new to bloodred..

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

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?

Ground color? No, not exactly....

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

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.

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.

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.

Darin,

I'm not suggesting that we should. I do believe that we should make every effort to eliminate as much confusion as possible along the road to discovery. Like the old saying goes, "Keep it simple....".

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

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.

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.