New Ghost Carpets

[Pythonguy1]

So why can't my carpet be het for caramel? Is that gene different to the others?

 

[Herpetology]

So why can't my carpet be het for caramel? Is that gene different to the others?

@Sdaji can explain it better but I believe as long as one parent is caramel then babies can have caramel, if the babies don’t have caramel then they can’t pass it on, not sure of the terms etc Dominant, Codominant, recessive :mindblown:
[doublepost=1596422421,1596422305][/doublepost].

 

[Pythonguy1]

@Sdaji can explain it better but I believe as long as one parent is caramel then babies can have caramel, if the babies don’t have caramel then they can’t pass it on, not sure of the terms etc Dominant, Codominant, recessive :mindblown:

So potentially he could just be a carpet het for albino?

 

[Herpetology]

If he’s not caramel, then he will be just het for albino, there is no het caramel

Send a picture

 

[Sdaji]

But Wouldnt the ones with fairly noticeable yellow be a snow then?

That's not how it works. You can get a regular albino with no yellow on it. Plenty of albinos which are not axanthic or anery have no yellow.

The so-called axanthic Carpets are not actually axanthic, so a snow or moonglow may or may not have yellow. The amount of yellow does correlate with what morph it is, but in this case it's not reliable enough to be a diagnostic feature.

I guess it’s similar do you consider a bredli with a high percentage of black missing a hypo, aswell as as a bredli with a slightly reduced black level is technically a hypo?

Not really, you're comparing apples to oranges. Consider this:

Kenyans are taller than Nepalese, but you don't determine their race based on their height, and it's not a reliable diagnostic feature. Men are taller than women, but again, it's not reliable enough to be a diagnostic tool.

Kenyan and Nepalese are not examples of single gene mutations or distinct traits. They're extremes of a spectrum. Men and woman are two dichotomous traits, nothing like race, but height works just as well/badly as a diagnostic tool. You'll usually get it correct if you know a person is Kenyan or Nepalese and you know their height, you'll usually get their sex correct if you know their height, you'll get an even more distinct, reliable dichotomy if you compare Kenyan men to Nepalese women, but it still won't be perfect and it's still not how you determine what someone is. The way you classify these four things has zero to do with how tall they are.

 

[Nero Egernia]

The so-called axanthic Carpets are not actually axanthic, so a snow or moonglow may or may not have yellow. The amount of yellow does correlate with what morph it is, but in this case it's not reliable enough to be a diagnostic feature.

If the so-called axanthic Carpets are not actually axanthic then what are they?

 

[Herpetology]

Here’s an suspected anery compared to PROVEN axanthic

 

[Sdaji]

If the so-called axanthic Carpets are not actually axanthic then what are they?

Assuming they actually are Mendelian (which I'm not disputing) they're either hypoxanthics or anerythristics. It's fairly common to use this incorrect terminology even in some foreign species.

There's a lot of confusion because there's a lot of polygenic variation across the board with Carpet Pythons, so a non 'axanthic' can have less yellow than a 'true/proven' axanthic (which highlights the poor use of the term axanthic, which means the resulting confusion is not surprising).

Calling these things axanthic is a bit like calling "hypos" albinos.

We'll probably never see herpers using terminology correctly, so in some respects it makes sense to learn the way the incorrect vernacular works, and just work with it. Or, the easiest way is just to believe the terminology makes sense, agree with everyone, be incorrect, but make the same mistakes everyone else does, so you're speaking their language.

With many genetics terms I just have to use the herp version of the language because if I use correct terminology no one will understand and they'll just think I'm insane. As an example, every single Carpet Python has every copy of every albino gene, and every morph gene there is, but if you say that, almost everyone will think you're insane, because a term as fundamental to genetics as 'gene' is fundamentally misunderstood. When you're starting from that platform, it's never going to go well!

So, as far as general conversation goes, 99/100 times it makes sense to just call these Carpets axanthics, because that's the name everyone is going to use for them.

 

[Nero Egernia]

Assuming they actually are Mendelian (which I'm not disputing) they're either hypoxanthics or anerythristics. It's fairly common to use this incorrect terminology even in some foreign species.

