-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Do me a favor...
- Thread starter Serpwidgets
- Start date
Kat
I'm talkin' to YOU.
I asked my sister, and she said 'pink and white with red'... but that's because she's seen a couple of my snow corns.
I asked her what colors she thought an Avalanche corn would be, and got 'burgundy and white'... (I'm in Colorado, the local hockey team is the Colorado Avalanche.)
I guess this is an example of a little knowledge favoring the less generic term over the trade name. That having been said, it IS easier to market (and get people interested) in morphs with new names.
-Kat
I asked her what colors she thought an Avalanche corn would be, and got 'burgundy and white'... (I'm in Colorado, the local hockey team is the Colorado Avalanche.)
I guess this is an example of a little knowledge favoring the less generic term over the trade name. That having been said, it IS easier to market (and get people interested) in morphs with new names.
-Kat
wikkedkornman
demi-god
the response i got when i asked someone what a snow-blood would look like was " a pink snake"
when i asked what a snake called Avalanche would look like the response was " a white snake with a trace of pattern present"
when i asked what a blizzard-blood would look like the reply was " a white snake with red speckles, like blood has been splattered on it."
when i asked what a snake called Avalanche would look like the response was " a white snake with a trace of pattern present"
when i asked what a blizzard-blood would look like the reply was " a white snake with red speckles, like blood has been splattered on it."
Walter Smith
CRAZY BOUT' CORNS !!
Ok Serp,
Here is the response I got from 3 co-workers who have no knowledge of snakes what-so-ever and one of them wants nothing to do with them, LOL.
I also asked a couple terms that have been around since forever it seems.
I'm going to signify each person by numbers 1, 2 and 3 and their answer to each term.
"Snow Blood"
1 - White and Red
2 - White
3 - Spots of Red and White
"Avalance"
1 - Green and White with a little Grey mixed in
2 - White
3 - Falling rock
"Anerythristic"
1 - Brown and Black
2 - Small Blue Snake
3 - ???Shrug, no clue???
"Hypomelanistic"
1 - Bright Orange and White
2 - Blue and Yellow
3 - Black with Red Stripes
I'm still not sure where you are going with this, but I'm interested.
Walter :wavey:
Here is the response I got from 3 co-workers who have no knowledge of snakes what-so-ever and one of them wants nothing to do with them, LOL.
I also asked a couple terms that have been around since forever it seems.
I'm going to signify each person by numbers 1, 2 and 3 and their answer to each term.
"Snow Blood"
1 - White and Red
2 - White
3 - Spots of Red and White
"Avalance"
1 - Green and White with a little Grey mixed in
2 - White
3 - Falling rock
"Anerythristic"
1 - Brown and Black
2 - Small Blue Snake
3 - ???Shrug, no clue???
"Hypomelanistic"
1 - Bright Orange and White
2 - Blue and Yellow
3 - Black with Red Stripes
I'm still not sure where you are going with this, but I'm interested.
Walter :wavey:
Serpwidgets
New member
I think people are getting the idea of this thread. The point was simple, although a secondary point was addressed at the same time: some people have got their blinders on and are so dead-set against anything Serp says, that they are going to post a mile of text disagreeing with Serp, before Serp even says a single word.
The main purpose was to get people to stop for a moment, take a step back, and look around from a common sense point of view. It's easy to get caught up in our own little world and drift away from things that normally make sense.
I am enjoying the Blame Game that is now being played all around the forums. I’d like to point out that:
-Serp did not coin the name avalanche.
-Serp did not coin the name raider.
-Serp did not coin the name diamond.
-Serp did not coin the name sulfur.
-Serp did not coin the name plasma.
But, even though Serp has never coined a single name, I'm sure that Serp is already getting "credit" for having done all this and more. Let me assure you that this is not "Serp's doing" but the natural consequences we are seeing as a result of a bunch of people who think the name "blood" is a fitting way to describe a pattern, and a bunch of other people who do not.
I spent months and months trying to get people to see a simple truth: that there was an autosomal pattern trait involved in the snakes we were all calling bloodred. It was unbelieveable how many people were dragging their feet through every step of that. They didn't believe it was autosomal, they didn't believe it was a pattern trait, they didn't believe it was codominant or varaible codominant. And on and on and on, ad nauseum.
I pointed out that we have a chance to avoid some major messes by trying to come up with and apply a non-color name to this "newly-recognized" pattern, but everyone dragged their feet on that one, too.
