Serpwidgets
New member
And the ground color is like that too, isn't it? I've often wondered about that. Do they ever hatch with any significant "orange" or other ground color?Rich Z said:
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
new to bloodred..
- Thread starter ronlina
- Start date
SODERBERGD
New member
"aka bloodred"
Serp,
One reason I hate to see your guide come out with "diffuse" or "faded" even if it says "aka bloodred" is that people in the industry will take this to mean those are existing names. Bloodred is the only existing name right now. Especially new comers to the industry. Since the issue is not resolved, why not just mention that the names that are being considered and just call them what they have always been? Bloodred corns. It's just muddying up the water by giving them a name that is not necessarily the one that will be used. If we come up with a different one than the ones you're printing, there'll be one more name for the same snake. Bloodred, diffuse, faded, smudged or whatever. To me calling a corn "diffuse" is like calling it "fade". It sounds incomplete. The past tense (diffused) would be more grammatically correct, but I still think we should wait 'till it's decided. I don't see any sense in publishing a name that might not stick even if you do plan to make necessary corrections in your next guide. Once something's in print, it's usually regarded as credible.
If your guide is going to be annual, why not just call them what they have always been are now. Bloodreds. What if something happens to you and you're unable to put out the next edition (Heaven forbid). Then, if it changes to a name we're not even thinking of now, there'll be one book out there that begs the question, "why did this guy call them diffuse? Never saw that in any other publication.".
Please, consider this if a consensus is not formed by your release time.
Thanks in advance,
Don
www.cornsnake.NET
Serp,
One reason I hate to see your guide come out with "diffuse" or "faded" even if it says "aka bloodred" is that people in the industry will take this to mean those are existing names. Bloodred is the only existing name right now. Especially new comers to the industry. Since the issue is not resolved, why not just mention that the names that are being considered and just call them what they have always been? Bloodred corns. It's just muddying up the water by giving them a name that is not necessarily the one that will be used. If we come up with a different one than the ones you're printing, there'll be one more name for the same snake. Bloodred, diffuse, faded, smudged or whatever. To me calling a corn "diffuse" is like calling it "fade". It sounds incomplete. The past tense (diffused) would be more grammatically correct, but I still think we should wait 'till it's decided. I don't see any sense in publishing a name that might not stick even if you do plan to make necessary corrections in your next guide. Once something's in print, it's usually regarded as credible.
If your guide is going to be annual, why not just call them what they have always been are now. Bloodreds. What if something happens to you and you're unable to put out the next edition (Heaven forbid). Then, if it changes to a name we're not even thinking of now, there'll be one book out there that begs the question, "why did this guy call them diffuse? Never saw that in any other publication.".
Please, consider this if a consensus is not formed by your release time.
Thanks in advance,
Don
www.cornsnake.NET
CAV
Dazed and Cornfused
Without stirring-up old "naming" arguments, I'll simply say that I'm 100% in agreement with Don. 
What percentage of the active members of this site fully understand the differences? 20%? 30%? What about the untold masses that aren't as familiar with Guttata genetics? Opens up a lot of confusion IMO.
What percentage of the active members of this site fully understand the differences? 20%? 30%? What about the untold masses that aren't as familiar with Guttata genetics? Opens up a lot of confusion IMO.
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
I don't necessarily disagree with either Don or CAV, but I do want to bring up one point. Again, regardless of which name is actually decided upon, there is going to be a certain amount of difficulty at first, especially with those newer to the community.
However, and I mean this with all due respect to all in involved, I really do not think that we, as a community of cornsnake enthusiasts, ought to be considering what action is to be taken based upon the lowest common denominator in relation to knowledge. Why should the lack of understanding in the new people (which is a continually renewable resource in corns, it seems -- and thankfully so!) dictate to those who are trying to effect change in relation to what avenue is to be taken?
I understand wanting a name that is discriptive. I understand wanting a name that is marketable. I understand wanting a name that rolls off the tongue. I am in complete agreement with ALL of those requirements, and I am NOT at all certain that we have found such a name yet in ANY of the suggested possibilities. However, for us to say that we shouldn't do this or that because it will be confusing to the new people, I think misses the point that it is ALL confusing to the new people ... that's one of the defining characteristics of "new people," in fact.
How many times have we have to explain on this very board why it is that an animal cannot be het for miami or okeetee? How many times have we had the classic "What is an Okeetee?" debate, for that matter? How often do we see people who cannot tell the difference between anery A and charcoal, or between fourescent orange, candy cane, and sunglow? We are ALWAYS going to have to explain what morph "X" is, because we have to do that with EVERY morph on a continual basis, so long as we have new customers being added to the potential customer base.
