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

I'm not trying to rehash old arguments here, but I think the "is it a pattern" question has a clear answer of "yes" that cannot be refuted. So I'll respond.

Rich Z said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're seeing a different effect in some examples where an infusion of color is happening, but that isn't what I'm talking about here.

The first time I saw a "snow bloodred" was all the convincing I needed. Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about something that affects the pattern in normals, charcoals, anerys, amels, and snows, among others.

If this trait is affecting a color, which color is it affecting in snow corns to make them different from snow corns not expressing it?

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.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. I have a very light pewter, pictured above. If the disappearing pattern were a result of extra pigment growing in, why is he still so light-colored? If the what you're saying is true, he would be super-dark.

If the above were true, how is it that snows expressing this pattern are hatched and immediately recognized as such? Red is not part of the equation, nor is black.

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.

Click to expand...

The fact that other genetic or nongenetic influences can mimic the phenotype doesn't invalidate an actual genetic trait. That is, some normals can look dorsally "more motley" than some motleys do, dorsally. (I can post specific examples if needed, but I know you guys have seen this happen, too.)

This doesn't invalidate Motley as a genetic trait.

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.

Click to expand...

Again, this applies to motleys...

What do you call a Diffuse Corn that does not lose all of it's pattern?

Click to expand...

What do you call a doctor who graduated last in his class? Doctor.

What do you call a motley corn that doesn't have circles down the back? A Motley.

What do you call a Diffuse Corn that does not lose all of it's pattern? Diffused.

Protecting the fragile minds of newbies should not be the goal of any naming convention for the corns, I believe.

Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between necessary complication and unnecessary complication. Genetics is what it is. Names have to be applied so we can identify morphs. These are necessary complications.

But using the name "nothing gets redder than this" for what is inarguably a pattern is, IMO, an unnecessary complication. Teaching people what the different morphs are, while using the term "blood red" for a pattern, is like trying to teach someone math when 3 and 7 both have the same exact name and symbol.

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.

Click to expand...

Just a few lines up you were using this as an argument that a pattern trait should not be named.


-----

As for the "dial" and "corn" examples, these are not applicable. "Dial" has no other meaning in telephones...

It is not reasonable to expect "Apple Computer Store" to sell apples.

It IS reasonable to expect "Apple Fruit Store" to sell apples.

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.

Click to expand...

This simply is not a realistic expectation.

"Diffused" describes the pattern of as many of these animals as "butter" describes the color of amel caramels. It gives a good general idea of what to expect. There is no perfect name, it is never expected in other morphs, but now all of a sudden it is expected. I don't buy it.

The other option, if you believe there's no way any word will ever fit, is to use a "nonsense" word. Motley doesn't describe a pattern or a color. Nobody can ever refute the use of Motley for that pattern because there's no inherent "pattern" meaning, so it means whatever pattern we say it means.

Call it Quijybo, Trundlefart, or Chevrolet for all I care. Those things have no implied meaning, so they will mean exactly what you say they mean.

There is no perfect name, it is never expected in other morphs, but now all of a sudden it is expected. I don't buy it.

Click to expand...

I don't buy it either, that's why Bloodred works for me.

:roflmao:

I don't think changing the name will stop newbies from getting cornfused and I definately don't think it will stop people from getting ripped off. I also don't believe that explaining to a person new to the hobby what a diffuse corn is will take any less time than explaining what a bloodred is. Except perhaps having to add a short little "the reason why they are called bloodred is because the original animals displaying this pattern were very red". Adding that little extra disclaimer is a lot easier than changing the name through out the entire herp community.

I'm not trying to rehash old arguments here, but I think the "is it a pattern" question has a clear answer of "yes" that cannot be refuted.

Click to expand...

Just a quick question about this statement before I head off to bed....

Says who?

Snow bloods, when they hatch, are the same exact color as regular snows, yet they are instantly recognizable as bloodreds.

How is that not a pattern trait?

Snow Bloodred Corn Snake

Snow Bloods? Snow Bloodreds? Does anybody not know what they are? Are they red? NO. If you breed them to a Bloodred, will they produce Bloodreds? YES

It seems to be working perfectly fine. It is not broken! The name Snow Bloods/Bloodreds has character, power, history, and tradition.