I happen to think the term bloodred is the coolest name that has been coined so far in corns. I think it is the best decription of some awe-inspiring blood-red corns and should always be used for those snakes. But just because a name sounds cool does not mean it's applicable to every cornsnake or is going to make sense to anyone else. I think many people are so in love with the term bloodred that they cannot let go of any opportunity to tack it onto everything they can come up with an excuse for. I think this is why every effort was made to attach the name to the pattern, and all thought of how appropriate it might be was just ignored in the process.
I mentioned then that more and more morphs that have not an inkling of red on them, because of this "precedent," are going to be described as "bloodred" by a bunch of people, and it is going to cause problems. But a solution was offered to get people to ignore that whole line of argument: Who cares? They'll all just get trade names like pewter did.
As anyone who participated in asking outsiders has noticed, "blood" not only describes a snake that is supposed to have red on it, it goes so far as to give many people so much confidence that the snake is red that they are surprised to find out it does not.
Many of us find that distasteful. (It is not just me, I am just one of the people who is willing to face the arrows.) The fact is that it is distasteful enough to enough people, that people are now considering trade names to use because they do not want to get "that look" when they use the absurd "blood red" tag to describe or sell an animal that has no red on it. If you want to know why people are not worried about finding trade names for the motley versions of morphs, yet many want to find names for the "blood red" versions of them, you need look no further than the nearest person who can tell you with confidence that a "snow blood" snake has red on it.
People want everyone to believe that there was a mistake made, that it was 20 some-odd years ago, and that it's just too hard to even consider trying to come up with a fix. The fact is that the pattern trait was not "recognized" as such until only a matter of months ago, and that is when an opportunity to come up with an appropriate name arose, and when whole bunch of people made a conscious and purposeful descision to use the name "bloodred" to describe said pattern.
It is not some old mistake as people will want you to believe, it is recent, and we are at this very moment compounding it even further by continuing to stick to the name "bloodred" to describe a pattern. But fear not, the solution to that problem was offered: trade names.
Well brace yourself because here they come, and I think avalanche is extremely appropriate given that it is the start of an avalanche of new trade names people will be coining as all kinds of no-red morphs are being created with the diffused pattern, and are becoming common enough that people do not want to keep getting "that look" when they use the term "blood red." Butters, Ambers, Caramels, Lavenders, Hypo Lavs, Opals, Snows, Blizzards, Anerys and so on.
It's going to happen. You can debate and take polls all day long and blame it all on Serp but that isn't going to make a shred of difference. Most of the people coining them don't know who any of you are, and are going to do so without your blessing.
The main purpose was to get people to stop for a moment, take a step back, and look around from a common sense point of view. It's easy to get caught up in our own little world and drift away from things that normally make sense.
I am enjoying the Blame Game that is now being played all around the forums. I’d like to point out that:
-Serp did not coin the name avalanche.
-Serp did not coin the name raider.
-Serp did not coin the name diamond.
-Serp did not coin the name sulfur.
-Serp did not coin the name plasma.
But, even though Serp has never coined a single name, I'm sure that Serp is already getting "credit" for having done all this and more. Let me assure you that this is not "Serp's doing" but the natural consequences we are seeing as a result of a bunch of people who think the name "blood" is a fitting way to describe a pattern, and a bunch of other people who do not.
I spent months and months trying to get people to see a simple truth: that there was an autosomal pattern trait involved in the snakes we were all calling bloodred. It was unbelieveable how many people were dragging their feet through every step of that. They didn't believe it was autosomal, they didn't believe it was a pattern trait, they didn't believe it was codominant or varaible codominant. And on and on and on, ad nauseum.
I pointed out that we have a chance to avoid some major messes by trying to come up with and apply a non-color name to this "newly-recognized" pattern, but everyone dragged their feet on that one, too.
I happen to think the term bloodred is the coolest name that has been coined so far in corns. I think it is the best decription of some awe-inspiring blood-red corns and should always be used for those snakes. But just because a name sounds cool does not mean it's applicable to every cornsnake or is going to make sense to anyone else. I think many people are so in love with the term bloodred that they cannot let go of any opportunity to tack it onto everything they can come up with an excuse for. I think this is why every effort was made to attach the name to the pattern, and all thought of how appropriate it might be was just ignored in the process.
