CornSnakes.com Forums  
  Want an edit button and other perks? Become a contributing member! Click here.

Go Back   CornSnakes.com Forums > The CornSnake Forums > The Cultivars (morphs)/Genetics Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

The Cultivars (morphs)/Genetics Issues Discussions about genetics issues and/or the various cultivars for cornsnakes commercially available.

View Poll Results: What name are you willing to call it?
None: I'm sticking with "bloodred" only. 35 68.63%
Episkiastic 5 9.80%
Diffused 7 13.73%
Other (please post with your answer) 4 7.84%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Poll: are you going to call "bloodred" anything else?
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2004, 02:51 PM   #51
Drizzt80

Don and Rich both, thanks for the response to my Pantherophis example. I understand the reality of mechanically changing the names around your businesses. I thank you Don for the email response from CNAH concerning the name change. I want to share that while I wasn't point fingers at anyone specifically, I think it does show a similarity in the resistence to change that people have. I agree with you 100% on the need, no - necessity!, for dialogue when things must change. It has to be done right.

I feel as though the conversations concerning bloodred/diffuse/episkiastic are getting too nit-picky about this and that and the other thing concerning the proposed name changes. There is so much variation within ALL the morphs, that's the fact of nature! (No slight on Rich, but I have an okeetee that I trust is an okeetee, but don't thnk for a minute 'looks' like an okeetee. I have learned, and understand, the variation expected within normal corns which is what an okeetee really is.)

I view this topic as much simpler than everyone makes it. I think we have to agree that there is always variation in every morph. I think we have to agree that the bloodred/diffuse/episkiastic is a gene (combo?) that affects pattern (whether it also uses color is another debate). I think we have to agree that simpler is always better, and being able to explain bloodred, pewter, and butter diffuse would be easier than bloodred, pewter, and butter bloodred (even if it is only by one or two sentences or disclaimers). I think we have to agree that in the end, each specific color mutation should/could have it's own name, ie pewter, bloodred, butter, snow, etc. etc..

Where's that really leave us? I think before a name is agreed upon, there has to be an agreement that it should change. I personally feel that a lot of the arguements posted aren't arguing against a name change, but are arguing against the use of diffuse or episkiastic, et. al. If that's the case, we need to better come together with a name. I have stated several times (as have others), I don't care what is come up with as long as it 'sounds good'. Basically, that's what I hear in the majority of the other arguments in the past threads on this subject.

I just don't agree with the "I've always used bloodred and understands what it means myself so I'm going to continue to use it." argument. I just can't get over the discrepency between saying Snow Bloodred or Anery Bloodred or Lavendar Bloodred. It's just not 'right', and that to me is what makes it a 'simple' discussion. (I still agree with Don in saying the discussion so far has been necessary, but I believe the track of the discussions is off the mark a bit.)

D80
 
Old 04-14-2004, 05:11 PM   #52
ecreipeoj
I happen to like the name Bloodred Corns or Blood Corns as they are also referred as. Perhaps it is because I have been calling them that for 20 years, which is a very good reason not to change the name to me. There would have to be a reason, beyond any doubt in the majorities of minds that a change is needed, before we should mess with 20+ years of history and tradition. I do not see an overwhelming majority knocking down the door demanding a change. How many people have voted on this thread compared to the 2500 + members. How many people out there are interested in Corn Snakes that may have an opinion? 250,000 +, I have no real idea, but we are not talking about naming a new morph, we are talking about change the name of a morph that has existed for a very, very long time and that is no small thing. It was created in the 70’s and 80’s for goodness sakes. It does not really compare to the Mocha to Lavender name change. It is much bigger than that! Much bigger! Nobody hardly knew what a Mocha was until Lavenders swept the country.

The biggest reason for the suggested name change is the color of red in the name. The Bloodred pattern comes in a close second. Any morph that removes the red pigment is going to produce a corn that is not red. That should be expected. What was used to create this morph that so many people have a problem with? A Bloodred Corn Snake. A Bloodred X Caramel, or Bloodred X Lavender produced outcrosses, which when bred back together produced Carmel Bloodreds and Lavender Bloodreds. I am sure that Bloodreds were also produce in the same clutch. Perhaps not perfect Bloodreds, but from an outcross this is expected. So what is purposed is that the Lavender Bloodreds in the clutch be called Lavender Diffused Corns and the Bloodreds in the clutch remain Bloodreds, even though they are clutch mates and genetically very similar except for one is expressing a morph gene that removes the red pigment and the other one looks red.

