T+ Albino

[stephen]

Oh My! Doh!

I dont really know what posessed me to place this thread, and then to be on the photo gallery! Well maybe cause the photo gallery is on my favorites toolbar, very poor excuse if you ask me! :bounce: Well please forgive me. The only thing I can do is maybe post a pic of a amel ! I wish everybody a Merry Christmas :santa: and a Happy Cornsnake filled New Year! :crazy02:

 

[TBurkeIII]

the link that was supplied to all was just to give a head start on where all the info is being produced from. EXTENSIVE studies do exist in the university about this topic it just may take some time and effort to find.

on another note the T+ that are being refered to as looking hypo is because they are exhibiting the "leaky" gene form of T+. the "null" gene type that is shown in the T+ nics show no black EVER, even as they mature into adulthood.

 

[TBurkeIII]

here are 3 variations to compare to. They are obviously not going to prove anything to anyone but i thought a comparison would be nice, as joe did with the columbians. i also do not believe this is something that exists with corns or i have yet to know about.

 

[Alias47]

Seems to me...and correct me if I am mistaken...that everyone is saying exactly the same thing in a different way...

Other than "Leaky" T+ gene...which, since it has melanin, is definitely T+.

Any amelanistic would have to be tested to determine if it truly IS T+...and why would it matter, because either way, it still has NO melanin in the animal, which is what is important to any breeder.

And I agree with Joe completely, they are still beautiful and EXPENSIVE regardless of WHAT you name them.

 

[Hurley]

Beautiful snakes, btw, very colorful.

It's really arguing 5 sides to the same coin. Makes for lively discussion.

 

[TBurkeIII]

i think in alot of ways we ARE saying the same thing...i think where everyone differs is that some believe it is just a marketing gimmick, which in some cases it is. on another hand some people are not using it as a marketing gimmick they are just calling it what it is.

for example...i picked up a pair of corns that were being labeled as T+, i knew they were not after discussing breeding patterns as well as other things with some people i believe i can trust in the corn buisiness. i still liked they snakes whether or not the dealer was calling them T+ or not.

and no, not everyone is an "expert" in genetics, somethings may appear to be one thing but really are another. with that said we have to expect that mistakes are going to be made in areas such as T+. on the other hand that does not in any way mean that T+ is being used out of some peoples mouths as a "sciency" term just because it sounds good. that it where i take offense to some people's comments. i dont believe that the term T+ is being used on my part just to sound special or different. in the area of corns i would not even begin to call a snake a T+ because i do not know enough about them to even think about saying it. corns are alot different than other snakes in terms of their advancement in the genetics and i am in no way near to being an expert on that, in fact i am not an expert in any area of genetics. i want to make that clear to everyone that may believe i am trying to sound like more of an expert than i am.

thanks

 

[TBurkeIII]

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15536&highlight=ultra

this is the pic and the thread containing my confusion with the T+ and ultra in the corn world.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Atlantis has been found!

Well first off, I think I would like to say that this is just a friendly discussion of different opinions and I don’t think anybody is going to be totally RIGHT or totally WRONG. My opinion is very general and not pointed at any one.

I have been involved in some discussions on the Boa forums and I have to say that some boa people are much more passionate about topics that are similar to this, than I want to be. I am avoiding the Boa forums for this reason, because they can get way over zealous, when it comes to smashing your opinion that there may be other possibilities. I think a lot of it has to do with the amount of money they have invested in some of these boas, and they do not want the animals image tarnished in any way. If you spent 20K - 30K on a snake you may want to protect that investment at all cost.

I jumped in on a discussion about the Motley Boas and the potential new “Super Motley” Boas, and pointed out that the “Super Motley” Boas may be a recessive morph. The evidence at this time is equally convincing for recessive or “SUPER” (Basically a double het co-dominant Boa) I was slaughtered, even though the Big Names actually said that what I was saying is a possibility, but highly unlikely, due to the large amount of co-dominant genes in boas. I really did not realize how important a Super Boa was, but due to the high dollar value of the morph, a Super would produce all Motleys no matter what it was bred to. This would make their immediate value much higher than if it was recessive. In the end, a lot of this morph could be created either way, but fast major bucks could be made if it was a Super. People have to believe that they can make big money on their investment or they will not spend the money.

