new to bloodred..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued.......

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Amanda E
The term "pewter" only implies a gray snake, not one that has bloodred in it.

Originally posted by Drizzt80
I guess I missed the boat . . . I assumed (I know ) that Pewter meant Charcoal Bloodred. Am I wrong on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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