Defused Snow Corn Snake sounds like a snow flake on a hot skillet and silly.

I have never seen a Snow Blood. Does anybody have a picture they can post?

While I like "diffuse" better than "bloodred", I like either "diffuse pattern" or "bloodred pattern" still better.

Hey Joe, page 5 at VMS Herp has a picture of a snow bloodred. Though the full body shot is not convincing, the closeup is a bit more.

I am probably going to be the only person in the country that is going to do this, and since I do not have a large number of animals for sale each year, it will NOT matter in the long run. However, I am going to call any animal I produce "episkiastic," if it has the classic pattern that has been associated heretofore with homozygous bloodreds.

Those "epis" that are red, will be bloodreds, and those that are also homozygous for charcoal will be pewters. And, if any other combinations are given their own names, they will be added to my list.

BUT ... just because we have, as an industry, have not yet addressed the fact that there are two separate issues at play here, that does not mean I am going to continue not to do so. Motley corns are defined in TWO ways ... by their pattern AND by their coloration. Ghost Motlies are called "pastels" and we all know what is meant. I see no difference here in the issue of episkiastism.

Bloodreds, pewters, caramel bloods, lavender bloods, etc. -- They all look different and have many differences in breeding possiblities. However, they all share ONE common aspect: Their pattern. I (and again, I may be the ONLY one!) am calling that pattern "episkiastic."

That name has three factors going for it:

1) It has precedent [we already use Greek terms in other morphs]
2) It accurately describes what is taking place in relation to the color, regardless of coloration issues are involved
3) It simply CANNOT be confused with any other morph [Yes, there are other pattern mutations that have similar effects, but pewter is a morph without red in the mix, does that make "anerythrism" null and void? Hardly.]

If no one ever says that word in realtion to this pattern other than me, that's fine. This was never about me anyway. But I refuse to say to myself "I know this name we're using is completely messed up, but we've done it so long that I'm just going to keep it."

I challenge everyone here to go do a search on all of the threads of newbies asking if bloodred is an inheritable "gene." See how many times so many of us have had to explain that the answer to that question is both "Yes" and "No." Do you really think that setting forth one term and saying " 'THIS' describes the pattern, it doesn't change bloodred as a name, but it describes the pattern common to all bloodreds," do you really think that this is just too much for people to understand? If they could not understand that, how are you EVER going to explain bloodred as a trait at all?

I am a big NOBODY in the cornsnake world, so I know I don't have any weight at all on this matter. However, it seems to me that ignoring a real issue never does anything but guarantee that it will have to be addressed later on.

Regardless, I am selling my offspring as "episkiastics" of various color combinations, bloodred and petwers being among them.

Darin,
One Question, of the normal epis that will become Bloodreds, what will you call them before the red comes in? How will you know if they will become red enough to be Bloodreds? And what scale will you use to measure the amount of red that is needed to be a Bloodred?

OOPS! That's more then one, isn't it?

P.S.
Here's a scenario I see coming.....I have Bloodred hatchlings on my table at a show. Someone comes by and says "OH, I was looking for an epi..." I say "Wait a minute" and pull out a clutch mate from under my table marked "Epi" (OOPS, that one's marked Defused, grab the other one) and make the sale.

Clint,

Those are good points. No doubt about it. However, take out the concept of "bloodred" and put in the "okeetee morph."

"what will you call them before the [orange ground color, brick red saddle coloration and dark black borders] comes in? How will you know if they will become [okeetee] enough to be [Okeetees]? And what scale will you use to measure the amount of [okeetee quality] that is needed to be [an Okeetee]?"

And also...

"Here's a scenario I see coming.....I have [normal] hatchlings on my table at a show. Someone comes by and says "OH, I was looking for an [okeetee]..." I say "Wait a minute" and pull out a clutch mate from under my table marked '[okeetee]' and make the sale."

Clint, I know that you would not cheat anyone at a sale. I also know that you would never intentionally mislead anyone about an animal. I am simply trying to show that the same difficulties you are addressing are already there in other morphs wherein the "quality" of the animal is determined largely by the line breeding from which it comes.

