White Albinos or White Melanoids?

[memojo1979]

New arrivals in the sanctuary this week, but gills are so short that I can't tell how to classify them (and, thanks to them being a massive 30cm each, I had to do some moving around of the other sanctuary axolotls + risk putting them in with a leucistic, as I haven't got room to set up another 3ft tank. I used a divider, but they moved it overnight + although I've moved the leucistic into his own temporary tank now because he was biting them, 1 of the whites has been busy laying eggs today!)
Photos are of the tank I temporarily put them in on the 1st day - I was going to use seperate "recovery" tubs, but they're the biggest axies I've ever seen + don't have tubs that are big enough! They are now in a 3ft tank by themselves.

 

[Kaysie]

You're right...ish. I think they are melanoid albino. I think that's what I think you meant by 'white melanoid', but that isn't one of the generally accepted terms as for as axolotl morphs go. The 'melanoid' mutation reduces or eliminates iridophores, the shiny pigment, but it also reduces xanthophores. So unless you knew whether they were double-recessive for leucism, you don't necessarily know if they're 'white', or just exhibiting reduced xanthophores because of the melanoid gene.

 

[memojo1979]

Re: White Albinos or Melanoid Albinos?

Yeah, I didn't mean white melanoids, I meant melanoid albinos.

But, you think they look melanoid albino (m/m a/a) rather than white albino (d/d and a/a)
Or, of course, they could be the axanthic albino (a/a and ax/ax) but that just boggles my mind + I wouldn't know how to even start figuring it out just by looking

 

[Kaysie]

Re: White Albinos or Melanoid Albinos?

Theoretically, they could be melanoid leucistic axanthic albinos, a/a d/d m/m ax/ax.

If they were white albino, a/a d/d, they would still show speckles of iridophores on the gills, head, and top part of the fin.

And the real test: do they have a shiny eye-ring?

 

[memojo1979]

Their eyes shine in the light, but I can't see the classic ring (I really should check my own albinos too, LoL!) - the whole eye seems to reflect the light.

 

[memojo1979]

And, I can't see any irridophores anywhere on them, but their gills are very short (but then again, I can't see any on the small bits of gills they do have)

 

[melfly]

They seem to have shiney eyes......but this could be a camera thing?! maybe..?

I had some melanoid albino and as far as I can remember their eyes didn't shine at all.
I only raised these for a few months and they moved on so I dont know how they look now.

IMO (not expert) they are just albino

Mel

 

[hacelepues]

oh my goodness axie genetics are so complicated!

Is there a guide somewhere online that breaks all of this down? I'd love to learn.

 

[memojo1979]

Axolotls - Genetics and Colour
Here you go Hacelepues. Just remember, the dominant genes (that will overrule any recessive genes) are the capital letters, so even if there are recessive genes, they won't be seen while there is a dominant gene too.

So, if D = dominant + r = recessive...

If DD + DD breeds, all 4 possibilities are DD (no recessive genes to be carried into future generations)

If DD + Dr breeds, the possiblities are -
D (1st from left) + D (1st from right) = DD
D (2nd from left) + D (1st from right) = DD
D (1st from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
D (2nd from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)

If Dr + Dr breeds, the possibilities are -
D (1st from left) + D (1st from right) = DD
r (2nd from left) + D (1st from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
D (1st from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
r (2nd from left) + r (2nd from right) = rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)

If Dr + rr breeds, the possibilities are -
D (1st from left) + r (1st from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
r (2nd from left) + r (1st from right) = rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)
D (1st from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
r (2nd from left) + r (2nd from right) = rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)

If rr + rr breeds, all 4 possibilities are rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)



I THINK - that's what I think I remember from high school, which was over 15 years ago, so could be completely wrong, LoL! And, of course, with recessive genes being hidden by dominant 1s, you might never know they're even a possibility unless both parents happen to have the same hidden genes

 

[zoezakella]

Axolotls - Genetics and Colour
Here you go Hacelepues. Just remember, the dominant genes (that will overrule any recessive genes) are the capital letters, so even if there are recessive genes, they won't be seen while there is a dominant gene too.

So, if D = dominant + r = recessive...

