Do me a favor...

[Shep151]

What are we gonna call the invisibility gene? How about Glass Corns? I vote we put it to a vote! Then if the vote isn't unanimous, we need to wait until we have a consensus between everyone before anyone can possibly offer it for sale!

 

[carol]

Then if the vote isn't unanimous, we need to wait until we have a consensus between everyone before anyone can possibly offer it for sale!

Not at all, and I think one other thing does need to be mentioned...
Kudos to Hurley for at least asking what others think. She didn't have to, she could just label her corns as whatever she wants.

Unfortunatley, when you ask for people's opinions, you get them. LOL. All my arguements really aren't directed to any one person but really are meant for the way things are headed and I challenge it's supporters to think about it a little. I acknowledge I am completely helpless to stop it, but twenty years from now when the "book of morphs" is four inches thick I won't be kicking myself for not speaking my mind.

 

[E. g. guttata]

I'm not sure how much my 2 cents will be worth now that I missed the meaty part of the discussion, but I think that Bloodred is very accurate for the Bloodred corn and that the term "diffused" for the pattern is appropriate. Of course, this is coming from the tag-along in the back with just enough knowledge to know what he's doing and know he really doesn't have experience in the hobby.

 

[Hurley]

for at least asking what others think. She didn't have to, she could just label her corns as whatever she wants.

And after all this, here I'm kicking myself for even offering a name up for consideration. Disregarding all the hooplah around the diffused anerys, I have pretty much gotten that 1) some people want no trade names, and 2) if it has to have a trade name, Avalanche is a pretty cool name.

(And, granite was my favorite for diffused anerys before, I hope it stays around this time.)

Shrug. Avalanche will fly...or it won't. Either way, the world will go round. I liked it because it stayed close to the snow name, but implied a pattern change to me since an avalanche is "snow in motion". A diffused snow is a snow with the pattern shoved back off the belly and the rest of it smudged. Thought it worked well for the color + pattern combo, given that, but hey. :shrugs:

Works as well as pewter or sulfur, at any rate...and in the same situation.

Don't want to hold the thread up here, just wanted to acknowledge Carol's statement and thank her for seeing where I was coming from. Now, recommence slashing.

 

[Serpwidgets]

I also feel like you sometimes are dead set against anything written contrary to your opinion before you even think about it.

Ya, I can be good for that sometimes.

The very same arguments you are making against names you don't like can also be made against the ones you do. Sure you can throw up three pics of snakes to make it hard for people to pick out the real snow blood, but the same can be done for "Raider", "Diamond", "Plasma", and "Sulfer". Why are you so against "Snow Blood" and not the others?

I disagree.

I don't understand what level of consistancy you are using on what you think is "good" and what you reject.

I will say that, unless there is some major objection about a name (it is a swear word or a racial slur, or it is "deceptive") it is all about taste.

There is no "logic" or "reasoning" behind taste. It just is. If someone does not like the name Raider because it does not match their tastes, then that's all there is to it. People can try to make arguments involving "logic" and "reasoning" but the plain and simple fact is that they didn't like it, end of story. There is nothing to argue about, people might as well try to logically convince someone that everyone should think brocolli and brussel sprouts are "yummy" or not.

I like raider, you do not like raider. Nobody is right or wrong. Nobody is any more or less "logical" about liking or disliking it.

The one naming convention I am against and will completely resist is "blood" or "bloodred" applied to animals that are not red. It is not about taste. I believe it is easy enough for reasonable people to be decieved by it, and additionally it also causes a LOT of unnecessary confusion and makes trying to classify morphs an impossible task, and I think it just plain makes us look like a bunch of dorks that we use it on black and gray snakes to say they are "special" for being "bloodred" when the "ugly" normals of our species are a zillion times redder than the ones we are calling "red."

I find it morally/ethically objectionable. This is not the same thing as "people might not like the raiders or "get it" right away."

It is not that I don't like the name. But I don't like the name being applied "willy-nilly" to everything under the sun just because we are too afraid someone might disagree with any other name chosen, or that we cannot find that one single magical word that both sounds cool and perfectly describes an extremely variable and complicated look.