I mentioned then that more and more morphs that have not an inkling of red on them, because of this "precedent," are going to be described as "bloodred" by a bunch of people, and it is going to cause problems. But a solution was offered to get people to ignore that whole line of argument: Who cares? They'll all just get trade names like pewter did.
As anyone who participated in asking outsiders has noticed, "blood" not only describes a snake that is supposed to have red on it, it goes so far as to give many people so much confidence that the snake is red that they are surprised to find out it does not.
Many of us find that distasteful. (It is not just me, I am just one of the people who is willing to face the arrows.) The fact is that it is distasteful enough to enough people, that people are now considering trade names to use because they do not want to get "that look" when they use the absurd "blood red" tag to describe or sell an animal that has no red on it. If you want to know why people are not worried about finding trade names for the motley versions of morphs, yet many want to find names for the "blood red" versions of them, you need look no further than the nearest person who can tell you with confidence that a "snow blood" snake has red on it.
People want everyone to believe that there was a mistake made, that it was 20 some-odd years ago, and that it's just too hard to even consider trying to come up with a fix. The fact is that the pattern trait was not "recognized" as such until only a matter of months ago, and that is when an opportunity to come up with an appropriate name arose, and when whole bunch of people made a conscious and purposeful descision to use the name "bloodred" to describe said pattern.
It is not some old mistake as people will want you to believe, it is recent, and we are at this very moment compounding it even further by continuing to stick to the name "bloodred" to describe a pattern. But fear not, the solution to that problem was offered: trade names.
Well brace yourself because here they come, and I think avalanche is extremely appropriate given that it is the start of an avalanche of new trade names people will be coining as all kinds of no-red morphs are being created with the diffused pattern, and are becoming common enough that people do not want to keep getting "that look" when they use the term "blood red." Butters, Ambers, Caramels, Lavenders, Hypo Lavs, Opals, Snows, Blizzards, Anerys and so on.
It's going to happen. You can debate and take polls all day long and blame it all on Serp but that isn't going to make a shred of difference. Most of the people coining them don't know who any of you are, and are going to do so without your blessing.
Walter Smith
CRAZY BOUT' CORNS !!
Serp,
Gottcha.
What I gather form our little homework assignment is to prove that "Serp" isn't to blame.
Well, I don't recall myself ever saying that it's Serp's fault, for anything.
All I did was expressed my thoughts on the term "Avalanche" and thoughts on coing a SINGLE TRADE NAME for a double or triple homozygous snake that combines COLOR and PATTERN traits.
As far as the term "BLOODRED" or "BLOOD" for this spacific pattern, I don't think it fits either, but like you said, that mistake was made some 20+ years ago.
How about for the normal/wild type colored ones, we start calling them "Fader" Corns.
Then we can just add a ( prefix ) color trait for the respective genetic color.
Example:
Lavender X Fader = Lavender Fader
"Fader" describes what the pattern does, plus I think it sounds cool, but who am I?
Or, does it have to be "Diffused" because it was already published? I don't recall a thread anywhere ASKING what anyone thought of the name "Diffused" before it showed up in a book. If there was one, I missed it.
I'm in agreement that the term "BLOODRED"/"BLOOD" should be changed to better describe the PATTERN trait, but until EVERYONE agrees on a new DECRIPTIVE name for this spacific pattern, I'm just gonna stick with what has been working for those 20+ years.
The name "Avalance" to me sounds like a COLOR term rather than a pattern trait and it certainly dosen't bring to my mind a pattern trait that fades. :shrugs:
AGAIN, just my thoughts and opinion.
Walter :wavey:
Gottcha.
What I gather form our little homework assignment is to prove that "Serp" isn't to blame.
Well, I don't recall myself ever saying that it's Serp's fault, for anything.
All I did was expressed my thoughts on the term "Avalanche" and thoughts on coing a SINGLE TRADE NAME for a double or triple homozygous snake that combines COLOR and PATTERN traits.
As far as the term "BLOODRED" or "BLOOD" for this spacific pattern, I don't think it fits either, but like you said, that mistake was made some 20+ years ago.
How about for the normal/wild type colored ones, we start calling them "Fader" Corns.
Then we can just add a ( prefix ) color trait for the respective genetic color.
Example:
Lavender X Fader = Lavender Fader
"Fader" describes what the pattern does, plus I think it sounds cool, but who am I?
