new to bloodred..

woah

-- I had no idea I would start so much talk with my initial question, haha. I agree that the name "diffuse", (or something more specific to drescribe the pattern separate from the color, such as what Amanda E said) would make everything alot easier for those attempting to buy the cornsnakes, especially if they are not exactly experienced with different morphs, etc. It would definately make the whole thing easier from my viewpoint.

I'm defninately admiring all you breeders that have been working with this and tackling what seems to be a more and more complicated assortment of variations as time goes by...

The bloodred debate. . . .

. . . is nothing new. Not unlike many appearance conflicts within corn morphs, I have some bloodreds with no markings on their sides at all. Do they need a new name? I don't think so. They're not diffused, not blended, not faded. They totally lack lateral markings.

Like most people (especially newcomers), a namesake that denotes color confuses them. They have an expectation when they see the name. "BLOODRED" must mean they're very red. Not necessarily.

I wish there was a better descriptive word for what we're looking for. Faded, diffused, blended. None of those seem adequate. Also, we're not dealng with a recessive distinction here. If there was a Mendelian, predictable percentage you could expect from breeding a nice red bloodred to one of the uglier brown bloodreds, I'd see a need for change. As it will always be, the customer has a decision to make. In this era of digital photography, I don't see how anyone would buy a snake they couldn't see first. Not necessarily the exact snake, but a parent or genetic representation of that. Like most breeders, we put in writing that if you're not satisfied the snake you bought from us matured to look like the pictures we advertised, we'll replace it. Given the metamorphic nature of corns, what you see in a neonate is NOT what you're going to see when it matures. I think if one breeder's bloodreds look better or worse than another breeder's, the customer has a decision to make. I don't think we necessarily have to rename a snake because it doesn't look like some of the other representatives of that morph.

?????

I think that the quality (while hard to determine as babies) should be dealt with by adding A-grade or B-grade to the term bloodred. If an animal looks like the ideal bloodred, it should be termed an A-grade bloodred. If it is still genetically a bloodred, but it isn't the ideal (in terms of bright red color or fading of pattern), it should be termed a B-grade bloodred.

Click to expand...

OK, the problem with this one is who selects which animals fit into which grade? The variability will be so staggering amongst breeders and buyers as far as what they expect that the term Grade A or Grade B, C, D, Z will become meaningless. Most people tend to think the best of their animals...most people will tend to push the majority of "bloods" into the A category with just the only-a-mama-could-love versions being dumped to "second class". Another breeder may reserve the grade A for only the most primo specimen ever. There's no way to enforce it and I really wouldn't want to try to.

Another problem with that classification is that no one can tell what these animals will look like as adults...and it's not as if they get their full coloration by 1 or 2 years.

My third problem with class systems stems back to that thread on worthlessness being assigned to others' corns. Who's to say that I should have to call my version of bloodred "B" because it's of a different variety than yours? Perhaps that's the look I'm striving for and that's the cream of my crop for what I'm selectively breeding.


In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think that there should be a pattern name (I'd side with "diffuse" or "diffusion" of the ones suggested) for the plain belly, smeared sides, skull head pattern, lessening of dorsal pattern with age. Why can't "bloodred" be reserved for those that become blood red? Much like the term candy cane should be reserved for those amels that become red and white/orange and white. The term "bloodred butter" doesn't bring to mind the same snake that "diffused butter" does. Diffused lends one to think it's a butter with a smeared/stretched/wiped out pattern...that's pretty darn close to being a perfect match---description-wise. Bloodred butter brings to mind a red and yellow snake, at least to me.

I also don't see any reason to change the name pewter any more than I think the name ghost, snow, or blizzard should be changed. They are accepted and if you've done your homework you know what combos of genes they are made of. I am sure that lavender + blood/diffusion/diffuse will earn its very own name shortly...but it will still be a diffuse lavender (or whatever)...just like a snow is still an anerythristic amel.


Long and short of it: I vote for diffuse/diffusion for the pattern and keep bloodred for the primo examples of solid red snakes with white bellies.

This is gonna be tough!

We have to change a well established name for a morph that is anything but well established (meaning proven genetics). Bloodred is a good name for the good examples of what people think they should look like.

I'm just throwing out some thoughts here.

There's also a possibility that the patternless ventral can be separated from the Motley gene as well. I know there are a lot of people working on Motley Bloods, I'd like to see the F1's from those crossings. I wonder if the ventral pattern is closely related or in the same location in the genetic thread?

Rich has produced some odd results from Milksnake phase X Motley. I've got some odd ventral things going on with an Okeetee X Motley project also. My point is, simple recessive and selectively bred pattern mutations seem to have the ventral link in common. Just some food for thought.