If that were the case, I would go along with the majority as I have done on many names, including first "Trans" and then "Lava" and many of the other morph names I personally dislike. But I object to this one on the grounds of it being wholly inappropriate.

 

[ecreipeoj]

Chuck and I think a lot alike on most subjects, but I disagree with him on his position about Bloods. Just because an Anery Blood is not red, does not mean it is not a Blood. The Anery gene removes the red pigment, so it is obviously not going to be red. Amel Blood is OK, but a Snow Blood created with them is not because the are not red. This just doesn’t make any since to me.

The majority of the Blood stock in this country is dark red. This is the base stock for the multiple homo morphs that include bloods. The fact that they are so red, has an effect on their appearance when they are homo for Anery, Charcoal, Lavender or Caramel. The diffused pattern is not the only thing that is effecting their look as Pewters.

I am sure that when I breed my Lavender Blood X Hypo Blood that I will get classic looking Bloods het for Hypo Lav, even though one of the parents is not red. They are carrying the genes necessary to produce the classic look. I am convinced, as others are, that there is more to the color of a Blood than just selective breeding, like Candy Canes.

I have a problem with breeding a Blood het Snow X Blood Het Snow and then calling the resulting offspring Bloods, Amel Bloods, Diffused Anerys, and Diffused Snows. Their genetic make up is the same except the Diffused Anerys and Snows are homo for Anery. An Amel Blood X Diffused Anery breeding would then produce Bloods het Snow. This flip flop of the names because they are not “Red“, to Diffused seems to be wrong and unnecessary. I completely expect a Pewter or “Granite” Corn (Anery Blood) to be missing its red coloration or they are would not be Pewters or Granite Corns. An Anery Blood is not just any old Anery that is homo for the diffused pattern. They must come from Blood stock and be able to produce Bloods in the normal phase.

If a Granite Corn come from a line of good Blood stock and will produce Bloods when they are out-crossed, then they have all of the genes necessary to be called Bloods whether or not they are red. It doesn’t matter if the coloration of Bloods is caused by selective breeding or some other genetic trait. If a Granite Corn has all of the genetic traits to produce a Blood in the normal phase, I believe they should be referred to as Bloods.

Trade names such as Pewter, Granite, Sulfur, or Avalanche, are good because it supports both of our positions, except I feel that a Pewters genetic name is a Charcoal Blood and not a Diffused Charcoal.

If a line is produced that does not produce Dark Red coloration in the “NORMAL” phase and has the diffused pattern then perhaps the descriptive term of diffused can be used as a Name and the line be called Diffused Corns. A Blood from a Blood line that is not red due to a mutant gene should not be called Diffused Corns, but Homo “Mutant” Blood as a genetic name. Hopefully a trade name can be applied to them which reflects their appearance.


There are a lot of threads going now that are of the pro and con “Name Game“ type. Some like trade names and some positions are “If it is not broke don’t fix it”. Anery Stripes and Anery Motleys are not broke so lets not fix them. A common name for them would be difficult for one and not be better for another. If somebody like Chuck and I disagree on the approach to Bloods, then it is broke and Trade names for all Mutant Bloods would perhaps fix the problem of a mutant blood not being red.

The more that I think about the proposed name of Avalanche Corn for Snow Bloods the more I feel that it is the perfect name, for the color and pattern. The same is true for Pewters and “Granite” Corns. When I picture James Bond skiing in front of an avalanche, I see snow covered mountain tops with a roar of falling snow below them. This does match the smearing of pattern on the side of Bloods with the remaining pattern on the top and Red or Blood has been removed from the name.

I still feel that an Avalanche Corn should be listed genetically as a Snow Blood or Amel/AneryA/Blood and not Diffused, but I have a feeling that Chuck and I will always disagree on that issue and that is OK with me.

 

[hediki]

Everybody knows some people who are not into corns, and/or know nothing about their genetics. So, please ask one or more of those people the following question, and report back the answers you get.

Q- "If I told you I had a snake that was called a "snow blood" what do you think it looks like?"

I asked my friend Ian the question and here's what I got:

A- "White with red spots. Anyone who has ever lived in snow has seen blood on snow. Snow and blood is white with red spots..."