When we bred the Lavender Diffused Corns to a Bloodred, then all of the hatchling will change back to Bloodreds het for Lavender or would it be Bloodreds het for Lavender Diffused Corns. This seems ridicules to me, much more than calling a snake by a name that has red in it that is not red. This sounds like we are out crossing when we are not.

Bloodreds were very much in need of out crossing for many reasons. The quality of the red color of the Bloodreds may not be what it was many years ago, but I am sure that is the goal of everybody who is breeding Bloodreds. The goal should be to produce Lavender Bloodreds that when bred to a Bloodreds produce very nice Bloodreds het for lavender or what is the point. It could be said, “Well to produce a Lavender with a Diffused pattern“. Is that what we or anybody is trying to do? I know I won’t be trying to produce a Lavender Blood that when bred to a Blood will only produce offspring with the Diffused pattern. That does not seems to not be the goal of anybody. They will want the Bloods het for Lavender to look like Bloods.

The fact that a mutant morph genes removes the red color and the name is added to a corn that is called a Bloodred Corn is not a problem for me at all, like Lavender Bloods. It is 100% expected when the mutant gene removes all of the red pigment. What is the mutant gene removing the red pigment from? A Bloodred Corn. If this Bloodred Corn can be recovered in future generations from this mutant, it is still a Bloodred Corn Snake. Nothing has changed at all.

Do the Bloodred Corns have a different pattern than regular Corns. It sure seem so. It also seems to be very hard to recover fully and recognize, from out crossed Bloodred Corns X “anything” in future generations, except for the belly pattern. It sure seems like there is more selective breeding involved than just a single simple genetic trait that produces a Bloodred Corn and its pattern. In either case, this pattern comes from Bloodred Corns and it is a Bloodred Pattern. It may be described as looking “Diffused” in appearance, but it still came from Bloodreds and is a Bloodred Pattern. This purposed name change of Diffused Corns will always and forever have to be explained by saying the pattern came from Bloodred Corns, so why change it in the first place.

Bloodred Corns are referred to as Bloods very often. I could live with Lavender Blood Corns, but most are in agreement that they will have a new name anyway. Why do we need to call them Diffused Lavender Corns when it is agreed that that name won’t last long anyway. A Lavender Bloodred Corn is a fine in between name. About the only morphs of corns that don’t receive a new name these days are the old ones like Anery A. I don’t see it changing back to the old ways and new catchy names are here to stay. I don’t see any good reason to change the name of Bloodred Corns and the morphs created with them when the new morphs will have a new name anyway. There is not an overwhelming outcry for a Bloodred Corn Snake name change.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 07:31 PM   #53
Serpwidgets
Quote:
Originally posted by ecreipeoj
A Bloodred X Caramel, or Bloodred X Lavender produced outcrosses, which when bred back together produced Carmel Bloodreds and Lavender Bloodreds. I am sure that Bloodreds were also produce in the same clutch. Perhaps not perfect Bloodreds, but from an outcross this is expected. So what is purposed is that the Lavender Bloodreds in the clutch be called Lavender Diffused Corns and the Bloodreds in the clutch remain Bloodreds, even though they are clutch mates and genetically very similar except for one is expressing a morph gene that removes the red pigment and the other one looks red.
This isn't an accurate portrayal. What is proposed is that normal corns expressing the diffused pattern that are not red are NOT called bloodreds, because they aren't. It's like saying "we only want white amels to be called candycanes, instead of all amels."

When you're working with anerythristics, you have no idea how much of the "selective breeding for red" was lost in the process. Say you are breeding pewter to pewter (or diffused lav to diffused lav) in order to create "more patternless" snakes. What can happen is that the "infusion of red" (which does not appear to be directly linked to the pattern aspect) can be lost in the process.

You can cross pewter X diffused lavender and get snakes that are brown and nothing at all like a "bloodred." Sure they will have the plain belly. Sure, many will have "the pattern." And some of them might grow up to be outstanding "bloodred" cornsnakes.

But this is like:
1- crossing candycanes het anery to make snows.
2- breeding other snows into those lines.
3- breeding back out to an amelanistic and expecting to call all of the offspring "candycanes."
 