When the whole "mocha" vs. "lavender" episode took place a few years back, I imagine that the whole thing was very confusing to many, especially among the newest members of the community. However, it all got sorted out, and in the end, a better name was accepted by all. Now, the only time the issue gets raised is when someone asks about what happened in that time of "ancient history!" The new people who had trouble with the name change are now the experts, and the newest people know nothing different at all.
I have no idea how this is going to shake out. For that reason, it may be prudent to mention the name change issue in this buyer's guide to corns, and leave the actual new name to be printed after some sort of consensus is reached, but that is a decision left wholely to Serp's judgment. I just want to see us do what we are now doing: Approaching the issue with thoughtful consideration, debating the why's and wherefore's, and coming to some sort of a common understanding as to what is being addressed, and how it ought to be named.
It's all good for me from there on out.
However, and I mean this with all due respect to all in involved, I really do not think that we, as a community of cornsnake enthusiasts, ought to be considering what action is to be taken based upon the lowest common denominator in relation to knowledge. Why should the lack of understanding in the new people (which is a continually renewable resource in corns, it seems -- and thankfully so!) dictate to those who are trying to effect change in relation to what avenue is to be taken?
I understand wanting a name that is discriptive. I understand wanting a name that is marketable. I understand wanting a name that rolls off the tongue. I am in complete agreement with ALL of those requirements, and I am NOT at all certain that we have found such a name yet in ANY of the suggested possibilities. However, for us to say that we shouldn't do this or that because it will be confusing to the new people, I think misses the point that it is ALL confusing to the new people ... that's one of the defining characteristics of "new people," in fact.
How many times have we have to explain on this very board why it is that an animal cannot be het for miami or okeetee? How many times have we had the classic "What is an Okeetee?" debate, for that matter? How often do we see people who cannot tell the difference between anery A and charcoal, or between fourescent orange, candy cane, and sunglow? We are ALWAYS going to have to explain what morph "X" is, because we have to do that with EVERY morph on a continual basis, so long as we have new customers being added to the potential customer base.
When the whole "mocha" vs. "lavender" episode took place a few years back, I imagine that the whole thing was very confusing to many, especially among the newest members of the community. However, it all got sorted out, and in the end, a better name was accepted by all. Now, the only time the issue gets raised is when someone asks about what happened in that time of "ancient history!" The new people who had trouble with the name change are now the experts, and the newest people know nothing different at all.
I have no idea how this is going to shake out. For that reason, it may be prudent to mention the name change issue in this buyer's guide to corns, and leave the actual new name to be printed after some sort of consensus is reached, but that is a decision left wholely to Serp's judgment. I just want to see us do what we are now doing: Approaching the issue with thoughtful consideration, debating the why's and wherefore's, and coming to some sort of a common understanding as to what is being addressed, and how it ought to be named.
It's all good for me from there on out.
Drizzt80
Dakota Corns
Excellent, and respectful, dialogue taking place on this topic!
Speaking to Darin's latest post, i was in that boat not more than 2 years ago! I was trying to decipher all the discrepencies in the cornsnakes morphs and coloration. Yes, it was very, very confusing at first. Wanting to jump in head first, I did my homework, and now understand all the little discrepencies for the most part. Problem is, the average cornsnake consumer just wants to know what it's called and not necessarily why! That would indicate the need for a marketable name, or cool in today's terms. Heck, I'm beginning to sway towards it not having to necessarily identify the genetics, but at least be unique to bloodreds. (Something faded or diffused has the potential not to be)
If I'm not mistaken everyone agrees that there needs to be a 'name change' which describes the pattern mutation that occurs with bloodred. Diffuse or diffused is as good as any, and some don't like it, but where are the other ideas then?
Here's another attempt:
Wax or Waxed or Waxing as in the moon waxes. More and more of the moon becomes visible as it waxes. Coinciding with Rich's description, this term would indicate the continued change the snake undergoes from hatchling throughout adulthood, similar to the moon waxing.
Other terms I came across while searching www.thesaurus.com:
permeated
spread
thawed
dulcet (faint)
shaded
If the cornsnake community can't agree on Serp's published name, then we have to come up with other ideas. As with any language the true test will be with what gets used by the masses. My feeling is that this thread is to that point. Massive brainstorming of ideas for names.
D80
Speaking to Darin's latest post, i was in that boat not more than 2 years ago! I was trying to decipher all the discrepencies in the cornsnakes morphs and coloration. Yes, it was very, very confusing at first. Wanting to jump in head first, I did my homework, and now understand all the little discrepencies for the most part. Problem is, the average cornsnake consumer just wants to know what it's called and not necessarily why! That would indicate the need for a marketable name, or cool in today's terms. Heck, I'm beginning to sway towards it not having to necessarily identify the genetics, but at least be unique to bloodreds. (Something faded or diffused has the potential not to be)
If I'm not mistaken everyone agrees that there needs to be a 'name change' which describes the pattern mutation that occurs with bloodred. Diffuse or diffused is as good as any, and some don't like it, but where are the other ideas then?
