# Blue eyed leucistic childrens!



## CarpetPythons.com.au (Aug 19, 2010)

Did anybody notice the photos of these animals in the recent reptiles Australia magazine? They were bred from the marble childrens python SXR has, from what I can see in the magazine!


----------



## ShaunMorelia (Aug 19, 2010)

*heads up to newsagents to buy a copy*


----------



## sarah_m (Aug 19, 2010)

Which issue is it in?


----------



## mojo73 (Aug 19, 2010)

Any photos?


----------



## bucky (Aug 19, 2010)

the latest reptiles australia still isnt available around here.


----------



## CodeRed (Aug 19, 2010)

He doesn't say which hatchies came from the marbles. Did all 4 or just the two "granite" like ones?


----------



## froglet (Aug 19, 2010)

From my reading (interpretation) i think all four came from the same clutch


----------



## dottyback (Aug 19, 2010)




----------



## ihaveherps (Aug 19, 2010)

It would be interesting to hear from the actual owner of the original marble, and perhaps Simon Stone as well....


----------



## mojo73 (Aug 19, 2010)

Cheers dottyback. They look very interesting for sure.


----------



## mojo73 (Aug 19, 2010)

ps. is the marble trait co-dominant?


----------



## lexy1 (Aug 19, 2010)

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is awesome i cant believe it ive been looking for the latest mag!!!!! thats insane!!! l


----------



## No-two (Aug 19, 2010)

They don't look leucistic to me. They've got brownish heads and some brown specks on them.


----------



## Scleropages (Aug 19, 2010)

Crap , what ever they are I woulden't mind one or ten


----------



## PhilK (Aug 19, 2010)

Leucistic are cool, but damn that granitey one is ugly as hell.


----------



## pyrodarknessanny (Aug 19, 2010)

wahh, i still cant get a hold of the latest issue, news agent says "its over due so IT SHOULD be out this week" 
and then a week passes and i ask again and they tell me the same thing!
but that is an exciting and extreamly sexy snake  me wants it


----------



## gunny (Aug 19, 2010)

mojo73 said:


> ps. is the marble trait co-dominant?


In issue 7 of scales and tails it says that simon thinks the trait to be recessive and shows a picture of one of the F1s. 
Does the article in Reptiles australia talk of the genetics?


----------



## mojo73 (Aug 19, 2010)

ps. gunny but what is the snake in your avatar?


----------



## gunny (Aug 20, 2010)

Pied spotted python


----------



## ntvnm (Aug 20, 2010)

might look that way gunny, wait till you breed it and see if it proves out before calling it a proven pied , it might be like a reverse paradox. a one off.


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 20, 2010)

It's still pied even if it doesn't prove to be an inheritable trait. Just like Snowflake the albino gorilla was still albino even though it wasn't genetic. 



ntvnm said:


> might look that way gunny, wait till you breed it and see if it proves out before calling it a proven pied , it might be like a reverse paradox. a one off.


----------



## ntvnm (Aug 20, 2010)

you don't know that , it could be something completely different :?
do you have a genetic read out of the snakes DNA telling you its a legitament pied? no you dont.

how can an albino gorilla be albino without it being genetic? was the white pigment painted on? Waruikazi


----------



## mojo73 (Aug 20, 2010)

ntvnm said:


> might look that way gunny, wait till you breed it and see if it proves out before calling it a proven pied , it might be like a reverse paradox. a one off.



Whether it is a genetic pied or a one off freak of nature non genetic pied it's still a pied is it not?

Very nice btw - hence me asking.

King Kong was a bloody big Gorilla also but was it genetically linked or just a one off? Whatever the case - he was still bloody big!


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 20, 2010)

Definition of Piebald: Having patches black or white or of different colours. 

What does the snake in his avatar have? OMG a patch of white! 



ntvnm said:


> you don't know that , it could be something completely different :?
> do you have a genetic read out of the snakes DNA telling you its a legitament pied? no you dont.



It is a 'legitimate' pied, being pied makes no reference to how the animal has become piebald. Wether it is genetic or not is another question. I'll throw down the gauntlet to you, prove me wrong. Find me a legit defintion of piebald that states how the animal must become pied.