Please, share your experiences here.

i asked some one and they said it would probably look like white(like realy white) with red rings around it.or red with white rings. another person said that its probably all white with a red corn pattern on its back.

 

[Hurley]

Time will tell on the bloodreds. I think this is going to be an "agree to disagree" issue. If bloodreds ever get selected towards more Okeetee coloration or towards Miami coloration or whatever, the pattern and the color morph will begin to separate. In those animals, the name bloodred will be inappropriate, despite the fact that they exhibit the pattern of a faded side, white belly, and stretched head pattern. We'll see. I'm sure it's a project that will at least be attempted by some, we just need to see how far we can separate the color from the pattern in a normal snake. There is already great variation in amels. Some are the bloodreddest of bloodreds, some are orange and red...? Yet they still show the pattern.

At this point, to each his own. We know what we mean.

 

[Skye]

coworker:

snow-blood - white background and red markings

avalanche - not a colour but a pattern - jagged markings that were not smooth

 

[Serpwidgets]

but I have a feeling that Chuck and I will always disagree on that issue and that is OK with me.

Same here.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what is the difference between a “diffused” and a bloodred. I’m sure the differences in our conclusions stem from that. My position is that bloodred is “diffused trait + selective breeding” just like candycane is “amel trait + selective breeding.”

I’m not sure if that is your position and I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Can you please clarify, what exactly is the difference between a normal cornsnake expressing the diffused pattern, versus a bloodred corn?

The additional questions I’d like to pose are: (LOL this thread is good for at least another 50 posts. )

1- If you breed two candycanes together and get snows, will those snows be “snows” or will they be “anerythristic candycanes?” (or other?)

2- If you cross a candycane to a charcoal, and then produce F2s, will they be “blizzards” or “candycane blizzards?” (or other?)

3- If you cross a candycane to a normal, are the normal offspring “het for amel” or are they “het for candycane?” (or other?)

4- If you have a snow that, when bred to a candycane, throws candycane offspring, is it a “snow” or is it a “candycane snow?” (or other?)

An Anery Blood is not just any old Anery that is homo for the diffused pattern. They must come from Blood stock and be able to produce Bloods in the normal phase.

I’m not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying the sole difference between an “anery blood” and an “anery diffused” is the offspring they produce? (Does that mean there should be candycane snows?) If so, can you tell the difference between an “anery blood” and an “anery diffuse” by looking at them? If so, by what visual clues?

 

[ecreipeoj]

This topic will continue to evolve. I have this “Sunglow” Blood, that will most likely support the “Diffuse” position. I do not know what he will produce when he is bred to a Blood. All I do know about him is that his creation began with an Okeetee X Amel Blood breeding. You can certainly see his Okeetee blood in him. He is red, but orange and white too. It is unlikely that his Sunglow color will translate into a dark red blood in the normal phase unless it is due to him being Hypo, which he may or may not be.

Okeetee and Miami Phase Bloods will certainly be produced. I think that one of Chuck’s Bloods may fall into the Miami Phase category. They still may be a very dark red color, with gray in their background in the Miami Phase and dark red with black borders in the Okeetee Phase. The wild line that the Lavas come from already fit that description.

I know that I bred Lava Okeetees from this wild line X Blood het Anery, so there may be some Okeetee Phase Bloods come from that mix. Since the orange coloration in Lavas seems to spread out into the surrounding areas and Bloods have a spread out pattern, I think it will be difficult to get a Classic Okeetee Phase Lava Blood, much like it is hard to get and Okeetee Motley, but some are getting close. I think an Okeetee Striped would be awesome, but the lighting effect of the Striped Gene is going to make this very difficult.

I guess my point in the above response was that all Granite Corns should be able to produce Bloods in the normal phase. It would be expected that a Diffuse Anery should also produce Bloods in the normal phase, but this may not be true, depending on the background they come from. I can certainly see a line of Diffused Corns being established, that are separated from the Blood line, but if they come from a Blood line, this is where I agree to disagree.