To me, the defining characteristic of whether an animal is episkiastic or not is what some have called "the bloodred belly." We all know what that is and how variable it is. However, when an animal has that trait (which I firmly believe is genetically determinable), it IS an episkiastic corn. If it has that trait AND it has the requisite red coloration through line breeding to be called a "bloodred," GREAT! If it is episkiastic and is not a "bloodred," that's fine too.

Why do we have to have a standard for episkiastism as a trait that we have never applied to anything else in corns? We all know that motlies are extremely variable, and stripes even more so. Is there anything more variable in corns today than the "look" of anerytristics? Many cannot be told apart from ghosts and vice verse. Do we challenge the name of the gene because some anerys are silver and black while others are dull gray and brown?

I have no problem with anyone in this discussion, so please, no one take this personally. I just do not see why it is so hard to accept that all bloodreds are episkiastic, but not all episkiastic animals are bloodreds. After all, we can agree that all candy canes are amels, but not all amels are candy canes.

Finally, let me address one last thing. If anyone doesn't like "episkiastism" as a name for this genetic mutation, COOL! Bring out the better name, and I'll sign on. I couldn't care less about what name is chosen as long as it is honest in its description of what the trait is, and it is a pattern name for a pattern trait. Beyond that, I have no axes to grind here. Call me ... MR. FLEXIBLE!!!

Here's a scenario I see coming.....I have Bloodred hatchlings on my table at a show. Someone comes by and says "OH, I was looking for an epi..." I say "Wait a minute" and pull out a clutch mate from under my table marked 'Epi" and make the sale.

Click to expand...

Clint, that sort of scenario can happen today.

A couple of years ago I had people coming to my tables asking for 'Hurricane' Butter Motleys. I would point them to a few examples of Butter Motleys on my tables with the perfect circles down the back, and tell them that this pattern is what people are calling "Hurricane". But invariably they would walk away from the table, INSISTING that they need to have that name on the label itself. OK. So one year I did just that. Marked those same identical Butter Motleys as Hurricane Butter Motleys and even raised the price on them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which Butter Motleys sold first, I'll wager.

As for the term "episkiastic", heck I can't say that myself without stumbling, so the chances of the average joe blow being able to pronouce it is darned slim. Heck, I have had people tell me that they would not buy an "anerythristic" because they were afraid of embarrassing themselfs in trying to pronounce it correctly. Little things like that can make a big difference when it comes to marketing and public acceptance, I suppose.

I need to talk further about this color/pattern discussion point, but it will have to wait till later....

I don't have any problem here at all with anyone. It's a debate and that's how I look at it.

Nevermind the Okeetee issue, you didn't answer my question.

I wouldn't be misleading anyone having clutch mates labled with one of the three. They are exaclty the same.

I feel that the name Bloodred covers all of the mutations involved in this issue. So if we don't like Blood "RED" then trim back to Blood as others have mentioned.

Gotta cut this short.......back to work!

Clint Boyer said:

I don't have any problem here at all with anyone. It's a debate and that's how I look at it.

Click to expand...

I agree. You mentioned "sour grapes" before, but don't mistake my persistence for anger.

I'm not so much debating to try to convince you and Rich. I know that there are a lot of silent readers on these forums, and I want them to be able to hear both sides of the issue and make up their minds. Ultimately, the market will decide, but they cannot make a choice if there isn't more than one option to choose from.

I decided to step out on a limb and offer a choice. I believe Darin is doing the same thing, and it appears that at least a few others will also do the same.

Now the choices will be out there. Let's debate our heads off trying to make our points, and may the best name win.

Rich,

IIRC you've hatched "bloodred blizzards" before. How did you know that's what you hatched? (If you were to hatch them from hets, how would you know?)

----

Also, it's not unreasonable to expect a pattern trait to have some effect on color. Stripe and Motley are "pattern" traits, and they affect the overall coloration. It's not surprising that a trait which redistributes/relocates pigments to alter a pattern will not always evenly redistribute the other pigment that was ousted from that place.

The important part is that, when it comes down to it, the identification is not made on the basis of coloration, but "pattern." I believe if you were to devise a test to define how to distinguish color traits from pattern traits, that the trait we're talking about here will fall into the same category as Motley and Stripe (and Zigzag/Aztec even though those two aren't necessarily simple traits.)