Here's another attempt:
Wax or Waxed or Waxing as in the moon waxes. More and more of the moon becomes visible as it waxes. Coinciding with Rich's description, this term would indicate the continued change the snake undergoes from hatchling throughout adulthood, similar to the moon waxing.
Other terms I came across while searching www.thesaurus.com:
permeated
spread
thawed
dulcet (faint)
shaded
If the cornsnake community can't agree on Serp's published name, then we have to come up with other ideas. As with any language the true test will be with what gets used by the masses. My feeling is that this thread is to that point. Massive brainstorming of ideas for names.
D80
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
I still think the names that link it to it's original developer are good. They are not descriptive of the gene (which seems undescribable) but do link it to it's development.
Leach or Hastings with Hastings being my first choice.
Leach or Hastings with Hastings being my first choice.
SODERBERGD
New member
Hmmmmm????
Everyone in the Pituophis industry knows what an Applegate gopher is. Not a shabby idea. Different for our arm of the industry, but a novel and interesting suggestion.
Everyone in the Pituophis industry knows what an Applegate gopher is. Not a shabby idea. Different for our arm of the industry, but a novel and interesting suggestion.
I'm getting into this discussion late, but better late than never.
I'm against naming genes for people. Because standard genetics practice is to give a new mutant a name that is reasonably descriptive of the phenotype. So while I agree that "faded" seems more descriptive of a color, I could go with either "faded pattern" or "diffuse pattern".
We need to persuade Shawn Lockhart to get on board. He's written the chapter on genetics for the upcoming Biology of the Corn Snake. That will be the standard list of mutants for some years to come, and I'd hate to see a deviation from it. Your guess is as good as mine as to when the book will be printed, though.
I'm against naming genes for people. Because standard genetics practice is to give a new mutant a name that is reasonably descriptive of the phenotype. So while I agree that "faded" seems more descriptive of a color, I could go with either "faded pattern" or "diffuse pattern".
We need to persuade Shawn Lockhart to get on board. He's written the chapter on genetics for the upcoming Biology of the Corn Snake. That will be the standard list of mutants for some years to come, and I'd hate to see a deviation from it. Your guess is as good as mine as to when the book will be printed, though.
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
CAV,
I'm sorry if I made it sound as though you were saying anything other than what you stated in your last post. It's difficult for any of us to be clear in what we write, and I seem to have more trouble doing it than most.
I'm sorry if I made it sound as though you were saying anything other than what you stated in your last post. It's difficult for any of us to be clear in what we write, and I seem to have more trouble doing it than most.
ecreipeoj
Striped Topaz SK SG Free
NO CHANGE!
I happen to be very fond of new catchy names that roll of the tongue for new morphs. I am not in favor of changing the name for Bloodred Corns or their descendants . This name has been used for decades. Bloodred Corns are from a stock of corns that is very distinctive genetically. No different than “Okeetee” Corns or “Miami” Corns, except for the Bloodred pattern and the same could be said for the black on the Okeetees or the alternating gray and red on the Miamis. It is all genetics, but not simple recessive.
A name for the Bloodred pattern is a good idea, but it will always be linked to Bloodreds. How will this name for the Bloodred pattern be used? Which corns will be called “Defused” Corns? Should a Plane Jane Corn with the Bloodred pattern be called a “Defused” Corn or should it be called a Normal Corn with a “Defused” pattern. How about Serps Bloodred that looks like it has Miami Phase influence. Will she be called a “Defused” Corn. She seems to be an Out crossed Blood X Miami with a “Defused” Pattern? How about the amel Bloodreds that were produce by out crossing them to Amel Okeetees. They have a very nice look, which is a combo of the Bloodred and amel Okeetee looks, with the “Defused” pattern. Are we going to call every corn with a “Defused” pattern a “Defused” Corn? Most of the Bloodreds out there that are not of the classic Bloodred look are a result of out crossing. No different than out crossing an Okeetee or Miami Corn and then attempting to regain their distinctive looks. These “Defused” Corns are outcrosses that have a great deal of Bloodred genetics that can not be forgotten.
The Bloodred pattern seems to vary more and is harder to detect than the Striped or Motley patterns and I don‘t think a corn can be named for the Bloodred pattern like the Stripes or Motleys. It is just not the same thing. When I look at all of the corns that are called Bloodreds and suppose to have the “Defused” pattern, very few of them actually do except for the white bellies. Many have a considerable amount of blotching on the sides which looks very much like a normal corn. Most Motleys or Striped Corns can be distinctively put into their groups. Many “Defused” Corns are not recognizable unless it is known that Bloodred Corns are in their background.