I can answer Serps question, if I approach the question by removing my knowledge of what a Snow is. A Snow Blood would look like what I see in the snow after a successful Elk Hunting trip. Deep Dark Red coloration on a pure white background. A Candy Cane could be developed that would fit that description perfectly and they would be awesome. Red so dark that it is almost black. They would be beyond Candy Cane and perhaps Snow Blood or Bloody Snow would be a good common name for them, but the confusion issue with the Blood line would certainly come up.

 

[ecreipeoj]

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what is the difference between a “diffused” and a bloodred. I’m sure the differences in our conclusions stem from that. My position is that bloodred is “diffused trait + selective breeding” just like candycane is “amel trait + selective breeding.”

I think Diffused Candy Canes would be cool!, but a better name would be Cherry Snow Cones.

I’m not sure if that is your position and I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Can you please clarify, what exactly is the difference between a normal cornsnake expressing the diffused pattern, versus a bloodred corn?

Normal Diffused vs. Bloodred, Bad for Bloodred Projects vs. Good for Bloodred Projects. I really do not want to produce normals with or without the diffused pattern from my Bloodred Projects. $25 vs. $65

The additional questions I’d like to pose are: (LOL this thread is good for at least another 50 posts. )

Joe Pierce on the witness stand and the honorable Serp asking the questions. I thought I got out of this line of work!LOL

1- If you breed two candycanes together and get snows, will those snows be “snows” or will they be “anerythristic candycanes?” (or other?)

Snows or Anerythristic/Amelanistics

2- If you cross a candycane to a charcoal, and then produce F2s, will they be “blizzards” or “candycane blizzards?” (or other?)

Blizzards or Amelanistic/Anerythristic B

3- If you cross a candycane to a normal, are the normal offspring “het for amel” or are they “het for candycane?” (or other?)

Het for Amel

4- If you have a snow that, when bred to a candycane, throws candycane offspring, is it a “snow” or is it a “candycane snow?” (or other?)

Snow. Great one less male that I need.

I’m not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying the sole difference between an “anery blood” and an “anery diffused” is the offspring they produce? (Does that mean there should be candycane snows?) If so, can you tell the difference between an “anery blood” and an “anery diffuse” by looking at them? If so, by what visual clues?

I have never seen a Diffused Anery. The difference is the parentage of the Anery Blood AND the offspring that they can produce. A Diffused Anery would be expected to produce Diffused Normals and an Anery Blood would be expected to produce Bloods in the normal phase. Lets find a Diffused Anery that produces Normal Diffused and compare them to a Granite Corn.

For the record, I would like to object to this line of questioning. I do not believe that the breeding for Candy Canes is exactly like breeding for Bloods. Candy Canes are recessive and Bloods are co-dominant. Candy Canes color genes are normal genes that are clearly selective bred, weak and easily lost when out-crossed. Bloods color is strong in their family, powerful and perhaps co-dominant to normal color genes, and certainly easily recovered from out-crossed lines.

 

[Drizzt80]

I think I understand the point Serp was trying to make with his questions. It hinges on his statement that Diffused is the pattern trait we are discussing here, and a Bloodred is merely a selectively bred Diffused similar to Candy Cane being a selectively bred Amel.

I think Joe was following this same reasoning until he got down to his discussion of the Anery Bloods or Diffused Anery's. They'd be the same thing wouldn't they? Regardless of what they threw for babies? I believe that if you bred an Anery Blood/Diffused to an Anery Blood/Diffused you aren't going to throw any Normal Diffused/Bloods, they'll all be Anery Blood/Diffused.

Now if the point is to throw Normal Diffused/Bloods if you bred the Anery Diffused/Bloods to a Bloodred or Diffused, then you're talking about the selective breeding aspect of picking those hatchlings that match the bloodred characteristics and those that match the normal diffused characteristics. Now having not hatched out any bloodreds, YET (hopefully this summer!), doesn't that already happen when breeding two bloodreds together? From following conversations about the bloodred/diffused pattern, isn't it already variable within the hatchlings of two 'pure' bloods? (Just like breeding two candycanes. Don't the hatchlings tend towards candy cane, but some better than others?)