My "test" is like this:

Do you identify the differences in the following morphs by:
A- an increase, decrease, or absence of Red/Orange pigment.
B- an increase, decrease, or absence of Black/Brown pigment.
C- an increase, decrease, or absence of Yellow pigment.
D- the pattern.

Then test out Amel, which we consider a "color" trait:
(B) Anery vs Amel Anery
(B) Charcoal vs Amel Charcoal
(B) Caramel vs Amel Caramel
(B) Lavender vs Amel Lavender
(B) Motley vs Amel Motley
(B) Stripe vs Amel Stripe
(B) Hypo vs Amel Hypo

With Amel, Anery, Hypo, Caramel, Lavender, and Charcoal the answer is A, B, and/or C, because they are "color" traits.

Then test out Motley, which is considered a "pattern" trait:
(D) Amel vs Amel Motley
(D) Anery vs Anery Motley
(D) Charcoal vs Charcoal Motley
(D) Caramel vs Caramel Motley
(D) Lavender vs Lavender Motley
(D) Hypo vs Hypo Motley

The answer is the same for Striped, and Zigzag/Aztec.

Then apply to the "bloodred" trait in question:
(?) Amel vs Blood Amel
(?) Anery vs Blood Anery
(?) Charcoal vs Blood Charcoal
(?) Caramel vs Blood Caramel
(?) Lavender vs Blood Lavender
(?) Hypo vs Blood Hypo

I have a hard time seeing the answer as anything but "D." Don has said many times that his test is the belly pattern. That and the head pattern seem to be the most universal answers.

I challenge you to devise a test that says otherwise.

-------

Also, to quote directly from your own descriptions:

Most will typically have oddly patterned, or nearly patternless heads, with what looks like broad saddles down the back. In the best of them, there will be no lateral pattern at all visible. The abdomen is usually a dead giveaway in that it will usually be white with no black markings and only a scattering of the orange mottling.

Click to expand...

And,

Babies are REALLY strange looking with almost white heads. This is the odd pattern that you will see in normal Blood Reds...

Click to expand...

These describe a pattern and say nothing of substance about coloration.

You mentioned "sour grapes" before

Click to expand...

Serp,
Actually, that was in reply to the comment about naming an anery type C, Lime green. It was typed in jest as a name, then I thought it was rather crass so I deleted that part.

You and I have had our share of debates, I know you don't get mad. We may disagree but you also have my respect.
But I still prefer Bloodred!

Oh my gosh, I think I need eyeglasses to reverse the effects of cross-eyedness after all of that reading all at once. Now let me get my thoughts in order..

Right now, I'd have to go with bloodred for lack of anything else. I had never even heard of the term "Diffuse" until I purchased Serp's book. I opened it up and looked at the picture and thought "What the hell is a Diffuse corn? It looks like a bloodred to me." And epikiastic, do you want to give a definiton of that? I'm pretty sure I can pronounce it correctly, just not fluent with my Greek.

I see the points as all valid ones for a new name. We tend to describe corns as how they appear to be, rather than the genetics it took to produce it. And rightly so, walking up to a vendor at a reptile show and saying that you want a Hypomelanistic Amelanistic Anerythyristic corn snake is a mouthfull for sure, so just saying you want a Coral snow is a better option. As the colors produced tend to take on a coral appearance.

However I don't think Diffuse is an appealing name in the least. Sure, it does a fantastic job at describing the patterning traits going on in bloodred heritage snakes. But it just doesn't "click" for me as a good sales name. What about Smoke corn? It fades like smoke into the sky. I dunno.

And secondly, if it were a simple patterning trait that was heritable by itself it would be a horse of a different "pattern" so to speak. But the fact that the pattern is almost always tied to the color trait is the problem I see.

Just because you have a pewter snake with the BR pattern plainly apparent doesn't mean that it's just the pattern going on in that animal. If you breed that pewter with anything that contains the BR genes, you're gonna get BR offspring. When you're naming you can't forget that the color gene is in the mix. When it's bred to anything, you're always going to have that het BR going on. And BR seems to influence in the het individuals the patterns and the color as well.

I personally think the color has a lot to do with the resulting pattern as much as the "pattern" people are seeing. They tend to be hypererythristic and when that's crossed out by breeding anery into the mix, the resulting red color is replaced with greyish colors. So for me, I don't think it's as simple as motley/stripe.

