you know how many professors with DVMs, phds and about sixteen other letters after their names will point to a word on a Powerpoint and say, "That -- I can never pronounce it..." ? Not that I'm condoning mispronunciation or lack of trying, mind you, but if you judged everyone on that basis you'd be discounting the knowledge of a lot of diplomats ...)