Or, does it have to be "Diffused" because it was already published? I don't recall a thread anywhere ASKING what anyone thought of the name "Diffused" before it showed up in a book. If there was one, I missed it.
I'm in agreement that the term "BLOODRED"/"BLOOD" should be changed to better describe the PATTERN trait, but until EVERYONE agrees on a new DECRIPTIVE name for this spacific pattern, I'm just gonna stick with what has been working for those 20+ years.
The name "Avalance" to me sounds like a COLOR term rather than a pattern trait and it certainly dosen't bring to my mind a pattern trait that fades. :shrugs:
AGAIN, just my thoughts and opinion.
Walter :wavey:
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
WOW....I didn't even realize there was an anti-Serp movement going on!
You are right though, people will do and name what they want and we are just a drop in the bucket here in this forum.
I'm not really worried about it though, I seem to have PLENTY of time at my vendors table to explain even the most absurd naming consepts!
You are right though, people will do and name what they want and we are just a drop in the bucket here in this forum.
I'm not really worried about it though, I seem to have PLENTY of time at my vendors table to explain even the most absurd naming consepts!
gardenmum
Hopelessly Addicted
First let me say, I asked my husband and my sister this afternoon what came to mind with the names:
1) Snow blood
both said red & white
2) Avalanche
both said white (obvious answer of course)
3) Anery
both said basically the same thing: "What? What the heck is that" but my sister added "brown." Her reason......the term made her think of anis...lol.
4) Raiders
Husband said black because it made him think of pirates and they have black flags - and for the record, he is an avid football fan and watches it as often as he can and that wasn't the first thing that came to mind.
My sister had no idea of what to think and no way to associate it with a color.
Ok. Now I would like to say, Serp, I know I made a reply remark that you thought off topic but,
ONE...I never have said nor considered blaming you or anyone in particular for that matter for coining any of the names. I had no idea of whom came up with them, except for "diffused" which was kind of brought up in a collective discussion thread and that one I thought was by you but I wouldn't swear to it and "avalanche" which I have presumed that Hurley came up with and which I do like the name as it fits. I still would not like to see coined names for them as for the reasons I have already stated. It is not what the name conjurs up in a non corn person's mind that is the issue to me but the fact of do we need this. And what a name makes someone outside the language of any given hobby think is not important to me, it is what the people inside the hobby think and how it works within that hobby that is important to me.
TWO....I was replying to your reply to Walter that his wanting to "add" other names to this list as off topic which I did not believe it to be.
And about the bloodred debate. I agree, I was for keeping it bloodred or actually the shortened term "blood" simply because it is a term that everyone has already been using for years and everyone within the hobby know to what that term refers. It has always brought to mind a particular look as opposed to an all red snake (which many are not) But to change a name that has been in an industry for so long to me is counterproductive. I definitely agree that it is not a good name and if it were a new name being suggested for that morph at this time and I had my vote, I'd vote no. But that is water under the bridge and I for one would like not to see that type of mistake repeated. That is why I advocate stepping back and seeing why we want to give something a "coin" name, if it is necessary to do so, and if most people are in agreement of it. Again, it was not about "making names" that is the problem, but WHEN to make them and WHY we are making them.
My choice would be to say, If a new color or pattern corn that breeds true to itself is found, then by all means that corn morph is going to need a name to describe it. If a new morph is created by combining traits than we should try to keep the name "what the snake is" unless it is found that it cannot be done so. But, in fairness to it all, the name should be at least agreed upon by a sizable amount of the people involved in the discussion. This is my OPINION on the matter.
I do sincerely apologize if you felt that I, in any way, was pointing a finger at you and saying you were coining all the names and that I should throw a dart at you. Opinions were asked and I gave my opinion. When oposition was given, if I had a differing thought on what was said, I said my piece. I had no intention to, and did not think that I had, pulled specific people into the target area, only tried to state my views as my views, which is what I thought the purpose of the discussion was. To air our differing views and why we held those views. :shrugs:
I have/had no intentions of causing a fight or hard feelings.
1) Snow blood
both said red & white
2) Avalanche
both said white (obvious answer of course)
3) Anery
both said basically the same thing: "What? What the heck is that" but my sister added "brown." Her reason......the term made her think of anis...lol.
4) Raiders
Husband said black because it made him think of pirates and they have black flags - and for the record, he is an avid football fan and watches it as often as he can and that wasn't the first thing that came to mind.