Just my thoughts as I've waded through all the discussion.
D80

 

[E. g. guttata]

1- If you breed two candycanes together and get snows, will those snows be “snows” or will they be “anerythristic candycanes?” (or other?)

2- If you cross a candycane to a charcoal, and then produce F2s, will they be “blizzards” or “candycane blizzards?” (or other?)

3- If you cross a candycane to a normal, are the normal offspring “het for amel” or are they “het for candycane?” (or other?)

4- If you have a snow that, when bred to a candycane, throws candycane offspring, is it a “snow” or is it a “candycane snow?” (or other?)

1- Miami snows
2- Miami blizzards
3- Het for amel
4- Candycane het anery

This is only coming from the snot-nosed teenager in the back, but I think it should be kept simple. On a more amature forum that covers most reptiles and not just corns, there was a question posted very similar to the third on this list. The it was thought of mutually that candycanes, though they are amels that are selectively bred, are still amels, so the same basic rules apply. I think that the same basic genetic rules should apply, regardless of selective breeding.

 

[Serpwidgets]

1- Miami snows
2- Miami blizzards
3- Het for amel
4- Candycane het anery

Ok, so I have some followups. (No, I'm not trying to set anyone up for a slam, LOL. Just trying to get people to go step by step through how we all go about describing things.)

1- What is the difference between an "anerythristic candycane" and a "miami snow?" How do you tell the difference between a miami snow and a regular snow?

2- These are F2s. Are you saying that all snakes with even one miami ancestor are miamis? Also, what is the difference between a "charcoal candycane," a "candycane blizzard," and a "miami blizzard?"

3- Correct. It is definitely het for amel and it cannot be het for "selective breeding."

4- I assume this was a typo? The animal in question is homozygous for both amel and anery. (It's a snow.)

 

[carol]

I know this thread has changed direction in one day, but to answer on your comments,

What I am still reading is that "Raider" is OK even if it doesn't give the majority of people a correct mental picture of what it looks like. We just have to "like" it or not, according to opinion.

However, "blood" is not OK because it doesn't give the majority of people a correct mental picture of what it looks like. We should dislike it and it is not a matter of opinion.

As far as being ethical, I don't think any newbie would walk out of a show with thier newly purchased "Snow Blood", believing they are going home with a red snake. Even with internet sales, I really hope no one will buy a snake just off the name without ever seeing a single picture of a specimen.

Sure, newbies will see the label "Snow Blood" and peek in the deli cup (or click on the picture) and may suprised to see a white snake and will probably ask you what the difference is between this snake and the snows, blizzards, etc. Or they can look over and see an Avalanche Corn, most likely expect and see that it is a white snake and will probably still ask you what the difference is between this snake and the snows, blizzards, etc. The only big difference is someone with basic knowledge could tell what one is without thier Cornsnake Thesaurus.

What suprises me the most is one of the very arguements AGAINST Bloodreds was that we should have never used one word to describe a color and a pattern. Now we are suggesting doing the samething over again, albeit it is now with recessive genes creating the color instead of line breeding.

Really, you know my position on "diffused" or others, however, I'd rather go with Snow Diffused than an "Avalanche" or any other trade name. Is this your way of breaking us down? LOL

 

[Serpwidgets]

I know this thread has changed direction in one day, but to answer on your comments.

Off topic, AGAIN?!?!

I think that the names we use for our Corn Snake Morphs can be sorted into categories like so.

-----

Group 1 - Perfectly intuitive. These names put a picture in peoples' heads, and almost everyone who hears the name first could then walk up to a table full of all kinds of corns and, without any doubt in their minds, pick out the one of that morph. I think that there are plenty of "blood red" and "candycane" and "striped" and "creamsicle" corns which fall into this category.

Group 2 - Mostly intuitive. These names put a picture into people's heads, and it is reasonably similar to the morph that they will generally pick out the right ones from the table, and they will be pretty confident about their choice. Many of the descriptive or color names, like amber and butter, fall into this group.

Group 3 - Nonsense. These names have no particular meaning to people and/or do not create any kind of picture. They mean what we say they mean. Okeetee, miami, and motley corns fit into this category. These can be very good names, too.

