Poll: are you going to call "bloodred" anything else?

blood or bloodred. I agree with Rich that the other morphs: caramel, anery, butter, etc. that have this gene will probably get their own names like the Pewter for charcoal blood.
When I hear the name blood or bloodred I picture the morphs attributes like I would amel, anery, butter, etc. And, to me, when I see an anery blood, amel blood, pewter, etc. they all seem to have a slight almost reddish hue along the sides, so bloodred is fine for me.

And Hurley,
Sadly I have to agree with you. There seems to be an awful lot of flame throwing and inaccurate answers given to peoples questions over on that other site. Too bad. New people on the block need good answers not poor ones or daggers thrown at them.

I know the experienced people here "get" the difference, and I totally expect resistance to change. But I also think a lot of other people are totally not getting it. Nobody here is suggesting that a solid red snake should not be called a bloodred.

What we're talking about is a pattern trait.

The examples below demonstrate the currently accepted name as it is applied in real life, and how absurd it is:


The difference between these two snakes is that one of them is "bloodred."





The above snake IS a "bloodred." But the snake below is NOT.



IMO if a third line of anerythrism is discovered, we might as well call it "lime green."

Names can be fickle.

How about the all American '57 Chevy? Isn't Chevrolet a French word?

I'm not against change that I see merit in. In my opinion, no one would use the term diffuse anyway. It may designate the pattern type but Diffuse anery 'B'? I think Pewter will do.

All names will have to run the gaunlet, look at what Lava and Ice have gone through. Diffuse may just end up being the ticket, but it will have to make it's run.

The same argument can be applied with these examples, I suppose:

Caramel -> Amelanistic Caramel (Butter)

Anerythristic - > Amelanistic Anerythristic (Snow)

Lavender -> Amelanistic Lavender (Opal)

Blood Red -> Charcoal Blood Red (Pewter)


What this is indicating is that those genetic traits that have been named based on the original color it produced as a single phenotypical expression, when combined with a second phenotypically expressed genetic type needs to have a unique name applied to it. This does not indicate that the original name applied was at all incorrect, it just means that the new animal just makes the name disagreeable to behold because it no longer applies to what this animal looks like. The detailed description of this new cultivar can certainly state the genes involved to produce the newly named multi homozygous expression, and it will be fully consistent with what we have seen and done in the past. There is no need to drop the original name simply because the new combinations do not look like the original in color.

So in Serpwidget's example above, I think perhaps it is time to come up with a name for the Type 'A' Anerythristic Blood Red. Since the trend has generally been to name these multi genetic combinations of color altering genes in a descriptive manner indicating their overall appearance, perhaps we should stick to that trend in this instance as well.

Originally posted by Clint Boyer
How about the all American '57 Chevy? Isn't Chevrolet a French word?

I've never heard the term "Chevrolet" used in any context other than as the name of a car company, including when I lived in France for almost 6 months. If it means nothing, it means whatever you say it means.

Chevrolet doesn't say, "inarguably, indelibly, totally French" so you're comparison isn't a good one. Bloodred gives a very clear preconcieved notion of what to expect. If the word is nonsense, people will learn that it means whatever they're told it means. If the word is has a very clear and obviously descriptive meaning, they will believe what they get will fit said description. Way too many "bloodred" corns on the market today are no more "blood" or "red" than any motley corn.

A lot of people coming into the hobby are going to continue to find out by being "ripped off."

I'm sure resellers who see the precedent we set (and support) of using totally inaccurate names feel safe to assume that we're like the Ball Python and Beardie market where everyone just makes up whatever name will sell more animals, whether or not it's deceptive.

Originally posted by Rich Z
The same argument can be applied with these examples, I suppose:

Caramel -> Amelanistic Caramel (Butter)

Anerythristic - > Amelanistic Anerythristic (Snow)

Lavender -> Amelanistic Lavender (Opal)

Blood Red -> Charcoal Blood Red (Pewter)

I don't think these make your case very well.

Amelanistic Anerythristic is perfectly descriptive. It means the snake is lacking red pigments, and lacking black pigments. Snows indeed lack those pigments.

The other ones are actually color traits. The name "bloodred" was not originally coined to describe a pattern, it was coined to describe a color, but there is no known genetic "toss in a bunch of red" trait at this point. It was only at some later time when a pattern trait was discovered within those bloodlines. (Actually, the first time I ever heard someone suggest that a pattern trait even existed was when I suggested it. Apparently some people knew there was a heritable pattern trait, but nobody ever talked about it. )

If your lavenders originated from a line of 12-foot corns, and when you outcrossed and found the lavender color trait was expressed in corns that only grew to average size, would you call these 3-foot lavender-colored snakes "giant" corns?