I have no problem with attaching non-red names to the Bloodreds. Anery Bloodred is very clear to me. Corns are not black, so why is Anery Corn OK. The name Bloodred Corn stands by itself just like Miami or Okeetee and is a distinctive type of Corn. Just like Blood Pythons and Green Tree Pythons. An Anery Blood Python, Amel Blood Python, or Anery Green Tree, or Amel Green Tree Python is clear to me and not a problem. The problem with Anery Bloodred Corns is that Anery A has never been called anything other that Black Albino. Anery B was changed to Charcoal, which was very good, but Anery A has been forgotten. Charcoal Bloodreds was changed to Pewters which is perfect. Anery Bloodreds are in the same boat as Hypo Lavenders at the moment, but both can be corrected with a good name. Anery Bloodreds is just a listing of the genes involved and not a real name as of yet. An Anery A “Defused” Corn would still be an Anery A Bloodred Corn with a “Defused“ pattern and a bad name or un-named corn.
“Defused” is a descriptive name for the Bloodred pattern, but obviously not well liked. YUK! I think has been the normal response. Not any better that Refuse Corn if you ask me. YUK, YUK!! Perhaps we do not need a name that is exactly descriptive, but sounds better and can be related to the look. My girlfriend and I were on a trip and this subject was the topic of conversation. I had showed her a Pewter Corn before we left so we would know what look we were going to try to describe with a name and hopefully our sub-conscience would be working on it while we were talking about other things. She came up with MIRAGE. Like something off in the distance on a hot day in the desert. The image would be “defused“ by the heat waves. I still think that calling a corn, MIRAGE Corn is not very appropriate, but referring to a corn that had a MIRAGE pattern might work.
The name for Bloodred Corns has been used too long to change it. Some want to reserve the name for only corns that look like the name sake and call corns with the Bloodred pattern “Defuse“ Corns, but these out crossed corns are only distinctive and desirable because they have Bloodred blood/genetics in them. If they did not, then they would not be special. They would just be normal corns. I have no real problem with Miami phase Bloodreds, or Okeetee phase Bloodreds or Amel Bloodreds. They could easily be called something else, but that is what they would be. I haven’t seen too many of these out crossed Bloodreds that don‘t have some saturated dark red on them, even though they are not basically a solid red pattern less corn, except for Pewters and Anery A Bloods and that is what these genes do to a red snake and it is expected. “Defused“ pattern, perhaps, “Defused“ Corn, YUK!!!! Throw it in the refuse pile.
I happen to be very fond of new catchy names that roll of the tongue for new morphs. I am not in favor of changing the name for Bloodred Corns or their descendants . This name has been used for decades. Bloodred Corns are from a stock of corns that is very distinctive genetically. No different than “Okeetee” Corns or “Miami” Corns, except for the Bloodred pattern and the same could be said for the black on the Okeetees or the alternating gray and red on the Miamis. It is all genetics, but not simple recessive.
A name for the Bloodred pattern is a good idea, but it will always be linked to Bloodreds. How will this name for the Bloodred pattern be used? Which corns will be called “Defused” Corns? Should a Plane Jane Corn with the Bloodred pattern be called a “Defused” Corn or should it be called a Normal Corn with a “Defused” pattern. How about Serps Bloodred that looks like it has Miami Phase influence. Will she be called a “Defused” Corn. She seems to be an Out crossed Blood X Miami with a “Defused” Pattern? How about the amel Bloodreds that were produce by out crossing them to Amel Okeetees. They have a very nice look, which is a combo of the Bloodred and amel Okeetee looks, with the “Defused” pattern. Are we going to call every corn with a “Defused” pattern a “Defused” Corn? Most of the Bloodreds out there that are not of the classic Bloodred look are a result of out crossing. No different than out crossing an Okeetee or Miami Corn and then attempting to regain their distinctive looks. These “Defused” Corns are outcrosses that have a great deal of Bloodred genetics that can not be forgotten.
The Bloodred pattern seems to vary more and is harder to detect than the Striped or Motley patterns and I don‘t think a corn can be named for the Bloodred pattern like the Stripes or Motleys. It is just not the same thing. When I look at all of the corns that are called Bloodreds and suppose to have the “Defused” pattern, very few of them actually do except for the white bellies. Many have a considerable amount of blotching on the sides which looks very much like a normal corn. Most Motleys or Striped Corns can be distinctively put into their groups. Many “Defused” Corns are not recognizable unless it is known that Bloodred Corns are in their background.