There's a lot of confusion because there's a lot of polygenic variation across the board with Carpet Pythons, so a non 'axanthic' can have less yellow than a 'true/proven' axanthic (which highlights the poor use of the term axanthic, which means the resulting confusion is not surprising).

Calling these things axanthic is a bit like calling "hypos" albinos.

We'll probably never see herpers using terminology correctly, so in some respects it makes sense to learn the way the incorrect vernacular works, and just work with it. Or, the easiest way is just to believe the terminology makes sense, agree with everyone, be incorrect, but make the same mistakes everyone else does, so you're speaking their language.

With many genetics terms I just have to use the herp version of the language because if I use correct terminology no one will understand and they'll just think I'm insane. As an example, every single Carpet Python has every copy of every albino gene, and every morph gene there is, but if you say that, almost everyone will think you're insane, because a term as fundamental to genetics as 'gene' is fundamentally misunderstood. When you're starting from that platform, it's never going to go well!

So, as far as general conversation goes, 99/100 times it makes sense to just call these Carpets axanthics, because that's the name everyone is going to use for them.

Is their much difference between a so-called axanthic and a hypoaxanthic? Didn't Herptology mention that there is a separate line of "anerythristic" carpet pythons?

As far as I'm aware I thought a "hypo" was a snake with reduced black pigment, whereas an albino has a complete absence of black pigment and also has pink/red eyes?

 

[adderboy]

Yes, and as you said, "as far as general conversation goes." Breeders with just a sketchy picture of what these traits are and how the genes are manifested in future generations will usually end up being disappointed.

And I admit that I don't understand as much as I'd like, either, but I'm not trying to produce new or unusual morphs.

 

[Sdaji]

Is their much difference between a so-called axanthic and a hypoaxanthic?

The name.

There are true axanthics in other species.

As far as I'm aware I thought a "hypo" was a snake with reduced black pigment, whereas an albino has a complete absence of black pigment and also has pink/red eyes?

Generally speaking that's the way herpers use the terminology, incorrect as it is.

 

[Nero Egernia]

The name.

If the difference between an "axanthic" and "hypoaxanthic" only lies in with the name then why bother differentiating between them at all? Why bother calling an axanthic fake if you're going to call it a hypoaxanthic anyway?

There are true axanthics in other species.

Generally speaking that's the way herpers use the terminology, incorrect as it is.

What constitutes as a true axanthic? Or even a true albino? I thought it was universally accepted in all species that the phenotype of an albino is the absence of black pigment, and having red/pink pupils? Are you calling the axanthic carpets fake, anerythristic or hypoaxanthic? What is the correct terminology then?

 

[Sdaji]

***Preface to post: This is a response to a question of semantics. If you're not a nerd who likes nerdy stuff, scroll on by!

If the difference between an "axanthic" and "hypoaxanthic" only lies in with the name then why bother differentiating between them at all? Why bother calling an axanthic fake if you're going to call it a hypoaxanthic anyway?

I've never called them "fake" or tried to talk them down.

First you said "so-called axanthic" vs "hypoaxanthic" (sic)
Here you are saying "axanthic" vs "hypoaxanthic"

There is a big difference between actual axanthic and so-called axanthic. That's the whole point.

I'm not suggesting you need to play the semantics game, but that's what you're doing here, so you need to get your semantics spot on. You've made two errors here. One is assuming that "axanthic" (actual axanthic) is the same as "so-called axanthic" (obviously they aren't the same thing, or we would just be calling them both axanthic; the "so-called" part refers to something with that label which does not match the label). The second error is leaving the "a" in the word "hypoaxanthic" - by convention this can not be a correct word, because you can not have a reduced condition of absolute absence. The prefix "a" means "without" and when used in this way, such as axanthic or amelanistic, means it has none of it. "Hypo" means reduced (but not completely lacking). Contrary to what herpers often think, it has no specific connected to melanin, but this informal convention is now firmly established in herpetocultural vernacular and seems unlikely to change, so it becomes confusing unless you're both at least somewhat of a linguist and also well-versed in historical herp linguo (at this point it may be worth repeating what I said earlier about the possibility of just forgetting the quest of getting everything correct and simply going along with the incorrect terminology used by herpers). To say "hypoaxanthic" would mean there is a reduction of absence of xanthin.