I disagree that there are no Corns that have the same look as T+ Albino Boas. My Lava Okeetees are a good example. If I can selectively breed them to have wider black areas, which I am, the Lava morph would have wide purple areas in place of the black. Boas and Corns just don’t look the same to start with. Having said that, I think that all Hypos are T+ Albinos, if they weren’t they would be T- Amelanistic.

I think the point is that if I claimed that my Lava Okeetees were T+ Albinos and they were the true “T+ Albino” and all of the rest were not T+ Albinos and just hypos, that I would get a lot of differing opinions on the subject to say the least.

At this time there are three T+ Albino Boas, Nics, Col and Argentines. If you ask me they all have the same look. The three photos that I posted above are not of the best looking T+ Albino Col., but I would take them in a heart beat. They are very rare and to get your hands on any of them is a great opportunity. I would have posted photos of nicer ones, but I knew my friend would not mind.

I am not slamming or putting down anybody in the Boa World, it is just a different arena to play in. If Rich Z or Kathy Love introduced a new Corn and said that they finally found a true T+ Albino Corn Snake, many people would not question them, but I would and so would a few other people. It the Boa World there are some people that have been around for a very long time and are very professional people. When they say that these new recessive Mutant boas are T+ Albino Boas, they are not question or will be swashed by the masses and ostracized. They are T+ Albino Boas in the broad since of the term, but are they the one and only true T+ Albino, that is the only one deserving of the name? Has Atlantis finally been found? I think this is most peoples point. I believe the Barkers first used the T+ Albino name for their Colombians. The Barkers are certainly very professional people, who have been breeding snakes for a very long time and when they talk, people listen.

They will always be called T+ Albino Nics, Col and Argentines. That is their common name now. I think the point of this thread has become what does T+ Albino mean. Is it a broad term that can encompass several similar morphs or is there only one morph that is a TRUE T+ ALBINO. I personally would like to see the T+ Albino Boas called a different common name and in the description of them say they are a T+ Albino. Just like the Salmon Boas are actually Hypo Boas, but a better common name has been applied to them. .

 

[TBurkeIII]

Joe i think all of the pionts you have made in the last post are great, i agree with you 100%. (except that T+ albino are hypo..LOL)
and on some things such as has atlantis been found? you're right who can really say if it is or will be the only true form of the term. some things i do not know...maybe some others would disagree and say it is the only true form of the term, but i personally can not say that.

and as you stated in your last post, you are "not pointing your finger at anyone"...i would like to second that. i feel at some points this discussion got to be a touchy one, and i would like to personally apologize if i have stepped on ANYONE'S toes or insulted anyone during this thread. my opinion on some points with this issue is just that, an opinion! the bottom line is that i am learning like all the rest of us about the T+ issue and the learning hopefully will never stop. i guess an issue i feel passionately about is better than not being passionate about anything at all, and with that said i tend to want to defend that issue if it is questioned.

Tom Burke III

 

[Serpwidgets]

The designation "T+" has no useful or specific meaning. Back in the olden days when they didn't have gene sequencing technology, the one way they could try to determine if two albinos were possibly different was through the DOPA test.

I quoted from the University of Minnesota page which you referred us to. The point of that quote was to point out that, once gene sequencing was available, they were able to make a lot more sense of things and categorize the types of albinos specifically instead of lumping them in two gigantic and virtually meaningless categories. Not coincidentally, they dropped the "T+/T-" system... they don't use DOPA tests because whether it is T+ or T- is only a side note. Notice that they list all kinds of albinism but do not mention which kinds are T+ and T-.