Group 4 - Sciencey. These words have a scientific background and end up in category 1 or 2 for people who know their "real meaning," or category 3 for people who don't.

Group 5 - Counter-intuitive. These words put a clear picture in someone's mind, and they are confident that they would know what to expect, but the actual morph is extremely different, to where they will not be able to pick, or will confidently pick the wrong one.

-----

My "demonstration" was designed to illustrate that "snow blood" belongs in group 5.

I think that some names can be objectionable, regardless of how perfectly intuitive they are. For example, if we had melanistic corns and someone wanted to call them the "n" word, many reasonable people would object to it because the word is offensive, even though the name does put the exact picture of the morph in peoples' heads.

I think the same could be said of a brown morph being named the "s" word. It's crude and obnoxious. It may be funny, but people would object to it on moral grounds. It doesn't mean the people who think it's funny are "immoral" or "unethical."

-----

IMO "Raider" straddles category 2 and 3. For some it is a reasonably good picture, for others, it is nonsense. I don't think it is "objectionable" it is just that people didn't like it, and the people who disliked it, REALLY disliked it. Like the way I disliked "blue" ice corns, LOL. I don't see that being the same thing as "it's totally anti-intuitive." Joe wanted to drop it, and it looks like Granite is a better choice so I am happy to go with "Granite."

-----

I think one of the problems we are having with the Name Game is that, because of a few morphs that are so perfectly named, people expect everything to have a name as fitting as those. However, there are many looks that simply cannot be summed up with a word. If you get a snake with red swirls and black stars on a blue background, it should probably be named. However, there is never going to be a pre-existing word that will fit.

I don't think it is always useful to wait around for that perfect word to appear, and in the meantime object to every proposal on the grounds that "it doesn't conjure that exact image in my head." I think that objection has been abused.

If you don't like it, that's fine. I can accept that. But I don't accept the premise that "it fails to paint a picture" is a bad thing in itself. I also don't accept the premise that "no picture" is on the same level as "totally clear, and very wrong picture."

There are plenty of morphs with good "nonsense" or "pretty close, even though the morph is variable" names. We should at least consider some of those instead of waiting for the perfect word that paints an exact picture, especially when that picture is quite variable.

 

[Clint Boyer]

There are plenty of morphs with good "nonsense" or "pretty close, even though the morph is variable" names. We should at least consider some of those instead of waiting for the perfect word that paints an exact picture, especially when that picture is quite variable.

Hmmmm......

Sounds like an arguement FOR Bloodred!

 

[E. g. guttata]

4- I assume this was a typo? The animal in question is homozygous for both amel and anery. (It's a snow.)

That was not a typo. I am treating the candycane as just a normal amel. You asked if it were bred with a snow what should it be called. A "normal" amel bred to a snow would throw 100% amel het anery. Why would this be different?

I think that there would be little to no difference between a "miami snow/blizzard" and a "normal snow/blizzard" except for the fact that "miami snow/blizzard" would be derived mainly from the miami line, so this should be stated when trying to sell that animal. It would just be a different way of getting the same results, and it might peek people's curiosity a little to find out what the different morphs are. I know it would have gotten my interest when I first started looking for my first corns if I was told that two snakes that looked almost exactly the same came from different lines of breeding.

 

[Serpwidgets]

1- I'm still not sure how "Anerythristic Candycane" is different from "Miami Snow." I think these are the same exact thing.

-----

Your answer to #3 is correct. However, your answer for #2 is inconsistent with the answer to #3.

3- If you cross a candycane to a normal, the offspring are normals het amel.

If you change the normal to a charcoal, the offspring are still normals, but this time are het amel and charcoal.

Going back to #2- If you cross a candycane to a charcoal, and then produce F2s, will they be “blizzards” or “candycane blizzards?” (or other?)

When you cross two F1 "normals het charcoal and amel" together to produce F2s, why would you consider any of the blizzard offspring to automatically be "miami?"

-----

4- If you have a snow that, when bred to a candycane, throws candycane offspring, is it a “snow” or is it a “candycane snow?” (or other?)

I think you're misreading the question:

... is it (the snow that you have) a “snow” or is it a “candycane snow?”