Because, amelanistic, hypomelanistic, and anerythristic are scientific terms that have
very specific definitions beyond the boundaries of cornsnakes. Lavender, Charcoal, Phantom, Snow, Sunglow, et.al. are
popular opinion accepted terms for genetic combinations/representations. Some genetic terms are used commonly as well, and that's where my crux of the debate places the word hybino on a list of "unacceptable" or "inaccurate" terminology.
Hybino is a butchered melding of two scientific terms. Hypomelanistic which has a very specific definition and albino which also has a very specific definition. I've already indicated that the word hybino fits in several different cornsnake morphs. :shrugs: I'm arguing scientific language, not opinion.
That is all.
D80
So am I. And what I am saying is quite simply...there is no scientific evidence past or present indicating that these terms are being properly used. Nobody knows why an amel corn looks the way it. We know that we do not see any melanin present. Why? Nobody knows. Nobody knows because there has never been any scientific studies of amelanistic cornsnakes to find
out why. There are many, many reasons why an amel corn might look the way it does. There are many steps, components, and processes involved in the creation of melanin and it's appearance in these animals. Nobody knows which one is the "scientifically accurate" cause of it's absence. It is very possible that melanin IS present, and is simply being blocked by something else, which would cause the term "amelanistic" to be absolutely scientifically INaccurate. Therefor, scientifcally speaking...how can you argue the semantics of "scientific accuracy" when there is no study upon which to base our
opinions and assumptions.
As for the part which I have highlighted in bold...I agree, 100%. It IS a word that can be used to describe a great number of cornsnake morphs. And every use you mentioned would be just as "scientifically accurate" as any of the others. I also agree 100% with your definition of the term "albino" being a lack of pigmentation...ANY pigmentation. My problem is with the assertion by TME that the term "albino" is NOT accurate and Hybino is NOT accurate. They ARE accurate...BOTH of them...and they are both accepted in their usage AS accurate.
Amelanistic, anerythristic, and hypomelanistic ARE scientific terms with absolute meanings. However, we have no idea if the words are being used properly when we apply them. We have
assumed they are accurate, and we have
agreed they are accurate but at this point in time they have never been
proven to be accurate. So in reality, a "scientific debate" about the proper usage of these terms is absolutely a moot point. Quite frankly there is NO scientific usage of these terms as they apply to cornsnakes and cornsnake morphology because quite simply nobody has ever conducted a study to establish the accuracy of these terms as we have applied them.
THIS is why I find the phrase "scientifically accurate" laughable, at it's absolute best, in this discussion. If it is scientifically accurate...where is the science that proves it so?:shrugs:
With that said, Brent, you know I respect you and your opinion, and I hope you know that I hold you in high regard, whether we agree or not.:cheers:
TME:
...Exactly! So why are you arguing that we should be using Hybino (and Albino) when we use Amel, not Albino because that is the accurate term now?...
I'm NOT arguing that we should be "using Hybino". I'm arguing that Hybino is a long-time accepted and ACCURATE term that has been used for many, many years in many, many scientific and herpetological referances. It is as accurate as any other words you choose to use to describe a homo hypo and amel snake. Albino is absolutely as acceptable and accurate as amelanisitic. Period. It doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise, that is still now, and always will be, a true statement. Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is.
...I'm not nitpicking. I asked a serious question as to why it's all of a sudden showing up on the forum in reference to Cornsnakes...Because I didn't know why I was seeing it. You got your panties in a wad with my question and went on a tirade. Why exactly aren't you hounding Brent or Susan, who agree with me? Because they weren't the first to ask a question?...
I answered your question, long ago. Hybino is a widely accepted and ACCURATE term used all over the place in herpetological endeavors. For a LONG time. You saw it because I chose to use it. I didn't get my "panties in a wad" until you started asserting that it was wrong and inaccurate, which absolutely false. I "went on a tirade" against your absolutely FALSE and MISLEADING assertion that Hybino and Albino are inaccurate terms,
which they are not.
I'm not giving Brent and Susan a hard time because neither one of them have EVER stated that Albino and Hybino were inaccurate. YOU did...and you are wrong. Really quite simple, if you ask me.
...I asked a simple, easy to answer question. Where is the term Hybino all of a sudden coming from in reference to Cornsnakes? I also never said any of the bolded at all. What is certain individuals obsession with speaking for other people or making up statements? I really love how you completely ignore valid points from posters. ...
Really? This is almost the funniest thing you have posted. You DID state, SEVERAL times that albino is not accurate. You DID state, several times, that Hybino is not accurate. And you did state, on at least one occasion, that your problem was with the use of the term "hybino"
"on this forum" which, to me, implies that this forum somehow has the final say on acceptability of terminology. I disagree...100%.
As for the part I highlighted...Funny how you mention that. I have addressed every "valid point" you have made. Unfortunately, I don't see many in your posts...makes it difficult to address them.
oke:
On the other side of this coin...you still haven't answered anything about my statements regarding how long "hybino" has been in use, nor about the scientific definitions of "albino", nor about how the terms albino and hybino are both perfectly accurate words that can be used to describe these traits.
The bottom line in my opinion is quite simply..."scientifically accurate" has no place in this conversation because nothing has ever been proven as "scientifically accurate". Not our use of the words, and not the causes of these color deformities in our beloved animals. Telling people that "albino" is not accurate is simply bad information. Albino IS accurate. Period. Telling people that "hybino" is being used "all of a sudden" is ridiculous because it is a term that has been WIDELY used across species boundaries for many, many years. Period. I chose to use it in this thread because I wanted to. I don't like the phrase "hypoamel" and I don't use it. I use "hybino" because it fits, it is easy to spell and say, and it is a widely accepted term to describe precisely what I was trying to describe. I'm sorry you have a problem with that. Actually...no I'm not. I find it amusing and entertaining that my use of the word "hybino" and "albino" bothers you so much. I think I shall continue to use them both here as I do in every other snake-related conversation I have both on and off the net...
3CardKnight--
Don't ever be afraid to state your opinion. Your opinion is just as valid and based just as much on fact as any other opinion in this topic, mine, Susan's, Brent's and Triple Moons Exotic all included. No need to apologize to us for your opinion, and certainly no need for anyone to flame you for POSTING your opinion. Everyone's input is welcome here. That's the beauty of an open forum...