I have no problem with attaching non-red names to the Bloodreds. Anery Bloodred is very clear to me. Corns are not black, so why is Anery Corn OK. The name Bloodred Corn stands by itself just like Miami or Okeetee and is a distinctive type of Corn. Just like Blood Pythons and Green Tree Pythons. An Anery Blood Python, Amel Blood Python, or Anery Green Tree, or Amel Green Tree Python is clear to me and not a problem. The problem with Anery Bloodred Corns is that Anery A has never been called anything other that Black Albino. Anery B was changed to Charcoal, which was very good, but Anery A has been forgotten. Charcoal Bloodreds was changed to Pewters which is perfect. Anery Bloodreds are in the same boat as Hypo Lavenders at the moment, but both can be corrected with a good name. Anery Bloodreds is just a listing of the genes involved and not a real name as of yet. An Anery A “Defused” Corn would still be an Anery A Bloodred Corn with a “Defused“ pattern and a bad name or un-named corn.
“Defused” is a descriptive name for the Bloodred pattern, but obviously not well liked. YUK! I think has been the normal response. Not any better that Refuse Corn if you ask me. YUK, YUK!! Perhaps we do not need a name that is exactly descriptive, but sounds better and can be related to the look. My girlfriend and I were on a trip and this subject was the topic of conversation. I had showed her a Pewter Corn before we left so we would know what look we were going to try to describe with a name and hopefully our sub-conscience would be working on it while we were talking about other things. She came up with MIRAGE. Like something off in the distance on a hot day in the desert. The image would be “defused“ by the heat waves. I still think that calling a corn, MIRAGE Corn is not very appropriate, but referring to a corn that had a MIRAGE pattern might work.
The name for Bloodred Corns has been used too long to change it. Some want to reserve the name for only corns that look like the name sake and call corns with the Bloodred pattern “Defuse“ Corns, but these out crossed corns are only distinctive and desirable because they have Bloodred blood/genetics in them. If they did not, then they would not be special. They would just be normal corns. I have no real problem with Miami phase Bloodreds, or Okeetee phase Bloodreds or Amel Bloodreds. They could easily be called something else, but that is what they would be. I haven’t seen too many of these out crossed Bloodreds that don‘t have some saturated dark red on them, even though they are not basically a solid red pattern less corn, except for Pewters and Anery A Bloods and that is what these genes do to a red snake and it is expected. “Defused“ pattern, perhaps, “Defused“ Corn, YUK!!!! Throw it in the refuse pile.
SODERBERGD
New member
Bravo. . .
Joe, I couldn't articulate my thoughts any better than you just did.
"Bloods and that is what these genes do to a red snake and it is expected. “Defused“ pattern, perhaps, “Defused“ Corn."
Yes, if you have a bloodred corn that satisfies most or all of the criteria for a classic bloodred, call it a bloodred. If it has a little spice to it, add something. "This is a bloodred corn with the diffused pattern." If it has an off color to it, "this is a bloodred corn with the diffused pattern, but brown coloration". I see nothing wrong with the name bloodred simply because it has worked all this time. There are many different colors and patterns to the classic anerythristic corn. We don't say, "this anerythristic corn is more gray than black so we'll call it an "aluminum" corn. We also don't say, "this anerythristic has indistinct pattern so we're renaming it "faded corn".
Joe is correct. If we allow the name "diffuse" or "faded", it will apply to many snakes not in the bloodred complex. Everytime someone gets a normal corn with a dried blood look, they'll want to call it a bloodred. Sides with little pattern, blending to washed out pattern dorsally. Even though these have attributes of the classic "bloodred" corn, they are not necessarily related. What about the outcrossed bloodreds? Many of mine grow up to be nearly identical to my bloodreds except for the belly. Will I say they resemble the "diffuse" corn? Will I say they have the color of a "bloodred"?
Let's keep those adjectives, adjectives. Use them to further describe any of the corns. If you get an amelanistic corn with diffused pattern, call it an amel with diffused pattern without implying it's related to the recessive gene.
A bit loud, but to the point, Joe.
Don
www.cornsnake.NET
Joe, I couldn't articulate my thoughts any better than you just did.
"Bloods and that is what these genes do to a red snake and it is expected. “Defused“ pattern, perhaps, “Defused“ Corn."
Yes, if you have a bloodred corn that satisfies most or all of the criteria for a classic bloodred, call it a bloodred. If it has a little spice to it, add something. "This is a bloodred corn with the diffused pattern." If it has an off color to it, "this is a bloodred corn with the diffused pattern, but brown coloration". I see nothing wrong with the name bloodred simply because it has worked all this time. There are many different colors and patterns to the classic anerythristic corn. We don't say, "this anerythristic corn is more gray than black so we'll call it an "aluminum" corn. We also don't say, "this anerythristic has indistinct pattern so we're renaming it "faded corn".
Joe is correct. If we allow the name "diffuse" or "faded", it will apply to many snakes not in the bloodred complex. Everytime someone gets a normal corn with a dried blood look, they'll want to call it a bloodred. Sides with little pattern, blending to washed out pattern dorsally. Even though these have attributes of the classic "bloodred" corn, they are not necessarily related. What about the outcrossed bloodreds? Many of mine grow up to be nearly identical to my bloodreds except for the belly. Will I say they resemble the "diffuse" corn? Will I say they have the color of a "bloodred"?