Since the trend has generally been to name these multi genetic combinations of color altering genes in a descriptive manner indicating their overall appearance, perhaps we should stick to that trend in this instance as well.

I agree fully. I like the name Pewter, and I'd really like to see "trade names" applied to the Anerythristics, Lavenders, and Caramels. I'd love to see metallic names applied to the rest of them, but that's up to someone else. You'd think by now there are enough "Anery Bloods" to know what they will look like.

IIRC some people in Europe are calling the lavender+blood combo "plasma." (Or is that Hypo lavs?)

You miss my point.......

You can argue each little detail but the fact still remains.....All Butters are not the color of Butter, all Lavenders are not Lavender, Sunglows are not the color of the Sun, are Ghosts the color of Ghosts? on and on........

There is just not enough evidence that Diffuse will clear any confusion. Where do you draw the line for the color of blood, is it the bright orangy red blood full of oxygen or deep red blood on the way back to the lungs? There is a huge difference.

But arguing about how red a Bloodred is will not resolve anything. I'd think that if they can ask what diffuse means, they can ask how red the Bloodreds are.

P.S. I think Rich hit the nail on the head with the mixing of morphs. Each will be best suited with it's own specific name.

But arguing about how red a Bloodred is will not resolve anything. I'd think that if they can ask what diffuse means, they can ask how red the Bloodreds are.

The point isn't even involving red at this point. It's becoming more and more obvious that the more or less co-dominant pattern trait found in bloodreds isn't linked to the red. The pattern itself needs a name. Bloodreds will still be bloods, regardless of whether they are bright red, coagulated red, motor oil red, or candy-apple-cherry-berry-pistachio-red. A pewter is a pewter is a pewter. An *insert name here* will be an anery 'blood' and an *insert another name here* will be a lavender 'blood', but it'd sure be nice (especially when giving a talk on corn morphs or teaching newcomers to the hobby) to have a name descriptive of the pattern. Take motley, stripe, Aztec, zigzag, striped motley, cubed motley, banded, patternless stripe, etc....none of these are "color" names because they have nothing to do with the color, per se.

My personal favorite is the "Uh.....huh." look I get when beginning the explanation to a novice about the 'bloodreds' that aren't. This is usually followed up with the, "Yeah, YOU know what you're talking about, yuh-huh" look. Makes for a long and animated conversation, sure, but wouldn't it be easier to just have to say, "And this is the **** trait, see how it blends the sides, clears the belly, yadda," without having to add the paragraph-plus explaining, "yes, I know it's not red, but that's how it originally started..." and "...yeah, well, the original snakes WERE red, well not the red you're thinking of, but clotted blood red..." and "...well yeah, you see we in the corn world use name bloodred to mean a pattern..." and on and on. Bloodred is just such an extreme color name. It's not just red, it's holy mama BLOOD red. (It's not just red, it's candy apple red....it's not just orange, it's hazard hunter's orange.) Having a color name for a pattern doesn't sit well with me anyway, so having such a specific, insistant-upon-the-color name just seems....well, silly, I guess, for lack of a better word.

The term bloodred and its incongruent usage for the pattern itself instantly puts doubt in the mind of the new person and either makes them wonder about your intelligence (until you prove you know your stuff) or makes them believe "oh, I'll never understand all this genetics stuff, it's so confusing." Neither situation is necessary if we just give a name to the pattern. It makes us look like we are trying to be responsible in our naming practices and makes us look more professional than the ball python world with their "morphs".

Well, the problem I see here is that not all of us are convinced that the "Blood Red" trait is a pattern trait rather than a color trait. Name me one other genetic pattern cultivar in the corn snakes that the babies can be basically normally patterned but then become the target pattern upon maturity. I certainly cannot think of any. Motley babies become Motley adults. Striped babies become striped adults. Etc., etc.

And based upon the well known fact that the coloration in corns changes dramatically while maturing further strengthens my opinion that this is really a case of the red (or red-orange) coloration increasing to overpower and blot out the pattern that is seen in babies and juveniles. The fact that Charcoal will alter this color has no more bearing in what the Blood Red trait is than the fact that Amelanism changes the way Anerythrism is exhibited when the animal is homozygous for both genes. The color that is exhibited has been changed, but the Blood Red gene (or quasi-gene) still makes the animals overall coloration become flooded with this altered coloration. Coloration that would still be red or red-orange, if not modified by another gene.