I don't think there's any easy way to go about redesigning a name for it when to most people they're tied together. If you could separate the color trait and the pattern trait, it'd be easy. But since they're genetically coexisting, it's a little bit harder to separate them into separate nomenclature.

People are always going to be confused by genetics no matter their level of expertise. I think some people on here, myself included, find them confuddling as heck. But that doesn't keep me from trying to understand and keep up with the latest "morphs". I personally didn't have any trouble understanding the effects of bloodred both on color and pattern. I think there are a lot more confusing things in Corn Snakery, like the whole hypo thing. Hypo should be a hypo should be a hypo...but it's not. So far its 3 separate entities, which just boggles my mammilian mind.

But I agree with Rich and Don on their second to last posts for the most part.

Here are some pics of my bloodreds (smaller one the male) and pewters: All products of SMR.

First off, I'd like to throw in my own, "Me too," on the 'no sour grapes/great debate' statement.

No onward...

If you could separate the color trait and the pattern trait, it'd be easy. But since they're genetically coexisting,
it's a little bit harder to separate them into separate nomenclature.

Click to expand...

I believe we are finding more and more that you CAN separate out the hypererythristic infusion (wow, that sounds like
a cool name for a band) from the diffused pattern. My own "bloodred" het pewter male has gained reds like a normal
corn, but that red hasn't overshadowed a thing and certainly isn't burning my retinas like some of the bloods Don
has posted.

The reason I believe most bloods still have the tendency towards hypererythrism is that most people selectively
breed in that vein and the original stock was selectively bred in that vein. If someone decided to breed the least red
stock together, I'd bet you'd be seeing a whole different ball of wax within 3 generations (or less).

An example of just one generation:



That blood hatchling started out with the skull head pattern, a diminished side pattern (although admittedly not the
best example of it by any stretch) and the plain belly. Did he get some reds...yes, as do regular corns...did he become
bloodred? You know, I've always cringed when I've put up pics of him and labled him "bloodred"...even before I started
thinking hard and heavy on the subject.....pretty much before I could even describe what a blood really was other
than supposed to be red with a plain belly.

(he's the smaller one in the last pic, unfortunately in shed so a bit darker, but colors are pretty much true to life)

I love the debate, and love the information that's been provided by everyone concerning what the bloodred/diffused/episkiastic gene does. It's exactly what I come here for!

The more I read, the more I get the feeling that people don't want to change just because it's change.

While finding a new name for bloodreds is necessary in my opinion, I have to agree that I haven't heard that 'perfect' name yet either. Yet remember that perfection is an impossible goal.

As I read through this thread, I couldn't help think about Pantherophis guttata, you know, that snake we all love so much . . .

How many of you don't use the new scientific name JUST BECAUSE you've used Elaphe guttata guttata for so long??!! Officially, by scientific standards (?), the genus name has been changed, yet some of you don't want/like to use it. This has been an 'official' name change, and here we are trying to agree on a name change of something that is not controlled or overseen by any 'official' board . . .

I don't see anyone 'budging' on their opinions until people are open to change . . . Just my opinion. I'm not saying you have to change just to change either. I've made the argument before, but the bloodred name is broken in many ways and needs to be fixed. If it wasn't broken it wouldn't need to be fixed.

D80

In my case. . .

. . . you're wrong about resisting change. I have never liked bloodred. I just don't like diffuse any better and if we're going to change it, I think it should be changed to something more accurate/applicable. I'm not resisting change here. If this was an election, I just don't see a challenging candidate that's better than the incumbent so I prefer to stick with the old one for now.

Regarding Pantherophis I just want to make sure my customers know what it is. If you sold as many corns as I do, you'd know that people are funny about names. Like Rich said about hurricanes, I am positive that some people will either think I don't know they're Latin name is Elahpe guttata guttata OR some will think I might be selling a different species. Perhaps hybrids. You may not believe that, but until that word gets around a little more, it is a good business decision for me to stick to the old one right now. If I was running one of those "fun and informative" web sites where you can go to get information only, I'd want to be on the cutting edge of the taxonomic changes. Since I rely on this for a living, I have to make sure the new Latin name is understood. Now that you mention this, it might just be time for that soon.