The classification system of "T+/T-" is obsolete. It would be like modern chemists classifying everything as Earth, Air, Fire and Water.

i think in alot of ways we ARE saying the same thing...i think where everyone differs is that some believe it is just a marketing gimmick, which in some cases it is. on another hand some people are not using it as a marketing gimmick they are just calling it what it is.

I do not agree. It is just a marketing gimmick. Nothing more, nothing less. It is "new and improved" or "Albinos: now with Tyrosinase!" It's not "just an albino" it's a "T+" albino!

Whether or not a snake does or does not produce Tyrosinase is not of any scientific significance or any other significance to anyone buying, selling, or breeding these snakes. It may be true that the snakes are "T+" but that doesn't preclude the name from being a marketing gimmick. Lavender, Caramel, Opal, Bloodred, Snow, Blizzard, Pewter, Ice Ghost, and on and on and on, are all marketing gimmicks. They are names applied to sell snakes.

If "T+" is not a marketing gimmick, then please tell us what information of value does "T+" convey to a potential buyer that "hypo" does not?

 

[TBurkeIII]

i think "marketing gimmick" is just something i feel adds a negative connotation to the term. i agree with you about saying charcoal, bloodred etc. are in a way marketing gimmicks, however they are names for the "designated" animal that makes it easier to catagorize. i personally would like to see the animals that are T+ albino be called something different, such as "lavender" or "caramel" or whatever people feel is a good name for them. on another note it does make it easy to know exactly what that animal is genetically. Serp i know we disagree on that last statement, but it's just my view on it.

if the breeders even were to believe that the T+ albino was a form of hypo when they first came here, it still would be the first , or rarest of their kind. with that said i think it would still have the same impact on breeding projects for potential buyers, with the same amount of desire to aquire them. (i.e. lava etc.) that is another reason why i say to myself, "this isn't just a made-up term to sound cool." (they would still be cool if they were a form of hypo) and the bottom line is that there was and is extensive research on this topic to go by.

Happy Holidays everyone

 

[Clint Boyer]

It really seems to be a matter of semantics (sp?).

In my OPINION, T+ "albino" would have to be compatible with standard amelanism (albino). In other words, reside at the same spot in the gentic thread. If this were the standard, then the only form of hypo that would fit that criteria would be Ultra.

If genetic location is not a determining factor then all forms of hypo would be considered T+ albino. Otherwise, how would you differenciate which were really "albino" which should translate to amelanism.

Since there is only one 'known' form of amelanism, it would be a simple test to verify T+ "albino" genetics (breed it to an amel) right?

T+ (all hypos and naturals) means it shows tyrosinase correct? Then T+ "albino" would HAVE TO BE amelanistic first then show tyrosinase. Seems pretty simple to me.

IMHO

 

[Serpwidgets]

on another note it does make it easy to know exactly what that animal is genetically. Serp i know we disagree on that last statement, but it's just my view on it.

No, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. The fact is that "T+" does not tell anyone exactly what the animal is genetically. That is 100% false, and you KNOW it.

I can't be the only one who notices that every time you claim it says something specific, you can never tell anyone what that specific thing is.

So then what is it? What specific thing does it tell someone about what the animal is genetically?

 

[TBurkeIII]

serp T+ ALBINO does tell me exactly what the animal is. it obviously does not tell you the same thing. it is just something we have to agree to disagree upon. i don't know what else i can say about it. but, then again it is not my job to try and educate anyone about it either. i know it is based upon fact because i have seen the facts...i am sorry if i am not conveying them correctly, i didn't know that what i was saying was not specific. i will have to think of ways to reword, or re-phrase or something in order for people to understand better, but who will listen anyway. i tend not to make myself clear, not only on this topic but on descriptions of things in general. sorry, in person is definately a better venue of discussion if you ask me.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

Tom Burke III

 

[Serpwidgets]

If genetic location is not a determining factor then all forms of hypo would be considered T+ albino. Otherwise, how would you differenciate which were really "albino" which should translate to amelanism.