I think we need some concrete evidence in order to change names or rename. I agree that there are some Bloodreds out there that by no means are 'Blood' red but where does that leave the Blood colored reds? They are the same morph, just better examples of selective breeding. How will we explain the question 'what will I get if I cross a Bloodred and a "insert new name"?

I guess it would be no different then an amel and a Sunglow. So the Bloodred name would have to stay, just add a name for the specific mutation of pattern.

OK, we have a mutation that leaves a patternless ventral and does what to the dorsal? I guess if all of the dark red is removed we might be able to see it. I have an odd snake in my collection produced by a het motley Classic possible het Bloodred from Kathy's line. It's father was a Milksnake phase, either het Motley or Motley. It is really, well......odd.



Is it Motley? Well, kind of. Also looks like a redless Bloodred. He is a proven breeder but I have not crossed him with a Bloodred (not enough female Bloods!)

Just thinking out loud, I can see why they call it "Brain Storming"!

This topic has been popping up for quite a while, and every time it's the same thing... a bunch of people agree that the pattern acts like a simple trait, and it seems silly to call anything not red a "something bloodred" and that we should try to agree on a name.

Every time, it then just fizzles into obscurity, because nobody ever does go with a name. I've decided to go with one... I had to, because back in January I started working on the 2004 edition of The Buyer's Guide to Cornsnake Morphs (http://cornguide.com) and I didn't want to not distinguish the patterned snakes from the selectively bred ones.

I was hoping this topic wouldn't come back again quite so soon, but here it is. The book is pretty much ready to go and I was going to announce it next week, but this topic is making it a bit difficult for me to not say anything, since I now have invested money into pushing that name.

I'm actually following someone else's lead, but my book is coming out before that "lead" will be seen by everyone. I'm positive that I will take some heat for it, but someone had to grab the bull by the horns and see if they get stabbed, so why not me.

Anyway, the biggest reservation people seem to have about putting a name to the pattern is that it varies. People seem to be happy enough with motley being like that, but no other pattern has been accepted in the same way. The thing we need to "get" is that a lot of variability is to be expected with ALL pattern morphs.

• In rats, the "hooded" trait has the same amount of variability, where there can be or not be a "stripe" going down the back, too.
• Piebald is like that in ball pythons.
• Even "striped" corns are not always "striped." But when you breed one of these "striped" corns (with a non-striped pattern) to another "striped" corn, you still get offspring that are striped corns.
• "Paint" in horses can be hidden even though it's dominant... they can look completely normal to someone who doesn't know what to look for, yet they still can throw typical "paint" offspring.
• I'm sure there are at least dozens of examples around the animal kingdom to further my case, but I think I've bored you guys enough. ;-)

So my argument for having a new name starts with "it is a genetic pattern morph, it varies, and it's supposed to vary." I can't continue to accept the argument that they all look different, because the more pattern mutants I learn about in other species, the more that doesn't make any sense to me to expect a rigid definition. It's just part of any pattern morph, so there will never be a perfect descriptor unless there are 500 synonyms for "motley," hehe.

The second part is that "bloodred" is only descriptive of a small number of corns expressing this pattern. I don't remember whose argument I'm rehashing here, but imagine that the first motleys all had a copper colored ground color and became known as "copper corns." Then later on it was noticed that the motley pattern existed, it was a simple-recessive, and it had little or nothing to do with the ground color. Would it make any sense to have "copper butter," "copper sunglow" and "copper lavender" cornsnakes? It sounds ridiculous, but IMO that's where we stand today with the way we're using "bloodred."

As far as confusion... yes there will be confusion with the new name, but I seriously doubt it could be more confusing than the current situation. There'll be a transition period, but maybe my new book will help shorten it. Newbies are able to grasp why "a candycane is an amel but not all amels are candycanes," so I think the same understanding will be possible: that a bloodred is diffused, but not all diffuse corns are bloodreds.

"In conclusion" (hehe) someone has to stick their neck out... this time it's gonna be me. I'm sure many of the people who agreed that a name should be chosen will criticize my choice, and even the fact that I decided to try to get a name going. Like variations in a pattern mutant, it's to be expected.

Serp,

I am really interested in seeing your new guide! I have told you before that I am not 100% sold on the name "diffuse," but I really don't know of another that would be any better. I have looked for a Greek term, but there isn't anything that rolls off the tongue like amelanism does, so I guess we just have tomuddle through with an English term. I suggested "faded" but that was just something to get the ball rolling, because I think it is just as bad (or good) as "diffuse."

