Well, I don't know if I would say Walter's question was off topic or secondary. My reasoning is that if you want to know if Snow Blood holds up when asked to a person who knows nothing about either corns or the genetics of corns, then the same really should definitely apply to ALL names given to our corns to be a fair question in determining the results.
I will say that I feel the reason people are saying they think that Snow Blood is a good indicator of the morph is because it tells us what that snake is without having to learn a new trade name and then what the trade name stands for, especially when it is a mixture of color and pattern names where a simple use of the mixture gives the picture well.
When a "newbie" starts learning about corns (or anything someone is newly into) they start with the basics. That is a must if you want to understand what you are learning. So, that means we start with the simple morphs and what color/look that name stands for. All the basic forms have names, and most of which are pretty properly descriptive of the corn's looks or hold a more scientific term. If a person learns the basic morphs...... amel, anery, snow, normal, motley, stripe, bloodred, caramel, butter, etc., then when they hear that a snake is a Caramel Blood Motley, they have a pretty good mental vision of what that snake will possibly look like. They know it will be a caramel type coloring with the "diffussion" of the blood and with some sort of motley type pattern. What that snake will exactly look like is dependent on the particular genes but we still get a pretty good picture possibility. So, this is why the name Snow Blood is considered a good indicator of what the morph is.....simply because, that is exactly what the morph is.
Believe me, I am not saying Avalanche is a bad name as I very much like it. But do we want to do this? And if so, is it for the betterment of our hobby?
Obviously if a new trait is found that is not related to the ones already have names, such as Lava and our newly found Ultramel, then these have to be given desinated names as we can't refer to the snake as "the corn with the funny hypo and amel combined look".
I think it is just people are asking that we take a step back and slow down and look at why we want to name something, if it is really necessary to apply a trade name to it and maybe even come up with some standard of naming that will benefit the corn business/hobby as its future progresses, maybe like what Walter suggested in his posting about not giving snakes with combined color and pattern traits designated names but saving designated names for multi color trait animals and such. I am not saying that this is a given choice for a naming standard, just that maybe if we put our heads together we can come up with some sort of standard to use in the "naming game" so it doesn't end up to be a free-for-all some time down the road that everyone will be regretting.
As more and more people get involved with the corns, it is going to get more and more imparative that some sort of organization of things take place so the future in this wonderful hobby/business of ours is not "blown open". I am NOT saying that is what is happening now but that it is something that I think anyone who has a serious interest in this hobby should keep in mind. For what we do today will impact the hobby tomorrow, there is no denying that. I think we really have to be careful of what trends we want to start. Should we consider how many trade names we want to have to be explaining to new comers down the road and why they are being applied? I, personally, think it is possible to have too many for the good of the hobby.
I hope that this doesn't come across as me being against having and making trade names, for I am not. Just that I hope we look at all avenues and try to come up with a solution that is for the betterment of our hobby before we go on.
Well, that was my one cent thought.