Let's keep those adjectives, adjectives. Use them to further describe any of the corns. If you get an amelanistic corn with diffused pattern, call it an amel with diffused pattern without implying it's related to the recessive gene.
A bit loud, but to the point, Joe.
Don
www.cornsnake.NET
Darin Chappell
Very Senior Hillbilly
Joe,
We are not talking about outcrossed bloodreds here at all. We are talking about animals that are homozygous for the pattern mutation that is evident in all bloodreds, pewters, anery bloodreds, amel bloodreds, butter bloods, lavender bloods, etc. To say that not all animals exhibit the pattern to the same degree (or quality, if you like) therefore the pattern is not nameable, is to throw out the Ghost, Anerythristic, or Amelanistic names, because, as we all know, there is tremendous variation in those as well.
You brought up Serp's Mary, so I will reluctantly use her as an example. I see her as a perfect example of what we are trying to talk about here. She is a snake that, when bred to a bloodred, will produce 100% bloodreds (assuming no compatable hets -- work with me here!). Will they all be A+ quality? I don't know, but they'll all be bloodreds in every sense of the word as it is now used. She is NOT an outcrossed animal in the sense that she is merely het for the diffuse/faded/"X" pattern; she is homozygous for it. You can see how her pattern fades away as it goes from the dorsal line, across the lateral toward the ventral line.
However, there is nothing extraordinarily "RED" about Mary. So, calling her a bloodred seems counterproductive to me, when all we are really trying to describe on her is the pattern mutation, the genes for which she DOES carry and passes on to her offspring. Calling her a name that describes her pattern mutation but leaving the name "bloodred" to those animals that have the pattern mutation AND the line breeding necessary for the red coloration, makes all the sense in the world to me.
Now, I agree that the red in bloodreds is a linebred issue just like the question about miami or okeetee phase animals, and there is no way for an animal to be het for those qualities. However, the pattern mutation on a bloodred, I believe, IS definable by simple mandelian genetics (though I am not certain that we are not talking about a co-dominant gene instead of a simple recessive one, given the look of hets, but that's another story!). It is nothing different, Joe, than saying that a Candy Cane is homozygous for amel, but the specifics that make it a candy cane versus a sunglow are due to linebreeding.
Please, let's not confuse the issue here. We are NOT talking about outcrossed bloodreds (those het for the pattern mutation only). We ARE talking about that genetically linked and inheritable pattern mutation that is common to all bloodreds, but not limited to those snakes that have the linebred deep, dark red coloration.
We are not talking about outcrossed bloodreds here at all. We are talking about animals that are homozygous for the pattern mutation that is evident in all bloodreds, pewters, anery bloodreds, amel bloodreds, butter bloods, lavender bloods, etc. To say that not all animals exhibit the pattern to the same degree (or quality, if you like) therefore the pattern is not nameable, is to throw out the Ghost, Anerythristic, or Amelanistic names, because, as we all know, there is tremendous variation in those as well.
You brought up Serp's Mary, so I will reluctantly use her as an example. I see her as a perfect example of what we are trying to talk about here. She is a snake that, when bred to a bloodred, will produce 100% bloodreds (assuming no compatable hets -- work with me here!). Will they all be A+ quality? I don't know, but they'll all be bloodreds in every sense of the word as it is now used. She is NOT an outcrossed animal in the sense that she is merely het for the diffuse/faded/"X" pattern; she is homozygous for it. You can see how her pattern fades away as it goes from the dorsal line, across the lateral toward the ventral line.
However, there is nothing extraordinarily "RED" about Mary. So, calling her a bloodred seems counterproductive to me, when all we are really trying to describe on her is the pattern mutation, the genes for which she DOES carry and passes on to her offspring. Calling her a name that describes her pattern mutation but leaving the name "bloodred" to those animals that have the pattern mutation AND the line breeding necessary for the red coloration, makes all the sense in the world to me.
Now, I agree that the red in bloodreds is a linebred issue just like the question about miami or okeetee phase animals, and there is no way for an animal to be het for those qualities. However, the pattern mutation on a bloodred, I believe, IS definable by simple mandelian genetics (though I am not certain that we are not talking about a co-dominant gene instead of a simple recessive one, given the look of hets, but that's another story!). It is nothing different, Joe, than saying that a Candy Cane is homozygous for amel, but the specifics that make it a candy cane versus a sunglow are due to linebreeding.
Please, let's not confuse the issue here. We are NOT talking about outcrossed bloodreds (those het for the pattern mutation only). We ARE talking about that genetically linked and inheritable pattern mutation that is common to all bloodreds, but not limited to those snakes that have the linebred deep, dark red coloration.