My sister had no idea of what to think and no way to associate it with a color.
Ok. Now I would like to say, Serp, I know I made a reply remark that you thought off topic but,
ONE...I never have said nor considered blaming you or anyone in particular for that matter for coining any of the names. I had no idea of whom came up with them, except for "diffused" which was kind of brought up in a collective discussion thread and that one I thought was by you but I wouldn't swear to it and "avalanche" which I have presumed that Hurley came up with and which I do like the name as it fits.
I still would not like to see coined names for them as for the reasons I have already stated. It is not what the name conjurs up in a non corn person's mind that is the issue to me but the fact of do we need this. And what a name makes someone outside the language of any given hobby think is not important to me, it is what the people inside the hobby think and how it works within that hobby that is important to me.TWO....I was replying to your reply to Walter that his wanting to "add" other names to this list as off topic which I did not believe it to be.
And about the bloodred debate. I agree, I was for keeping it bloodred or actually the shortened term "blood" simply because it is a term that everyone has already been using for years and everyone within the hobby know to what that term refers. It has always brought to mind a particular look as opposed to an all red snake (which many are not) But to change a name that has been in an industry for so long to me is counterproductive. I definitely agree that it is not a good name and if it were a new name being suggested for that morph at this time and I had my vote, I'd vote no. But that is water under the bridge and I for one would like not to see that type of mistake repeated. That is why I advocate stepping back and seeing why we want to give something a "coin" name, if it is necessary to do so, and if most people are in agreement of it. Again, it was not about "making names" that is the problem, but WHEN to make them and WHY we are making them.
My choice would be to say, If a new color or pattern corn that breeds true to itself is found, then by all means that corn morph is going to need a name to describe it. If a new morph is created by combining traits than we should try to keep the name "what the snake is" unless it is found that it cannot be done so. But, in fairness to it all, the name should be at least agreed upon by a sizable amount of the people involved in the discussion. This is my OPINION on the matter.
I do sincerely apologize if you felt that I, in any way, was pointing a finger at you and saying you were coining all the names and that I should throw a dart at you. Opinions were asked and I gave my opinion. When oposition was given, if I had a differing thought on what was said, I said my piece. I had no intention to, and did not think that I had, pulled specific people into the target area, only tried to state my views as my views, which is what I thought the purpose of the discussion was. To air our differing views and why we held those views. :shrugs:
I have/had no intentions of causing a fight or hard feelings.
Serpwidgets
New member
This thread has nothing to do with that. It's not about the name that was chosen as an alternate, it is about why it is that people even feel any desire to look for an alternate.
I agree, I think it sounds cool.
If you're going to wait for everyone to agree on anything at all, even the sky is blue, you're going to be sitting here for a long, long time. All new names happen because someone stuck their neck out and used them.
What I remember is that quite a while back, Kathy asked my input because someone had begged her to try to tag some new name, any new name, onto what had recently been recognized as a pattern morph. (At the time, I was fighting tooth and nail with people, mostly "old-timers" of the hobby, who continued to tell me that there was no pattern morph. I was just beginning to seriously consider writing a morph book at that time, and had not even started any semblance of a manuscript.) I told Kathy that if she chose to try out any of the many names the person had presented, I would stand behind her 100%. Kathy chose diffused from that list.
Later when I was writing my book I decided it would be a lot easier to try to explain things if I used the alternate "diffused" to describe the actual pattern. It was like WD-40 the way things just meshed themselves together so much more easily when the "bloodred" thing was divided into two groups like that.
Walter, I TRIED to ask people what they thought several times, and every time I was met with "I don't believe it even exists." Nobody else was interested in listening to some crack-pot theory about a pattern morph.
:shrugs:
Serpwidgets
New member
Again, it has not been 20 years.
I completely disagree with any assertion that the name bloodred was coined for a pattern 20 years ago. That simply did not happen. I wish people would stop trying to say that it did because that is untrue.
In the first edition of the Corn Snake Manual which was published in 2000, there was a section on pattern morphs. Bloodred was not included in the pattern morph section. Instead, Bloodred was included on page 117 in the "mix and match" section, and the description of its inheritance says it is not inherited like a simple recessive trait. It was clearly indicated that this was considered a "color" trait ("it may be a form of hypererythrism") and that nobody really knew how it was inherited at that time.