If you're still interested in the semantics, as a side note, the a in albino is just part of the word, not a prefix. The a in amelanistic, which is actually not a synonym of albino, is a prefix with that 'without' meaning.

What constitutes as a true axanthic?

Generally speaking, a genetic condition resulting in the complete absence of xanthin production. More broadly, it could mean anything which lacks xanthin for any reason. Incorrectly, it is used by herpers to refer to a reduction in xanthin.

Or even a true albino? I thought it was universally accepted in all species that the phenotype of an albino is the absence of black pigment, and having red/pink pupils?

This is quite a metaphorical Pandora's box of a question. But no, absolutely not, it is not universally or even generally accepted that albinos must have a complete lack of black pigment or have red/pink eyes. You are talking about amelanistics. Amelanistics are albino, but not all albinos are amelanistic. There's a popularly used herp morph term which refers to an exception, but I'm reluctant to bring it up because it would open another can of worms.

Are you calling the axanthic carpets fake

No, they do exist.

anerythristic or hypoaxanthic? What is the correct terminology then?

In general conversation I would refer to them as axanthics, because despite being incorrect, it's the terminology everyone uses. If I was having a discussion about semantics I would refer to them as above. If I was discussing the underlying genetic mechanisms at work, I would be using different terms.

To summarise the above: It's probably easier just to ignore the fact that the terminology is incorrect and just use it the way almost everyone else does. Analysing the correct way to use all these terms and understanding the whole situation is an interesting thought exercise if you're a nerd, but very few people will ever understand what you're talking about, and they'll argue with you and often get upset if you try to correct them, and you're certainly not going to get the community to change.

 

[Nero Egernia]

***Preface to post: This is a response to a question of semantics. If you're not a nerd who likes nerdy stuff, scroll on by!

I've never called them "fake" or tried to talk them down.

First you said "so-called axanthic" vs "hypoaxanthic" (sic)
Here you are saying "axanthic" vs "hypoaxanthic"

There is a big difference between actual axanthic and so-called axanthic. That's the whole point.

I'm not suggesting you need to play the semantics game, but that's what you're doing here, so you need to get your semantics spot on. You've made two errors here. One is assuming that "axanthic" (actual axanthic) is the same as "so-called axanthic" (obviously they aren't the same thing, or we would just be calling them both axanthic; the "so-called" part refers to something with that label which does not match the label). The second error is leaving the "a" in the word "hypoaxanthic" - by convention this can not be a correct word, because you can not have a reduced condition of absolute absence. The prefix "a" means "without" and when used in this way, such as axanthic or amelanistic, means it has none of it. "Hypo" means reduced (but not completely lacking). Contrary to what herpers often think, it has no specific connected to melanin, but this informal convention is now firmly established in herpetocultural vernacular and seems unlikely to change, so it becomes confusing unless you're both at least somewhat of a linguist and also well-versed in historical herp linguo (at this point it may be worth repeating what I said earlier about the possibility of just forgetting the quest of getting everything correct and simply going along with the incorrect terminology used by herpers). To say "hypoaxanthic" would mean there is a reduction of absence of xanthin.

If you're still interested in the semantics, as a side note, the a in albino is just part of the word, not a prefix. The a in amelanistic, which is actually not a synonym of albino, is a prefix with that 'without' meaning.

Generally speaking, a genetic condition resulting in the complete absence of xanthin production. More broadly, it could mean anything which lacks xanthin for any reason. Incorrectly, it is used by herpers to refer to a reduction in xanthin.

This is quite a metaphorical Pandora's box of a question. But no, absolutely not, it is not universally or even generally accepted that albinos must have a complete lack of black pigment or have red/pink eyes. You are talking about amelanistics. Amelanistics are albino, but not all albinos are amelanistic. There's a popularly used herp morph term which refers to an exception, but I'm reluctant to bring it up because it would open another can of worms.

No, they do exist.

In general conversation I would refer to them as axanthics, because despite being incorrect, it's the terminology everyone uses. If I was having a discussion about semantics I would refer to them as above. If I was discussing the underlying genetic mechanisms at work, I would be using different terms.