HOWEVER, I am all for a name for the pattern of the animals in question, and I will say that a "less than terrific" pattern name is by far better -- in my estimation -- than no pattern name at all. That was what I was originally trying to convey in my "Copper Corn/Motley" analogy. Will "diffuse" make it in the long run? I don't know; "mocha" didn't. BUT I think we are seeing more agreement on the NEED for a pattern name than we ever have before, and THAT is something about which I am very pleased!

Amanda E said:

The term "pewter" only implies a gray snake, not one that has bloodred in it.

Click to expand...

I guess I missed the boat . . . I assumed (I know ) that Pewter meant Charcoal Bloodred. Am I wrong on this?

I had another big long, lengthy response to add as well, and then saw Serps recent 'arguments'. I would have to agree with most of what he said.

I would say I disagree with some bloodreds being called bloodreds and others diffuse normals. Maybe I got on the cornsnake boat too late, but bloodred doesn't necessarily mean deep, deep red to me. I first think of the pattern change, and secondly the richness of the red. I purchased my first bloods from Kathy last summer, and she very respectfully sold me what she thought would be higher quality bloods for a higher price, and a subquality blood for a lower price. I knew I could trust her judgement about her hatchlings and what they would turn into. If the high quality ones aren't deep, deep red will I be disappointed? No, but that's because I understand the variability of the morph and color in corns (I've done a bit of my homework!). I do expect the sides to clear and the saddles to fade as they get older, which is pretty much what Serp was saying in his latest post. (BTW, the higher quality ones are proving to be a richer red than the subquailty one already. I still call both of them blodreds though.)

I haven't been doing this, breeding, long enough in my opinion, and will defer to those that have, but I do think a term needs to be picked to clear up the picture. Many consumers choose not to do their homework and want a clearer 'definition' in a name. How many people have to explain to someone what a 'black albino' is?!

Can't wait to see what surprises the guide holds Serp! Will it include material on genetics similar to your website?

D80

Warning! Negative logic at work.

I'm not especially sold on the "diffuse" concept, I guess. Probably the biggest reason for this is from years of watching corns growing up, it is pretty much apparent that the colors strength with maturity, but all pigments don't do so evenly. In effect, we watch the suffusion of pigment as a progression of age.

Having seen this suffusion of pigment in all the cultivars of corns I have worked with, my impression of what is happening with the Blood Reds is that the suffusion of the red pigment subsumes the pattern that is visible on the neonates. The pattern does not go away, or become diffused at all. The excessive suffusion of ground color pigment simply obscures it from view.

Then we turn to the Pewters. Some process, different pigment. Charcoal, like type 'A' Anerythrism does not appear to be the absence of red/orange pigmentation as much as it is supplanted with excessive melanin that obscures those brighter pigments. So when combined with the suffusive effect of the "Blood Red gene", the pattern is again suffused by the age related encroachment of this increased ground color pigment.

The pattern has not been diffused at all. It has just been overlaid with the ground color pigment. Or is that just hair splitting?

In my opinion, of course.

Perhaps time lapse photography of this progression would answer these questions more fully.

But from the start, I have always thought of the term "Blood Red" to simply be a catchy generic term for a mostly or completely patternless corn snake. Just as "Pewter" is a generic term for a pewter colored patternless corn snake as well. And certainly a catchy generic term will surface for a patternless Lavender corn, patternless Caramel Corn, and patternless Butter corn, when the time is ripe for them.

So, Occam's Razor. If we are talking about a definition of a patternless corn snake, why not USE the term "Patternless"? It is pretty much understandable to most people and doesn't produce anywhere near the confusion factor that calling something a "Diffused Corn" will. Both Blood Reds and Pewters (and more to come) would be generic named variations of the Patternless "gene".

Honestly, since public opinion finally overcame that misnamed leopard gecko trait that was initially called "Leucistic" to the more correct (in my opinion) "patternless", doing something similar with the Corn Snake should not be an insurmountable hurdle at all.

Wow, lots of great discussion here from the oldbies of the corn world!

I'm a newbie to corns, and I've got to say that I'm 100% in favor of changing the name of Blood Reds to something that better describes the pattern. When I was trying to choose a morph, I fell in love with the idea of a Blood Red--a patternless, purplish-red snake with a pure white belly. I was extremely disappointed when I did more research and learned that the actual snakes are a blotchy orange, nothing like the common description.

A few people have mentioned this before, but it's important to keep in mind that the majority of the snake buying public don't have years of experience in the history and breeding of these animals. What a particular morph looked like 20 years ago isn't all that relevant, and it isn't practical to expect a buyer to research minutiae of genetics just to find out that a snake has an appearance that's completely unrelated to its name.