Even if they found an allele to the columbian albino, it says nothing other than "it's an allele to the columbian albino." They do not know whether the columbian albinos are T+ or T- either. Nobody has bothered, nor will anyone ever bother, to test them.

They don't understand that the exact same phenotype can be produced with or without Tyrosinase.

They think that T+ is a unique (and magical) phenotype.

They think that if something shows that phenotype, it must be a magical creature and it can only happen by a specific mutation in a specific gene. They will never tell you which gene that is, but they will insist it is there and that their animals express that magical mutant.

 

[stephen]

the difference

the way i hear it is, there is a difference between t+albino and hypos , as I understand it,as Clint said breed a t+albinoX amel and you should hatch out some amels as I heard those results from other breeders, now if you breed a standard hypo or a sunkissed hypo to amel there wont be no amels hatching out. As far as the hypos I dont know what you would get, for i dont have any of those other, btw JOE when you gonna get me some of those lavas. do you have any so called t+albinos Serp? if you do you should see a big difference compared to the other hypos :shrugs: :grin01: :twoguns: :flames:

 

[Serpwidgets]

the way i hear it is, there is a difference between t+albino and hypos , as I understand it,as Clint said breed a t+albinoX amel and you should hatch out some amels as I heard those results from other breeders, now if you breed a standard hypo or a sunkissed hypo to amel there wont be no amels hatching out. As far as the hypos I dont know what you would get, for i dont have any of those other, btw JOE when you gonna get me some of those lavas. do you have any so called t+albinos Serp? if you do you should see a big difference compared to the other hypos :shrugs: :grin01: :twoguns: :flames:

The definition you and Clint have suggested translates to "T+ albino must be an allele on the TYR locus." (The TYR locus is the one that codes for Tyrosinase.)

This is not a bad thing to have defined. That in itself at least says it must be a certain locus. Just keep in mind that the above is only an arbitrarily chosen definition, though. (That is, it's not how science defines it.) Plus without having mapped the genomes, we cannot really know which mutants are at the Tyr locus. Also, it doesn't really specify much either.

In mice, there are several non-lethal Tyrosinase-positive "albino-like" or "hypo-like" alleles on the TYR locus, including:
extreme dilute
chinchilla
himilayan
acromelanic
chichilla mottled
platinum
ruby-eyed dilute
albino-strong
dark-eyed albinism.

Even going by your narrowed definition, there is a huge range of phenotypes. If we assume that amel corns are T-, then Ultras, which look pretty much like any other hypo, as well as ultramels (the one in my avatar) will both fall into that definition.

The other thing is that defects at other loci can produce an "albino" phenotype that is every bit as amelanistic as the "T-" is. You cannot tell if an amelanistic snake is plus or minus just by looking at it. For all we know, albino ball pythons, albino boas, etc etc could all be tyrosinase positive. In black rat snakes, there are both T+ and T- albinos, which look the same as each other.

 

[Serpwidgets]

serp T+ ALBINO does tell me exactly what the animal is.

There are plenty of us here who understand genetics and the process of melanin synthesis, yet you haven't even tried to explain it to any of us. You said,

it does make it easy to know exactly what that animal is genetically.

So I ask again, what exactly is that animal, genetically?

 

[TBurkeIII]

i just cant for the life of me figure out why you (serp) feel so strongly towards this area and feel the need to be condescending. you consider yourself a genetics "Expert," which is fine but, i am not going to sit here and argue over this fact over and over on the computer. not to mention the fact that i am not calling myself a genetics expert so i do not have all of the answers you must be looking for me to give. however, i do know many people that can. all the information that i have taken in over this subject sometimes is more than i can handle. if you would like to speak with people who i have spoken to about this i will gladly give you those referneces.

*on that note --i am going to the enjoy the holiday and head off to key west on sunday for 2 weeks of fishing. have a good one.

Tom BurkeIII

 

[Serpwidgets]

I ask again, what exactly is that animal, genetically?