----------



## byron_moses (Aug 20, 2010)

Scleropages said:


> Crap , what ever they are I woulden't mind one or ten


 lol i second this


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 20, 2010)

ntvnm said:


> how can an albino gorilla be albino without it being genetic? was the white pigment painted on? Waruikazi


 
I don't know buddy, i'm not a genticist. But just because you don't or can't understand it doesn't make it wrong.


----------



## PimmsPythons (Aug 20, 2010)

heres a couple photos i took of snowflake about 3 months before he died of skin cancer back in 2003.from memory he had around 22 bubs and they are still producing with no albinos amongst them.
cheers
simon


----------



## Colin (Aug 20, 2010)

please keep on topic people


----------



## shaye (Aug 20, 2010)

Was waiting for it Colin lol 
I have to third that with Byron and bluey


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 20, 2010)

While we are on topic, Someone said that they aren't leucistic because they have brown colour on their heads. Leucism is a visual trait that affects all colour pigments. It does not mean a total lack in colour, in other words you can have leucistic animals with some colouring.


----------



## gunny (Aug 20, 2010)

ntvnm said:


> might look that way gunny, wait till you breed it and see if it proves out before calling it a proven pied , it might be like a reverse paradox. a one off.



I didnt say it was proven just said it was pied. 
In that article page posted it states that the "blue eyed luesistics" are marbled. does it say they are luesistic in the article or is it assumed. 
It may just be a juvenile colours and as it grows out may end up like the parent.


----------



## DA_GRIZ (Aug 20, 2010)

waruikazi said:


> While we are on topic, Someone said that they aren't leucistic because they have brown colour on their heads. Leucism is a visual trait that affects all colour pigments. It does not mean a total lack in colour, in other words you can have leucistic animals with some colouring.


 

seen an example on youtube the other day with a leucistic ball python.

honestly i don't like the look of the leucistic childreni


----------



## solar 17 (Aug 20, 2010)

l grew up in a town in country Victoria where twin girls were complete albinos with pink eyes the lot. their family ran the local milk bar/cafe no sign of albinism before or after l remember feeling sorry for them always wearing slacks/long pants and long sleeved blouses/tops and staw hats in summer and those pink eyes were really spookie when you were talking to them....just thought l would share solar 17 [Baden]


----------



## SamNabz (Aug 20, 2010)

LOL ntvnm, if you were going to bag someones knowledge and make a smart comment you should at least learn how to spell 

Now, on with the thread... I don't mind the look of leucistic childreni...

NB: gunny do you have a bigger pic of your avatar? Maybe you could post a full body pic somewhere so we can have a look at it? I noticed you have a few pics in your profile but they aren't too clear, it looks quite interesting....


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 20, 2010)

ntvnm said:


> The only thing that proves waruikazi ,is that you can use google.
> i was talking about the piebald mutation that can be used in creating exiting morphs. not the word in general.
> 
> end of discussion.



I proved that you are wrong, an animal can be pied without the trait being genetic.

No you weren't talking the piebald mutation that can be used to make 'exiting' new morphs. Here is your quote:



ntvnm said:


> might look that way gunny, wait till you breed it and see if it proves out before calling it a proven pied , it might be like a reverse paradox. a one off.



That is what i responded to. All you have proved is that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## levis04 (Aug 20, 2010)

I wonder wat sort of price tag these will have? Anybody know wat the marbles will go for?


----------



## pyrodarknessanny (Aug 20, 2010)

they will cost you 2 arms a leg and 3 human souls 
... honestly no idea, chances are alot


----------



## D3pro (Aug 20, 2010)

pyrodarknessanny said:


> they will cost you 2 arms a leg and 3 human souls
> ... honestly no idea, chances are alot


 
I double your offer and add in vampire blood... (and no one said it has to be my arms and legs lol)


----------



## girdheinz (Aug 20, 2010)

Has everyone gone mad?

The picture is of 2 marble childrens hatchlings and 2 normal childrens hatchlings showing a 50/50 ratio meaning it's recessive. It says the marble was proven to be genetic then displays these pics. I don't know where anyone is getting granite from on the other 2, they are stock standard childreni.

Those marble hatchlings as you can see around the head and if you look closely at the back will turn into something similar to the adult pictured. Seemed pretty clear cut to me.

Anyway weird looking snake as an adult.

Gird


----------



## sandswimmer (Aug 20, 2010)

ntvnm said:


> might look that way gunny, wait till you breed it and see if it proves out before calling it a proven pied , it might be like a reverse paradox. a one off.