IMHO, it's completely illogical to call a morph by a name that has nothing to do with its actual appearance, regardless of any other factors. The term "blood red" implies a very specific color, and it's confusing when the snakes don't fit that description. And no words can describe how nonsensical a term like "lavender blood red" sounds. It would be much simpler for everyone if "Blood Red" referred specifically to animals that truly are blood red, and another term was used for ones that are patternless in general.

And I desperately hope that someone out there will try to resurrect the original dark red strain. I'd love to have one someday!

This may be stupid, but here goes...

Instead of diffuse, couldn't some form of the term vanishing be used? I mean we have vanishing stripes, right? If only the word "vanishing" was used, people would more readily understand it, I think.

I do not have any experience with bloodreds, but this is what I always think the pattern looks like in pictures.

If we are talking about a definition of a patternless corn snake, why not USE the term "Patternless"? It is pretty much understandable to most people and doesn't produce anywhere near the confusion factor that calling something a "Diffused Corn" will. Both Blood Reds and Pewters (and more to come) would be generic named variations of the Patternless "gene".

Click to expand...

I don't believe this gets us any closer to our goal than the name bloodred. The term "patternless" is still describing the "ideal" that 90% or more of these snakes will never reach in their lifetimes, and certainly not for years. There are some specimens that become as close to patternless as any snake I've seen, but that term is going to disappoint more people, especially newbies, than the term bloodred did.

I think this term would be more confusing than "diffusion" or "diffuse". Diffusion has a bit more of a vague meaning, anything from spreading out from a concentrated source... to adding pigment to the subject and watching it spread out over the animal... to a visual dissipation of one color to be overtaken by another (like a snake that originally has black markings that are overtaken by diffusion of red pigment over the snake). It can be applied to the wiping of the side pattern, it can be applied to the infusion and spread of red in the normal form/infusion of spread of *insert color here* in the *color morph* form. In my opinion the term diffuse is a better match for the visual effect of what happens in those snakes, for what it's worth.

When I think patternless, I picture a snake like the vanishing stripes. Those guys start out with the tendency and quickly become virtually patternless. They fit the name. My worry with "patternless" for the bloodred pattern is that it will only truly describe a small subset of the animals and create confusion with the rest. (Besides, I'm still holding out for a 'born patternless' gene to pop up.)

Instead of diffuse, couldn't some form of the term vanishing be used? I mean we have vanishing stripes, right? If only the word "vanishing" was used, people would more readily understand it, I think.

Click to expand...

Using any form of vanishing to define the bloodred pattern would also create confusion. The term vanishing is already attached publicly to stripes, so applying the term to two totally unrelated, dissimilar genes would be a bad move, IMHO. "I bred my vanishing stripe to my anery vanishing corn, I should get all vanishings het for anery and stripe, right? What does an anery striped vanishing look like? Thanks in advance!"

When the term "diffusion" was first brought up (way back when in one of these 'let's rename bloodred' posts), I honestly hated it. The more I've thought on it, though, the more the term has grown on me. It's vague enough (much like the name motley) and non-specific enough (unlike patternless, which is very specific-- no pattern, or bloodred -- red snake) to cover the variety that we experience with the bloodred pattern. It doesn't limit the morph, but lets people selectively take the pattern in any direction they see fit. Like I said before, there will still be bloodreds...apply it to the red snakes, it's appropriate. Pewter is accepted, a good name, and covers the gamut of those lovely metallic charcoal beauties...but lets get a name for the pattern trait.

Hmmmm..............Diffuse?

Man, that name is just...........blaaah!

I don't think you'll see Diffuse corns on my table anytime soon. Either way I'd have to explain the Bloodred heritage, whether it's the fact that it won't be the color of blood or trying explain what 'Diffuse' means.

Maybe the first time someone comes to me and asks for a Diffuse, I'll change my tune.

I know I'm not being much help here. I've been racking my brain trying to think of a good name but it just hasn't come yet.

My wife (Ava) has been taking painting classes and I picked her brain a bit about what might be comparable. She's doing Faux painting of walls and the style that fits is called sponging. "Sponged corn?" nahh.........

To be continued.......

Actually, that is a good point, Clint. I have enough trouble at shows trying to explain to people what a "Lavender" corn is...

indeet a good point, so you all should stop making new morphs then

OK, Pewter! You have a point. As long as we keep developing stuff we're going to have to name it!