Is this an unusual occurence in corn snakes? Nope, not at all. I have Silver Queens that are losing their patterns (and they have patternless abdomens as well). I have Opals that have turned into perfectly white animals. One Snow Motley in my collection has completely lost it's pattern. Motleys and Stripes can have the pattern become very indistinct as age reduces the contrast between the pattern and ground color. And of course, Blizzards can gain or lose their pattern almost every other shed.

Patternless (full or partial) abdomens? Heck I see that in Motley, Striped, Silver Queens, Upper Keys, Milk Snake Phase and Blood Reds. So what does that mean? Beats me.

Calling a rose by a different name is not going to change the fragrance. What do you call a Diffuse Corn that does not lose all of it's pattern? What about the ones that have patternless sides, but strongly orange blotched abdomens instead of predominantly white abdomens? Is calling a corn a "Diffuse Charcoal Corn" better or worse than calling it a "Pewter Corn"?

Protecting the fragile minds of newbies should not be the goal of any naming convention for the corns, I believe. If someone cannot grasp the concept of variation in any given cultivar of the corn snake, then they are lost anyway with all of this. Variation is the rule, not the exception, so people just have to understand this and accept it. Certainly no one expects Snow Corns to all look identical and to actually look like snow, now do they? If someone is going to be disappointed that their Snow Corn doesn't actually look like snow, then I suspect they will be just as disappointed that their Blood Red does not perfectly match up with the color of their blood either. And I must say that I am thankful that most Butter Corns are actually much more colorful than the typical butter I spread on my toast in the mornings.

Heck, for that matter, look at most Anerythristic Motleys and tell me where all that color came from and why they should still be called "Anerythristic". Or why Coral Snows should still be called "Snow Corns". How are some Ghost Corns pink if they are Anerythristics?

Sorry, but at this point I just cannot support changing the name of the Blood Reds based on the presented arguments. Natural variation is going to produce different looking examples of the Blood Red, which is to be expected and accomodated for. Combining Blood Red with color altering genes is naturally going to change the coloration, but that is not sufficient enough reason to consider dropping the original name because of a purposeful change in that coloration.

Darn, is it THAT late?? Hope all of the above makes at least a little bit of sense. Maybe I'll proofread it tomorrow....

I see NO way to enhance Rich's last post. I'm in 100% agreement with his logic.

Like many, I'm all for a better name if its accuracy of description just glares at us. I just haven't heard it yet and with all the educated input on this forum, I think it would have been suggested if it was out there.

I see arguments that most of us aren't understanding the difference between color and pattern in this debate. As Rich pointed out, I don't think you can separate the two. Sure, if the corn business was as mature back when bloodreds were named as it is today, they probably wouldn't have that name. No-one will argue it is not accurate, but it now has brand identity. We know what someone means when they say "bloodred" and we understand there are many different looks of pattern and color within that morph.

I was telling someone the other day that I recently saw a new commercial on TV that told me to "dial" a toll free number to order. "DIAL"? What's that? There is no dial on my phone, but I understand what they meant. We are still using a name here that no longer applies. It's being used because it's traditional and even though most kids today only see dial phones in old movies, they know what to do when they are told to "dial" a number. Some advertisements say to "call", but actually that implies we shout the number. Granted, in another generation we'll be "speaking" the number to our phones or perhaps to our wrist implants or something. Maybe someday the commercial will instruct us to "think" the number, but very few words in our language completely and uniquely apply.

My point is that even if we have to take another minute or two to tell a "newbie" what variations of bloodred pattersn there are, it's worth it. I have to do this more with other morhps than bloodreds anyway. I hope we're not going to come up with a new name for blizzards that have yellow on them.

Don

"CORN" snake? Unless you subscribe to the notion that their namesake is for the resemblence of their belly to "Indian corn", I don't see why they're called corns. Was it because they were always found around the corn fields or bins? Whatever reason they had for calling them corn snakes back then probably does not apply today. I have very few people ask me why they're called corn snakes. Rat snakes eat mice, lizards and birds too. Milk snakes don't look like or drink milk.

I don't mean to be ridiculous, but just wanted to point out that names don't have to be unique and totally descriptive.