 
'Pied' is a term that refers to the phenotypic characteristics of a snake, it has nothing to do with the genetics that result in said phenotype. Thus regardless of the genetics behind it, and regardless of whether it is inheritable or not, gunny's snake is, by definition, 'pied'.


----------



## junglepython2 (Aug 20, 2010)

Where has all the Leucistic talk come from? The pic implies they are the the juvenile form of the marble childrens which certainly isn't leucistic.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2010)

waruikazi said:


> While we are on topic, Someone said that they aren't leucistic because they have brown colour on their heads. Leucism is a visual trait that affects all colour pigments. It does not mean a total lack in colour, in other words you can have leucistic animals with some colouring.


 
Actually, leucism is more than a visual trait. It is a genetic condition which prevents the formation of pigments (all pigments) in the skin. You can have animals without skin pigment which are not leucistic. I breed black-eyed white rats, their skin is pink, their fur is white, their eyes are black, they are phenotypically like a leucistic, but they are not leucistic at all. They are piebalds with a big white spot which covers the entire body. These rats still have all the genetic goodies required to make pigments, the code is all there, but the neural cells don't migrate far enough to get to the skin. Leucism is an entirely different condition, even if it looks the same. I also have pink-eyed white rats which look just like albinos, but they are not albinos. They have the same genetic condition which causes a big white spot to cover the whole body, and a second mutation which causes the eyes to be pink. If you have only one of these mutations you'll have a black-eyed white, if you only have the other you'll have a pink-eyed rat with pigmented fur. Even though these pink-eyed whites are indistinguishable from an albino, they are most certainly not albino.

As for whether or not a 'non-genetic piebald' counts as a piebald, I'm not sure, I suppose it's subjective. If I got a Children's Python and gave it some burns, or infected patches of its skin with bacteria, and after it healed up the result was a snake with blotches of discoloured skin, would it count as a piebald? I'd say no, but I wouldn't argue the point.

As for the Children's in question here... I think I'll tactfully bite my tongue


----------



## gunny (Aug 20, 2010)

I didnt say its not genetic just not yet proven.
Time will tell.


----------



## Sdaji (Aug 20, 2010)

gunny said:


> I didnt say its not genetic just not yet proven.
> Time will tell.


 
I wasn't referring to or addressing you, sorry if it seemed I was. For the record, without knowing one way or the other and without there being another likely explanation, I'd assume yours is genetic. Fingers crossed and good luck to you


----------



## gunny (Aug 20, 2010)

No worries mate 
I hope so.


----------



## Jungle_Freak (Aug 20, 2010)

Very exciting to see the Leucistic morph being reproduced in childrens pythons.

Usually with the piebald morph in python species .
The very first examples of the trait start out with only a small blotch of white or piebalf in there pattern .
Further breeding usually enlarges the white .
So i ithink gunny is onto a winner .
cheers
Roger


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 21, 2010)

Sex appeal is sky rocketing!

I'm not gonna argue with the great Sdaji lol but i would like to know if you agree with me and my interpretation of the definition of leucistic that the trait doesn't necesarily mean that an animal is totally white and can have some colour?

I wouldn't call a burnt or scarred snake a pied either. But i would call a snake that comes out of the egg pied if it had abnormal white blotches wether it is genetically inhertiable or not. 



Sdaji said:


> Actually, leucism is more than a visual trait. It is a genetic condition which prevents the formation of pigments (all pigments) in the skin. You can have animals without skin pigment which are not leucistic. I breed black-eyed white rats, their skin is pink, their fur is white, their eyes are black, they are phenotypically like a leucistic, but they are not leucistic at all. They are piebalds with a big white spot which covers the entire body. These rats still have all the genetic goodies required to make pigments, the code is all there, but the neural cells don't migrate far enough to get to the skin. Leucism is an entirely different condition, even if it looks the same. I also have pink-eyed white rats which look just like albinos, but they are not albinos. They have the same genetic condition which causes a big white spot to cover the whole body, and a second mutation which causes the eyes to be pink. If you have only one of these mutations you'll have a black-eyed white, if you only have the other you'll have a pink-eyed rat with pigmented fur. Even though these pink-eyed whites are indistinguishable from an albino, they are most certainly not albino.
> 
> As for whether or not a 'non-genetic piebald' counts as a piebald, I'm not sure, I suppose it's subjective. If I got a Children's Python and gave it some burns, or infected patches of its skin with bacteria, and after it healed up the result was a snake with blotches of discoloured skin, would it count as a piebald? I'd say no, but I wouldn't argue the point.
> 
> As for the Children's in question here... I think I'll tactfully bite my tongue


----------



## No-two (Aug 21, 2010)

waruikazi said:


> Sex appeal is sky rocketing!
> 
> I'm not gonna argue with the great Sdaji lol but i would like to know if you agree with me and my interpretation of the definition of leucistic that the trait doesn't necesarily mean that an animal is totally white and can have some colour?