Here's an idea for names:
Leach
or
Hasting's

that´s what I had in my mind yesterday ... but I forgot my idea:awcrap:

it´s a pitty that it´s that hard to find a name...how easy would it be if this would just be a color morph.

Amanda E[/i] [B]The term "pewter" only implies a gray snake said:

I guess I missed the boat . . . I assumed (I know ) that Pewter meant Charcoal Bloodred. Am I wrong on this?

Click to expand...

You're not wrong. You only misinterpreted what I was trying to get at. A pewter is indeed a charcoal bloodred. What I was implying was that if you go out and asked someone on the street, who knows nothing of cornsnakes, and asked him what a pewter cornsnake looks like they would probably just say a gray snake. The word "pewter" in-and-of-itself doesn't mean charcoal + bloodred. We have just learned that that is what it means. That's all I was trying to say.

I'm not sure that we're all on the same page here (big "DUH!" there, Huh?) about what is being described in relation tot he pattern being "diffuse" or fading away on a "bloodred" animal. At least when I speak of it, I am not saying that the actual pattern of the animal gets any less discernable from a pattern vanishing process. I believe that Rich is correct when he says that the ground color just pretty much overtakes the saddle coloration.

However, think about a cross section of a corn snake. It will look something like a slice of bread. At the top, the dorsal line, the pattern is at its most distinct in either the hatchling or the adult. On the bottom, the ventral line, there is no checkering, leaving the white belly that bloodreds have as a pattern mutation. In between, as you move from the top to the bottom, along the sides (the crust), the pattern fades away, going from more distinct to less and less distinct, until (in the better examples of the morph), there is no pattern at all on the lateral lines. That is what I meant by "faded" when I suggested that name, and I believe it is the same concept Serp is looking at when he describes it as "diffuse."

I don't believe anyone wants to make this harder than it needs to be, but if we're not all talking about the same thing, there is no real understanding going on, and if there is no common understanding, there can surely be no consensus on a name.

At one time I had a small series of photos of a Blood Red as it matured in my photo album. Only a few photos, each maybe a year apart. But the most noticeable thing is the head coloration. It progresses from the light grey of a baby, into full orange as an adult. The pattern does not diffuse. The ground color develops and fills in all available areas. The amount of completion this process reaches is what determines how much of the pattern will still be discernible in a fully mature adult Blood Red.

If I can find those photos, I will scan them and post them here.

But as a further example, any of you who have had, or have, Hypo Blood Reds will see this effect very vividly. The heads on some of those are almost bone white, which becomes completely orange colored in full adults.

Of course, this brings up yet another question: Why is that head pattern so dramatically light colored at all in babies?

I agree with Hurley about "vanishing." I can see the "vanishing striped anery X vanishing = vanishings het for striped anery" questions already, hehe.

"Faded" I could see, but not "fading" for some reason. It's too bad it's not more extreme or we could just call it "whitesided."

However, think about a cross section of a corn snake.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying, but most people aren't going to see it like a cross-section, they're just looking at the snake. I also think diffuse fits the same thing... faded suggests "fading out" but if anything's fading, it's the color fading in.

Either way I'd have to explain the Bloodred heritage, whether it's the fact that it won't be the color of blood or trying explain what 'Diffuse' means.

Click to expand...

IMO it's easier to point one out and say, "it's this diffused pattern." Especially if it's some kind of anerythristic morph.

Whatever is settled on will be reflected in next year's edition, so it won't be a big deal to me if it's not "diffuse." It looks like at least something will happen this year now that we've got more people with influence talking about it, and considering it. I hope that whatever is chosen will be as inclusive a description as possible. That is, it will describe most of them, not just the top 5 percentile of amazing specimens.

As far as people sticking their necks out to put it on their pricelists... I'd assume it wouldn't be too confusing to put "Diffuse (aka Bloodred)" or "Faded (aka Bloodred)" (or whatever) on price lists for a few years. Here are some quotes from pricelists on big breeders' websites:

• South Mountain Reptiles: "Charcoal Corn Snake (Anery. B)"
• SerpenCo: "Anerythristic Type 'A' Corns (Black Albino)"
• CornUtopia: "ROSY (HYPOMELANISTIC) CORN SNAKES"
• Southwest Wisconsin Reptiles: "lavender or mocha"
• VMS Herps: "Phantom Cornsnake" ... "Hypomelanistic and Axanthic (Charcoal). aka 'Charcoal Ghost'"
• Clint Boyer: "Anery 'B' or Charcoal"
• etc...

Anyway, the point is that putting another term on the price list along with the currently well-known one is something that everyone already does... it's not like it's a huge risk to do so, and there's already a well-established precedent of including multiple names.