If DD + DD breeds, all 4 possibilities are DD (no recessive genes to be carried into future generations)

If DD + Dr breeds, the possiblities are -
D (1st from left) + D (1st from right) = DD
D (2nd from left) + D (1st from right) = DD
D (1st from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
D (2nd from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)

If Dr + Dr breeds, the possibilities are -
D (1st from left) + D (1st from right) = DD
r (2nd from left) + D (1st from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
D (1st from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
r (2nd from left) + r (2nd from right) = rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)

If Dr + rr breeds, the possibilities are -
D (1st from left) + r (1st from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
r (2nd from left) + r (1st from right) = rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)
D (1st from left) + r (2nd from right) = Dr (carries recessive gene, but visually only the dominant will be shown)
r (2nd from left) + r (2nd from right) = rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)

If rr + rr breeds, all 4 possibilities are rr (will visibly look like whatever the recessive gene is)



I THINK - that's what I think I remember from high school, which was over 15 years ago, so could be completely wrong, LoL! And, of course, with recessive genes being hidden by dominant 1s, you might never know they're even a possibility unless both parents happen to have the same hidden genes

:dizzy: think I need some wine to understand that lot, will try again Saturday !!!

 

[memojo1979]

Make it easier - use the X + Y chromosomes from humans -
XX is female, XY is male

The possible offspring are
XX (female) which is the 1st letter from mum + dad
XX (female) which is the 2nd letter from mum + the 1st letter from dad
XY (male) which is the 1st letter from mum + the 2nd letter from dad
XY (male) which is the 2nd letter from mum + dad

There are no other combinations, so these are the only possible outcomes.


If you know which genes are dominant (will hide other stuff) + recessive (will be hidden by "stronger" stuff), you can work out anything like that, but you need to do a different calculation for each aspect you are working out.
So, with axolotls, you can work out iridophores, xanthophores + melanophores seperately, even if you can't see the effects because the axolotls in question are just carriers.


Working it out the other way, if ANY recessive genes show through, then BOTH parents must be a minimum of carriers.
So, if you have 2 wildtypes, who produce any leucistic babies, the dark gene is dominiant, with white being recessive -

D= Dark / d = white

DD x DD - only offspring = DD (dark) so we know the parents can't be this

DD x Dd
D+D = DD (wildtype, non-carrier for white)
D+D = DD (wildtype, non-carrier for white)
D+d = Dd (wildtype, CARRIER for white, but dark is dominant, so you wouldn't know until future breedings)
D+d = Dd (wildtype, CARRIER for white, but dark is dominant, so you wouldn't know until future breedings)

Dd x Dd
D+D = DD (wildtype, non-carrier for white)
D+d = Dd (wildtype, CARRIER for white, but dark is dominant, so you wouldn't know until future breedings)
d+D = Dd (wildtype, CARRIER for white, but dark is dominant, so you wouldn't know until future breedings)
d+d = dd (white!)



Don't know if that helps, but I think I make a mistake before, not taking into account that the recessive gene will only show itself if BOTH parts are recessive, otherwise that animal will be a carrier, but the recessive gene will be hidden

 

[memojo1979]

And, to show how the workings are done, let's replace the letters with numbers -

Dd x Dd------------------->12 x 34
D+D = DD---------------->1+3
D+d = Dd----------------->1+4
d+D = Dd----------------->2+3
d+d = dd------------------>2+4

 

[Kaysie]

Make it easier - use the X + Y chromosomes from humans -
XX is female, XY is male

The possible offspring are
XX (female) which is the 1st letter from mum + dad
XX (female) which is the 2nd letter from mum + the 1st letter from dad
XY (male) which is the 1st letter from mum + the 2nd letter from dad
XY (male) which is the 2nd letter from mum + dad

There are no other combinations, so these are the only possible outcomes.

(I know you guys hate me for this, but) Technically, that's only true barring genetic mutations. Monosomies and trisomies have been recorded, and in many cases are viable offspring (although not always 'normal').

But you've got a pretty good grasp on your genetics!

 

[memojo1979]

(I know you guys hate me for this, but) Technically, that's only true barring genetic mutations. Monosomies and trisomies have been recorded, and in many cases are viable offspring (although not always 'normal').

But you've got a pretty good grasp on your genetics!

I was going to say what on Earth are monosomies + triosomies, but using my grasp of English (much easier than science - I LIKE words, LoL!) I'm guessing that means instead of there being 2 options (but I don't know if that means from each parents, or if it means the number of pairs), there are either 1 [mono] or 3 [tri]. And, I guess genetic mutations are called that because they're not the norm, but nevertheless crop up, sometimes without an explanation
Just don't ask me to try to work any of it out by looking at axolotls, LoL!

 

[lollypop]

I started reading this post 1, I liked genetics at school (wasn't any good at it mind)
And 2, thought it might help me work out what my babies are.

The results I have come up with are
1, I have a headache
2, I have wild types, albinos with shiny bits and whitish ones with black eyes.

Think that explanation will suit me for now,