Purple Axolotl?

[Affordable Exo]

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.

 

[michael]

I. 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.

That would be an interesting project if carried out by credible breeders. It would be a tough project to prove out. I can think of at least two mass producers of axolotls whose data I would not trust.

 

[Cailyn]

There's a lady who breeds them. She has these two that she bred. I don't know if she still does it or not though.

 

[GeorgeAquatics]

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.

Thank you. That's a helpful explanation. I also feel that there is a place for both genetic names and hobby names, when a legitimate new colour variety has been developed. In that case, whichever name the breeder chooses, no matter how silly it may seem, generally gets picked up, I find.

I find that there tend to be a lot more silly names in the reptile and tropical fish breeding worlds than there are in the caudate world. I prefer more literal names, myself. I breed light melanoid axolotls, which often have a purplish appearance as adults, and since I live in Canada where we don't have axanthic axolotls yet, as far as I know, (I think that these are the "purples" that this thread was made in regards to), I like to refer to these as "purple melanoids".

I feel that purple is "in the eye of the beholder", so to speak. I don't think it's any more or less accurate to refer to light melanoids as "purple melanoids" than it is to refer to dark melanoids as "black melanoids", yet, when I post pictures in certain axolotl groups on Facebook, I get met with outrage from certain breeders in the USA who accuse me of confusing their customers, since now they are asking what the difference is between their "purples" and my "purple melanoids".

Personally, I feel that the confusion could be avoided by combining both the hobby names and the phenotype names, so in this case, the purplish axanthics produced by Jay Sommers would be "purple axanthics".

What do you think?

Here are some pictures of my "purple melanoid" / light melanoids (or is it melanistic? I keep seeing that in some places, rather than melanoid. It's a synonym, right?), for those who are curious.

In the top right, top left, and bottom right, you can see three individuals who were all bred from the same pair, and you can see each in both high light and low light, next to another photo of themselves.  These are all close to adult size.

These are similar to "black melanoids" which typically start out purple or gray, and gradually turn black as they mature. My "purple melanoids" start out white, looking just like leucistics, and turn purple / navy blue as they mature.

 

[GeorgeAquatics]

For anyone who is interested in more information on "purples" AKA axanthics, there is a fantastic write up by Patrick Steinberger here, in the Axolotl and Fish Connection Files:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AxolotlAndFishConnection/files/

(See "Axolotl Colour Morphs and Combinations")

Unfortunately, it is only viewable as a pdf file, and there is no digital copy anywhere online that I'm aware of, but it's the best detailed explanation of the different phenotypes and colour varieties that I've come across, and includes pictures.

No offence intended to Dr. Clare and his Colours and Genetics page at axolotl.org. I don't think any of this would be possible without his contributions to the hobby, as well as all of the hard working moderators and contributors here.


I apologize if linking to a Facebook group is against the rules at all. Please edit/delete if so. Thank you.