To summarise the above: It's probably easier just to ignore the fact that the terminology is incorrect and just use it the way almost everyone else does. Analysing the correct way to use all these terms and understanding the whole situation is an interesting thought exercise if you're a nerd, but very few people will ever understand what you're talking about, and they'll argue with you and often get upset if you try to correct them, and you're certainly not going to get the community to change.

My apologies, Sdaji, it's not my intention to argue semantics for argument's sake, I am just genuinely curious and would like to know the correct terminology to use for these forms of carpet pythons. Thanks for correcting me in regards to albinos vs amelanistics. I admit that I wasn't aware of the difference between the two because most of my learning on reptile mutations has come from reptile books, and, like you said, the terminology appears to be incorrect in many cases.

I think I now understand the difference between axanthism and hypoxanthism. So you're saying that the "axanthic" lines of carpet pythons in Australia are actually hypoxanthic due to them having a reduction in yellow pigment, but not being completely devoid of yellow pigment, which would in turn be a true axanthic? Thanks for taking the time to clarify the terminology to me.

 

[Sdaji]

My apologies, Sdaji, it's not my intention to argue semantics for argument's sake, I am just genuinely curious and would like to know the correct terminology to use for these forms of carpet pythons. Thanks for correcting me in regards to albinos vs amelanistics. I admit that I wasn't aware of the difference between the two because most of my learning on reptile mutations has come from reptile books, and, like you said, the terminology appears to be incorrect in many cases.

I think I now understand the difference between axanthism and hypoxanthism. So you're saying that the "axanthic" lines of carpet pythons in Australia are actually hypoxanthic due to them having a reduction in yellow pigment, but not being completely devoid of yellow pigment, which would in turn be a true axanthic? Thanks for taking the time to clarify the terminology to me.

In a nutshell, yep. But most herpers will argue with you if you use correct terminology, some of them quite angrily so.

 

[Pythonguy1]

If he’s not caramel, then he will be just het for albino, there is no het caramel

Send a picture

So caramel is only a visual gene. It can only be displayed? If so than I don't think that my carpet's a caramel
Nonetheless, here's a pic.

Just another question: Can a snake only be het for one gene? As in it can only be het for albino and not het for albino and het for caramel?

 

[Herpetology]

So caramel is only a visual gene. It can only be displayed? If so than I don't think that my carpet's a caramel
Nonetheless, here's a pic.
View attachment 329700
Just another question: Can a snake only be het for one gene? As in it can only be het for albino and not het for albino and het for caramel?

1, Your snake could still be caramel, with carpets in particular, their colours will change for the first 12mths which would then be considered "adult colours" and would be similar for the rest of its life, Take albinos for example, they start a orangey pink colour and start striping around 9mths

2, You can have as many Het genes as you want on one snake,The big ones this year are Caramels Het albino het axanthic but obviously with each snake would need to be paired to an unrelated snake with an unrelated gene, and theres only so many Carpet genes

 

[Pythonguy1]

1, Your snake could still be caramel, with carpets in particular, their colours will change for the first 12mths which would then be considered "adult colours" and would be similar for the rest of its life, Take albinos for example, they start a orangey pink colour and start striping around 9mths

He has actally gone a lot darker since I took that pic. Would that tell me anything?

 

[AaronLovesPythons]

1, Your snake could still be caramel, with carpets in particular, their colours will change for the first 12mths which would then be considered "adult colours" and would be similar for the rest of its life, Take albinos for example, they start a orangey pink colour and start striping around 9mths

2, You can have as many Het genes as you want on one snake,The big ones this year are Caramels Het albino het axanthic but obviously with each snake would need to be paired to an unrelated snake with an unrelated gene, and theres only so many Carpet genes

In saying that i have an axanthic male 66% het albino from rajiv perara to put over one of troy bromies caramels poss het hypo and an from glenn thomas a caramel zeb 100% het albino and then an albino from a mate from a pet store he couldnt take care off so keen to put some things into the mix and see where the morphs / genetics go with it and what can be produced

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Pythonguy1]

So can you have a het caramel or are caramels always visuals and never hets?