Drizzt80
Dakota Corns
I disagreed with what Joe had said as well, and Darin, much more eloquently than I, already gave very adequate reasons as to why.
I would have to say that Clint's idea of Leach or Hastings seems better than diffused, but still doesn't ring a catchy tune. If I were new, and heard 'Hastings Butter' for example I would be led to believe by the name that a guy named Hastings developed that coloration of snake. Now, that being said, it would still follow along with having to explain the background of any name that was chosen anyway!
Thirdly, I had offered up wax as a name, and then read the other thread discussing the lava corns and their waxy blotch appearance, so wax no longer appears to be a viable option similar to diffuse being confused with some patterns found in silver queens, etc.
Lastly, here are some more terms that popped up in my searches. (But what about 'X' for the term? It's been used a lot just in this discussion, and would indicate the unpredictableness of the pattern mutation itself.)
Augmented (increase, evolve, add as in color)
Blossom
Enhanced
Morphed
Metamorphosed
Transmuted
Transformed
Just some more ideas since others are able to argue the debate better than I.
D80
I would have to say that Clint's idea of Leach or Hastings seems better than diffused, but still doesn't ring a catchy tune. If I were new, and heard 'Hastings Butter' for example I would be led to believe by the name that a guy named Hastings developed that coloration of snake. Now, that being said, it would still follow along with having to explain the background of any name that was chosen anyway!
Thirdly, I had offered up wax as a name, and then read the other thread discussing the lava corns and their waxy blotch appearance, so wax no longer appears to be a viable option similar to diffuse being confused with some patterns found in silver queens, etc.
Lastly, here are some more terms that popped up in my searches. (But what about 'X' for the term? It's been used a lot just in this discussion, and would indicate the unpredictableness of the pattern mutation itself.)
Augmented (increase, evolve, add as in color)
Blossom
Enhanced
Morphed
Metamorphosed
Transmuted
Transformed
Just some more ideas since others are able to argue the debate better than I.
D80
Serpwidgets
New member
I liked the idea of using Leach or Hastings, except that Hastings would then end up with people selling w/c corns from that area under the name, without having a pattern mutation.
I could see "Leach" but as Paul said, it's not descriptive. That, and people would think they're hearing "leech," which isn't really marketable. I still have to go with anything that catches on.
For everyone who hasn't seen the book yet, here's the beginning of the section about the pattern gene in the "genetic traits" section:
I also like "diffused" which is the same thing, really. Nobody who is looking for a corn with the "diffuse" pattern will say, "aww, they don't have them, they only have diffused."
Now that someone is going to call it something, people are giving serious consideration to what they actually will call it. Some will continue calling it bloodred. Some will call it diffuse or diffused or faded or whatever. And almost everyone will disagree with at least some part of my argument or that I went forward with using the name, or how I went forward. But hopefully by next summer we will have a name, any name, to call the pattern.
I could see "Leach" but as Paul said, it's not descriptive. That, and people would think they're hearing "leech," which isn't really marketable. I still have to go with anything that catches on.
I know it looks like this thread is going somewhere and I've pre-empted an opportunity for everyone to reach a concensus, but the other threads on this subject were going the same way. And then they just died out and nothing happened. It's too late for me to change it in this edition. I just could not bring myself to publish a book that used "anerythristic bloodred." Seriously, that lack of a "real" name for the pattern kept me from going forward with the idea for a long time. I have to mention again that I didn't make this decision unilaterally. Even so, I knew it would spark a lot of debate, and that I'd be the subject of a lot of criticism. (shrug, I'm good for that, hehe.)
For everyone who hasn't seen the book yet, here's the beginning of the section about the pattern gene in the "genetic traits" section:
I explain the morph "Bloodred," the way we now understand it, in the chapter about "selectively bred" morphs.
I also like "diffused" which is the same thing, really. Nobody who is looking for a corn with the "diffuse" pattern will say, "aww, they don't have them, they only have diffused."
Now that someone is going to call it something, people are giving serious consideration to what they actually will call it. Some will continue calling it bloodred. Some will call it diffuse or diffused or faded or whatever. And almost everyone will disagree with at least some part of my argument or that I went forward with using the name, or how I went forward. But hopefully by next summer we will have a name, any name, to call the pattern.
SODERBERGD
New member
Location. . .
In speaking to someone on the phone today about this naming problem, the idea came up about the original location of the snake. Yes, that could make people think that all snakes from that location are bloodreds, but Okeetee seems to work even for snakes not from the Hunt Club.
Rich/Kathy. What is the name of the town where the first bloodreds were found?
In speaking to someone on the phone today about this naming problem, the idea came up about the original location of the snake. Yes, that could make people think that all snakes from that location are bloodreds, but Okeetee seems to work even for snakes not from the Hunt Club.
Rich/Kathy. What is the name of the town where the first bloodreds were found?
