Affordable Exo
New member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
- Country
- United States
I breed many different animals from reptiles, amphibians, birds, axolotls, etc. There is a difference between a visual morph and a genetic morph. A visual morph is just simply that, a color or pattern that happens by chance but does no pass on to its offspring. Keep in mind some genetics are recessive and therefor not visual in the immediate offspring. Some tracers are very subtle in terms of color or pattern that can lead to a morph exaggerated super or co-dominate morph visually. I have seen this in all different types of animals. In birds they call it split, in reptiles its referred to as het(heterozygous) either way it calls for the same reaction. It's not bogus to put a name on something that is different. We know that wild types, leucistcs, melanoids and albinos are widely accepted. When the first coppers came out people said the same things about how they aren't that different and it wasn't until two homozygous forms were produced that it was accepted. The tyrosinase-positive albino is a well known form of albinism but it was still criticized. I know there are different opinions on the "dirty lucy" traits. My belief is that it is a dominant trait that somehow attaches to the alleles that control leucism. I have seen clean lucys that do not produce a single dirty lucy as well as pairings that involve a dirty lucy that pass on the same trait. It seems to act like the "granite" gene in ball pythons that for some reason once its bred into pastels its very difficult to produce any pastels without granite in it. The affect on iridophores is definitely genetic. Some gold albinos that are heavily iridophoric produce similar offspring. Another note for this trait is found in melanoids. The Melanoid gene is commonly accepted to cause the reverse or lack of iridophores. So why would it be crazy to claim that an axolotl with heavy black coloring and heavy iridophores could be genetic? As for the lighter color wild types and the lavenders, these could simply be hypos or pastels depending on if the mutation is recessive or dominate. There is no disputing that these "morphs" are different looking. That is half of claiming a new morph. The other half is reproducing it and proving it as true. I understand peoples frustration with morons making false claims and in ways tricking unknowing new comers into over paying for select colors. On the other hand I think we should spend our time properly tracing, categorizing and cataloging these different color types so that people can properly address them. I don't have a problem with people charging premium prices as long as they are labeled correctly. I am willing to pay more for some gold albinos and melanoids than others based on individual colors. I believe the hobby would be better off by supporting motivated and prideful breeders that create a stir outside the current axolotl hobbyists. I think if we create a definitive guide to the what each morph is and photos of their expression it would regulate some of the mislabeling. It wont correct everything, but it will give guidance to new comers.