 
I thought Sdaji clearly explained that, "It is a genetic condition which prevents the formation of pigments (all pigments) in the skin."

As I stated in the begining, they don't look leucistic, they look like young marbleds, if anyone can recall, that mother was much lighter in colour when she was younger also, and developed more brown with age, one would assume these are too do the same.


----------



## Octane (Aug 21, 2010)

Confused - I just had a quick scan of the article and didn't see any mention of the animals being Leucistic.

The article seems to imply they are marbled offspring.

Any leucistic reptile would be a special thing but some could be jumping the gun on this one. 

Will happily stand corrected if wrong.

Octane


----------



## Cheyne_Jones (Aug 21, 2010)

No-two said:


> As I stated in the begining, they don't look leucistic, they look like young marbleds, if anyone can recall, that mother was much lighter in colour when she was younger also, and developed more brown with age, one would assume these are too do the same.



I'm with you, my eyes are not that good but I cant see the word leucistic on that page dottyback scanned at all... The pics of the 2 normal and the 2 white looking snakes is referring the the young of the marble snake...


----------



## Colin (Aug 21, 2010)

No-two said:


> I thought Sdaji clearly explained that, "It is a genetic condition which prevents the formation of pigments (all pigments) in the skin."
> 
> As I stated in the begining, they don't look leucistic, they look like young marbleds, if anyone can recall, that mother was much lighter in colour when she was younger also, and developed more brown with age, one would assume these are too do the same.



I agree with No-two. In my opinion they look like young marbled childrens. 
fantastic looking animals and would love to have some in my collection. cheers.


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 21, 2010)

I didn't read the article, i was commenting on other comments. 

So what would an animal that has a significant reduction in _all_ colours be called in that case? 



No-two said:


> I thought Sdaji clearly explained that, "It is a genetic condition which prevents the formation of pigments (all pigments) in the skin."
> 
> As I stated in the begining, they don't look leucistic, they look like young marbleds, if anyone can recall, that mother was much lighter in colour when she was younger also, and developed more brown with age, one would assume these are too do the same.


----------



## Geared (Aug 22, 2010)

Leucism is a phenotype, not a genetic condition (the same can be said about the piebald condition as sandswimmer clearly stated). The term defines an animal that lacks skin pigmentation and this is generally caused by pigment cells failing to migrate from the neural crest to the skin or defective cell differentiation. Yes, in nearly all cases leucism has an underlying genetic cause but it isn't really correct to incorporate this into the definition. If you do, it's equivalent to saying a pink flower isn't actually pink because it was caused by soil pH rather than an inheritable trait. There are both environmental and genetic reasons why a flower can be pink, and either way it's still pink! Also, the piebald condition is quite similar to leucism because both are a lack of all pigmentation caused by the issues mentioned earlier. The difference is that the piebald condition is localised whereas leucism affects the skins entire area. In fact, the piebald condition is often considered a form of leucism outside the herp world.

If we extend the definition to include a genetic component we end up the circular argument we're currently in. We'll continuously be asking the question 'what is an animal that has no skin pigmentation or reduced pigmentation with an unproven or no genetic origin?.' Because the animal certainly isn't nothing. The argument is really easy to avoid; when you refer to an animal that's leucistic or piebald you're referring to the phenotype (basically, the way it looks), but when you refer to a morph you're actually talking about a specific genotype not simply the way the animal appears. You're saying 'I've got this gene that causes my animals to have no pigment!' in the case of a leucistic morph anyway. Put simply, a 'leucistic morph' is different from the definition of leucistic because you've added a genetic component when you added the term morph. i.e. you're now naming the genotype that causes a particular phenotype, not the phenotype itself.

I'm pretty sure this is what Gunny was getting at without writing a novel. His snake is a piebald, but who knows if it's a
piebald morph.


----------