I can't say I'm wild about naming any morph after a person's name. Reason being it means nothing to anyone but the guy who owns the name and historical buffs. Now, not only do you have to learn a morph, what it looks like, it's defining characteristics, its heritability, co-dominant vs. recessive status, and variability, but also remember which guy's name happens to be attached to this morph.
Can you tell me the difference between Adson, DeBakey, Brown, or Brown-Adson forceps? Does any one of those names give you any impression of their shape or use in your head? OK, how about rat-toothed forceps? You got it, they have teeth similar to rat teeth on their grasping surface, sharp little teeth right at the tips.
How about the difference between Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome vs. Wolff's law vs. the Wolff-Chaikoff effect? One is a heart syndrome, one pertains to the restructuring of bone in line with the stresses placed upon it, and one pertains to inhibition of iodine binding by the thyroid gland.
Legg-Calve'-Perthes disease vs. femoral head necrosis. Which one would you find easier to remember? Heck, I can barely pronounce the first one (and why did they have to use all THREE names?) whereas the second tells you what it is. The femoral head becomes necrotic (dead) due to disruption/loss of blood supply. Heh, or one of my personal "favorites" - Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome. (immune-mediated uveitis and depigmentation of selected areas) I still can't even begin to pronounce that one. I've resorted to VKH syndrome.
When there are only a few "Name" names, it's not too bad, but as we've seen, new morphs and morph combos are coming at us right and left. Shouldn't we just name them all after people, then? Surrrrrrrrrrrre. "Dude, check out my Zuchowski Love Soderberg corn. Isn't he awesome? He's double het for Boyer and Pinello."
It's been the bane of my existence for years to have to learn specific procedures and diseases that are simply entitled with some person(s) name. I suppose it's good for the ego, having a corn morph named after you, but that's really all it's good for. If someone wants to know who discovered the morph, they'll look it up, I guarantee you.
I highly doubt we'll all ever agree on a single name, but it would be nice if when referring to the pattern aspect of "bloodred", that something descriptive was selected. Anerythristic, in my opinion, IS descriptive of its morph because those snakes are classically without the red/orange pigmentation. Whether the red is changed to black or the red pigment is simply lost or whether the red pigment has been blown away by microscopic recessive alien symbiots is a moot point, the snake is still without red pigment... an- = without, erythro- = red, -istic = a condition of.
LOL, and Joe...reading your post, I just couldn't help but hear "KA-BOOM" everytime I read defused. If we don't defuse them, wouldn't they just blow up? [You hate diffused for a name? You used lava. Yuk, yuk, yuk.]
Can you tell me the difference between Adson, DeBakey, Brown, or Brown-Adson forceps? Does any one of those names give you any impression of their shape or use in your head? OK, how about rat-toothed forceps? You got it, they have teeth similar to rat teeth on their grasping surface, sharp little teeth right at the tips.
How about the difference between Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome vs. Wolff's law vs. the Wolff-Chaikoff effect? One is a heart syndrome, one pertains to the restructuring of bone in line with the stresses placed upon it, and one pertains to inhibition of iodine binding by the thyroid gland.
Legg-Calve'-Perthes disease vs. femoral head necrosis. Which one would you find easier to remember? Heck, I can barely pronounce the first one (and why did they have to use all THREE names?) whereas the second tells you what it is. The femoral head becomes necrotic (dead) due to disruption/loss of blood supply. Heh, or one of my personal "favorites" - Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome. (immune-mediated uveitis and depigmentation of selected areas) I still can't even begin to pronounce that one. I've resorted to VKH syndrome.
When there are only a few "Name" names, it's not too bad, but as we've seen, new morphs and morph combos are coming at us right and left. Shouldn't we just name them all after people, then? Surrrrrrrrrrrre. "Dude, check out my Zuchowski Love Soderberg corn. Isn't he awesome? He's double het for Boyer and Pinello."
It's been the bane of my existence for years to have to learn specific procedures and diseases that are simply entitled with some person(s) name. I suppose it's good for the ego, having a corn morph named after you, but that's really all it's good for. If someone wants to know who discovered the morph, they'll look it up, I guarantee you.
I highly doubt we'll all ever agree on a single name, but it would be nice if when referring to the pattern aspect of "bloodred", that something descriptive was selected. Anerythristic, in my opinion, IS descriptive of its morph because those snakes are classically without the red/orange pigmentation. Whether the red is changed to black or the red pigment is simply lost or whether the red pigment has been blown away by microscopic recessive alien symbiots is a moot point, the snake is still without red pigment... an- = without, erythro- = red, -istic = a condition of.
LOL, and Joe...reading your post, I just couldn't help but hear "KA-BOOM" everytime I read defused. If we don't defuse them, wouldn't they just blow up? [You hate diffused for a name? You used lava. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
]