|
Clint,
I was not dodging your question earlier when I inserted okeetee into the equation. I was attempting to answer it by reminding you that we already deal with that very issue in so many other morphs.
How red must an episkiastic snake be before it can be called a bloodred? I can't say ... but I'll know it when I see it. That's my answer.
Now, since I have answered your question for you, please look to these following questions with the same eye that you have directed toward the bloodred issue:
How silver must a snake's background be in order to be called a Miami phase?
How thick must an okeetee's border be before they are an okeetee?
What percentage of white can there be before an animal is no longer classified as a sunglow?
White percentage of white must there be before an animal may be classified as a candy cane?
What is the precise dividing line between reverse okeetee and regular amel?
Must an animal be from serpenco stock in order to be a Silver Queen? If not, how much like Rich's animals must a specimen look before that name could be used?
Clint, I am really not trying to be rude, because I have nothing but respect for you in so many ways. But it seems to me that we are wanting to single out the bloodred morph as something unique in the corn world, when it is merely another example of a single morph among many. How red must a bloodred be, before it can be classified as a "good" bloodred? Again, I have no idea, but I know it when I see it.
Is that really too foreign a concept in the determination of what makes a cornsnake fall into one category or another? How many threads have you seen posted by new people, who have just gotten their new cornsnake from the petstore. It's an amel, and they post the picture asking the inevitable question:
"Is my corn a reverse okeetee?"
Various people will respond, and there may be four different answers about the same snap shot: "Yes, no, maybe, I think it's a hybrid!" Does the fact that people disagree as to what constitutes a reverse okeetee, or that so many have a difficult time trying to definitively describe the morph mean that there is no distinction to be recognized?
I don't think so.
|