Blue eyed leucistic childrens!

[junglepython2]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sdaji]

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]

No worries mate
I hope so.

 

[Jungle_Freak]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.