Old 04-14-2004, 08:14 PM   #54
Clint Boyer
That scenario only applies if we agree that a not so red Bloodred is not a Bloodred.

Again, I pose this question:
How red does it have to be to be a Bloodred? And don't answer my question with another question. Please just give me the defining color.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 08:17 PM   #55
Serpwidgets
Color versus Pattern.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Z
Firstly, I assume you have read Dr. Bechtel's book Reptile and Amphibian Variants, so please review the section on Chromatophore Biology, please.
Actually, I'm eternally grateful to Dr Bechtel for identifying Motley.

I was thinking about this today, and not to put anyone down, but I think if he hadn't done so, I might instead be sitting here trying to convince people that Motley is a pattern trait. It would probably have been discovered eventually, and named something like "Coastal Hypo" (because of the places it was commonly found) and would have been considered a "color" trait.

I think this is not so hard to believe because every argument that has been put forth against "diffused" as a pattern trait is applicable to Motley.
  • It's "too variable."
  • It sometimes seems to have no effect beyond the belly.
  • It can me imitated by other snakes that don't have the gene.
  • There is no "proven" mechanism.
  • It also appears to have some effect on coloration.

If any of these arguments are to be applied to the "diffused pattern trait" then they also must be applied to Motley.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 08:18 PM   #56
Serpwidgets
Quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boyer
That scenario only applies if we agree that a not so red Bloodred is not a Bloodred.

Again, I pose this question:
How red does it have to be to be a Bloodred? And don't answer my question with another question. Please just give me the defining color.
As white as an amel has to be in order to be a candycane.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 08:25 PM   #57
Clint Boyer
Then not so red. I see lots of color in the background of many Candy Canes.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 08:39 PM   #58
Darin Chappell
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.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 08:48 PM   #59
Serpwidgets
Quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boyer
Then not so red. I see lots of color in the background of many Candy Canes.
True. A lot of it depends on the breeder. Some hold themselves to much higher standards than others. I think the first time I really saw that in action was when I saw Walter Smith's amazing candycanes at his booth in Daytona.
 
Old 04-14-2004, 09:11 PM   #60
carol
Quote:
Originally posted by Drizzt80

I just don't agree with the "I've always used bloodred and understands what it means myself so I'm going to continue to use it." argument. D80
I don't think that is anyones REAL arguement here. So are you OK with the "I like diffuse better and I understand what it means so I am going to start using it" arguement? The arguement for it is really no more trivial than the one against it. I think what the real point is that, yes, some people are ignorant as to what the "bloodred" pattern is, yes, some people capitalize on that and rip people off, yes, is does take some explaining to new ones to get them to understand what a butter(or whatever) bloodred is.
However, there will still be people (in fact MORE) that are ignorant as to what a diffuse corn is, others will still capitalize on it and rip people off, and it will still take some time to describe what a butter diffuse is.
Its is a lot of trouble to really get nowhere. Its not like we will stick a new name on and all the newbies will suddenly be blessed with more understanding. Yes it may save us one sentance when describing to a new person what bloodred is. But it will cost us many more "sentances" when we all have to answer questions like "Why does my diffuse corn look like the bloodred on page 969", or now we will have to "correct" people when they sell their "bloodreds" from a Pewter X Bloodred pairing. And don't forget the many many posts we will get asking "What is the difference between a diffuse and a bloodred".

I have no arguement that there is a difference between the pattern mutant and the color. But Serp, the one arguement you left out in your bulleted list is:
  • It is too much trouble to go through with not enough advantages in return. A new name would create just as much confusion as keeping the old one.
One thing is for sure though, if the majority disagrees with that and everyone goes with a name change, it should be done soon before all the up and coming "bloodred/diffuse" morphs come on line.
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! Cornsnakes.com is the largest online community dedicated to cornsnakes . Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!

Google
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Substrate poll B-J@y Husbandry and Basic Care 35 03-16-2015 11:04 PM
Age Poll: Part II Gregg Miscellaneous Corn Snake Discussions 4 09-07-2002 02:58 PM
what do you call.. john815 Breeding/Egg Production & Care 6 08-19-2002 12:12 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.





Fauna Top Sites
 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.05493808 seconds with 12 queries
Copyright Rich Zuchowski/SerpenCo