I would have to say that I pretty much agree with about 95% of everything that's been posted on this topic. I would just like to reiterate that, for me anyway, this discussion isn't really about 'changing the name' so much as getting rid of the discrepency of the bloodRED designation.
I have been using diffused in most of my discussions, but have to agree that I don't really like that name either, I guess that would put me in the camp of arguing for a name change but not having a suitable replacement! I also don't like Darren's episkiastic, but epi by itself does have a nice ring to it. Blood by itself is sounding like it's going to win favor. So be it, I'll use it too if that's the general consensus of those more important than myself. In reality, I'm not the one that's sitting at trade shows selling my wares.
I think a lot of this discussion is really saying the same things, yet different. If that makes any sense. I really get the feeling that there are several different topics being discussed in this same thread. Genetics and exactly what's taking place with the bloodred gene. Semantics with what the name 'means'. Usage/Explanation of the terms identifying phenotypes and genotypes. And probably a few others I can't pick out right now. My biggest concern is the contradiction in terms.
I know, and agree with carol and gardenmum, what Bloodred Anery means genetically and phenotypically. I truly understand that and don't expect to see a red animal when I hear that name. It just sticks in my throat because semantically it does MEAN a black only snake with red . . .
I would like to think the near 2600 registered users to this board are interested, conscientious, knowledgeable (meaning seekers of knowledge as much as holding that knowledge) people. Pretty much the 'cream of the crop'. (Fine, big brown nose to all of you!!
) The reality is the other thousands of potential customers that really don't give a rats butt about this entire thread, they just want to know what it's called. That's why the contradiction of terms sticks in my throat.
Regardless, just one last comparison of name changed versus other morphs we already have, and then I think I'll just sit back and watch the rest of this conversation (maybe!).
Bloodred situation:
Genetic vs Name/Phenotype
Epi=Bloodred
EpiCharcoal=Pewter
EpiAneryA=EpiAneryA
EpiAneryAAmel=EpiSnow
EpiCaramelAmel=EpiButter
and so on.
Compared to currently:
Genetic vs Name/Phenotype
Normal=Classic, Normal, Okeetee & Miami
Amel=Red Albino, Amelanistic, Reverse Okeetee, Sunglow & CandyCane
I think it's fairly simple really and a lot more cut and dried compared to what we already have to deal with (and makes sense semantically)! Back to the pewter (epicharcoal) X bloodred (epi), and you should get epi's (obviously called bloodreds) het for charcoal.
That's enough for me I guess. Whether it's diffuse/episkiastic/blood/epi/eclipse/other I've already said I would defer to those more important. Just please, either way, do it for the right reasons. I think a different name is important semantically. Yes I suppose we can go around the block again on motley and all the others that aren't.
The difference here is that when I saw my first motely patterned snake and learned the name for it, it 'made sense' if you can understand that. A 'newbie' looking at an epiAneryA and being told it's an AneryA Bloodred just doesn't 'make sense'.
D80