As I said, I also encountered plenty of resistance when I tried to say it was a simple pattern trait even as recently as 2004. I can go back through all the old posts and dig up all the quotes from everyone who said any such thing, if it is really necessary.
I completely disagree with any assertion that the name bloodred was coined for a pattern 20 years ago. That simply did not happen. I wish people would stop trying to say that it did because that is untrue.
In the first edition of the Corn Snake Manual which was published in 2000, there was a section on pattern morphs. Bloodred was not included in the pattern morph section. Instead, Bloodred was included on page 117 in the "mix and match" section, and the description of its inheritance says it is not inherited like a simple recessive trait. It was clearly indicated that this was considered a "color" trait ("it may be a form of hypererythrism") and that nobody really knew how it was inherited at that time.
As I said, I also encountered plenty of resistance when I tried to say it was a simple pattern trait even as recently as 2004. I can go back through all the old posts and dig up all the quotes from everyone who said any such thing, if it is really necessary.
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
The sky is BLUE ???
I don't think that there is a conspirisy to hide the fact that there was a pattern difference in Bloodreds. It may not have been presented as a separate mutation but it certainly was described in the look of a Bloodred. 'Solid' red in color and a clear ventral. After all, that look only appeared in Bloodreds.
I'm still not so sure that it's not just a color mutation anyway, look at Franks odd Bloodred that has the color missing in spots. The pattern is clearly visible.
I don't think that there is a conspirisy to hide the fact that there was a pattern difference in Bloodreds. It may not have been presented as a separate mutation but it certainly was described in the look of a Bloodred. 'Solid' red in color and a clear ventral. After all, that look only appeared in Bloodreds.
I'm still not so sure that it's not just a color mutation anyway, look at Franks odd Bloodred that has the color missing in spots. The pattern is clearly visible.
...and look at the pewters and anerys in some of the better patterns where the sides are smeared or nearly wiped clean. I think the red helps to wash out the side pattern, but good patterns are altered and side blotches are gone. At least in my experience.
Frank's odd snake was cool, still think it could be a chimera...in which case the ghost parts would have a normal pattern...
Frank's odd snake was cool, still think it could be a chimera...in which case the ghost parts would have a normal pattern...
Serpwidgets
New member
That is my point. Here we are in 2005 and people are still denying that it is an autosomal pattern trait.Clint Boyer said:
Should I halt production of my book for another 20 years so that we can make sure everyone is first convinced, and then once we get everyone to agree about that, make sure that everyone gets a chance to "vote" about it? :grin01:
(/sarcasm)
Clint Boyer
'Former' Snake slave
I denied nothing, can you explain the pattern visible on Frank's snake? In the red parts of the snake, there appears to be no pattern, in the white parts you see pattern.
It may be a pattern invisibility trait.
P.S. I'm just jerkin' your chain!
It may be a pattern invisibility trait.
P.S. I'm just jerkin' your chain!
Serpwidgets
New member
LMAO Clint. :cheers:
Hey that's what we need, an invisibility gene!
Hey that's what we need, an invisibility gene!
carol
Down with the sickness
Serpwidgets said:
Well I for one want to apologize if you think I am dead set whatever you say before you say it. It is not true. I knew you did not coin Avalanche, Raider, Sulfur, or Plasma. I am sorry I was mistaking and DID think you came up with Diamond.
What really fits the situation is, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't understand what level of consistancy you are using on what you think is "good" and what you reject.
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 also feel like you sometimes are dead set against anything written contrary to your opinion before you even think about it.
Somethings we agree on, is there is nothing we can do to stop people from naming thier animals what they want, but lets at least not embrace them all the second they are suggested. I know it is completely unpractical to think we will stick with 100% genetic names, but can we at least TRY to slow this down instead of encourage it. Can't we all at least "proceed with caution" on accepting these new terms?
I know this is redundant since I posted the same remarks in a different thread, but what really is wrong with the reasoning?
I just think having a common key would make things easier. I can just see a table full of snows, avalanches, blizzards, ices, diamonds and glaciers not to mention that there will just have to be another name for blizzard blood. Heck to beginners they are all just a bunch of white snakes with different price tags, so it doesn't really matter WHAT we call them.
But keeping the scientific names in there where ever possible makes it easier for the somewhat knowledgeable person to stay current and all of us to stay more universal.
I feel like pretty soon we will need an annually updated Morph Thesaurus.