"Original" Granites

[Menhir]

The snake in question is obviously nothing more than an upper keys stripe. The stripe gene already has a name

Have you proven this gene to be the same as striped? :shrugs:

 

[Joejr14]

Have you proven this gene to be the same as striped? :shrugs:

I haven't, and clearly the owner of the granite corns that are for sale has not either. How does someone claim a new trade name without actually testing out his snakes? I thought that was a big no no? Why's he getting a free pass?

 

[Menhir]

I haven't

Okay, so I think you should try to rewrite your posting since you are stating that it is the same.

How does someone claim a new trade name without actually testing out his snakes? I thought that was a big no no? Why's he getting a free pass?

So, I will quote myself such that you can see that this question already arised (in this case indirectly):

No twist at all. If the genes are allelic and (with a high probability) the same mutation, then one would get stripes. Since "Key" is not a genetic trait. If Granite is a different gene, you'd get Normals het. granite, striped. The true question would be - are only pure Keys hom for Granite called Granite? :shrugs:

So, none the less, I think even if the same gene popped up in pure animals that were once regarded as a subspecies and clearly have a distingushable phenotype, I'd consider this gene something different, even if it is allelic to striped. But thats my opinion.

 

[cka]

Lol Dale, I did post a "ist sjut sankes" response earlier. But thats JMHO on the whole "morph name" issue. It's not "sjut sankes" to a lot of people involved.

Anyway, since all morphs are just traits hidden in wild animals, what are the chances somewhere back in time a striped corn crossed a Keys OR a striped Keys bred a corn? No one knows for sure, just as no one can prove purity of ANY different morph, at least beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whitesideds have popped up in black rats and everglades, leucism in black rats and Texas rats, etc. People argue both sides of the issue i.e. whether one was used to introduce the gene to the other vs. each species had the same gene pop up w/o crossbreeding. Thats a possibility here, I'd think

I think it would merit a crossing of a striped corn to a "granite" Keys, if only for the sake of knowing whether or not it is truly something new, and not just another "hybird". It's the founder's right to name a morph he "creates", but it's also his responsibility to put the time in to make sure it's not a red herring so to speak; just a new twist on an old flavor. FWIW I hope it's something new, if only for the good karma that the founder would benefit from.

 

[StrangeCargo]

The photos are very helpful, thanks. The females does appear to be very similar to the Keys snakes in question. Do you intend to prove her out with a striped male to test the compatability of her form of striping with the existing stripe pattern gene? Should they prove to be the same gene, I believe the issue of which snakes should be called "granite" would be rendered moot. Mutations that alter pattern alone haven't, from what I've seen, been given any unique trade name of their own. Rather, "Motley", "Stripe", "ZigZag", etc., have been used as modifiers to trade names, ie: "Lavender Stripe" and "Amel Motley" rather than "Poledance" and "Graffiti". Because the color seemed to be linked to the diffusion, bloodred combinations have been given unique names, but I see more and more breeders using "diffused" or "bloodred" as a modifier rather than using a trade name for the combination. I personally find that more informative; I know to expect the color of a charcoal lightened and the patter altered. I also find it more in keeping with the normal tendency to use pattern names by themselves rather than in a blended morph name.

Since this will be my first year breeding them, I'd like to produce more offspring that look like the mother (I was told the father was a het. from the bloodline...we'll see). I am defentily going to hold a few back and will try a cross witha regular stripe to see if it is the smae gene or something different. I believe I read somewhere in this thread that when one of the original granites were bred to a regular stripe...all normal babies came out...making it a different gene (I could be wrong)...anyways I will still try it.

 

[starsevol]

Uh, okay. Dean doesn't often ask for any support (in fact I've never seen this before), and I'm happy to oblige. In all of the discussions I've read, Dean actually has shown plenty of respect for pretty much anyone with experience breeding and keeping corns, even if in some cases he has contrary opinions. In addition, he seriously considers all points raised in such contexts and from my perspective has never been arbitrary or irrational in his conclusions.

Otherwise, I'm a bit exhausted of the topic, though.

-Sean

Umm, hi! I just had to echo this. I had the privledge of meeting Dean for about 10 minutes when he brought my new babies to me. It was obvious within 5 seconds of being with him that corns are a huge passion of his, you could FEEL it! As far as "the cornsnake world" vs "the real world", I think to him they are one and the same (as they are to me).
Not sure what else to add here, in regards to this!

As far as Kathy's post, I think she is absolutely correct. Right or wrong, the MARKET is the one who ultimately decides what tradenames to pin on these animals. I think the market is bigger than all of us. I do respect the opinions of everyone here, as I respect the feelings of the "original" granite. I hope we reach a satisfying resolution.

 

[HanneysCorn]

WE (meaning CS.com) are chastised for "stealing" the Granite name and accused of being self righteous and labeling ourselves the "naming authority" due to our lack of listening to other sources of information . . . BUT, when the issue resurfaces and comes to light and is debated, no other forums (kingsnake or the source) are included in the discussion . . . This can only mean one of two things:
1. This issue is NOT as important as I was led to believe and therefor the naming of Anery Bloodreds as Granites doesn't matter, OR
2. CS.com IS the naming authority, as the discussion hasn't been taken to other forums for discussion, and hence using Granite for Anery Bloodreds doesn't matter.

I'm fine with that . . . I guess. :shrugs:
D80

Wow Brent...you've taken the words right out of my mouth!

My position, not that it matters, my anery diffuseds (bloodred) will be referred to as just that Anery Diffused, Anery Bloods...whichever is the level of understanding from my customers' knowledge of the naming game.

I will also do my best to re-educate, alloborate, and explain why this 're-naming' is necessary. I enjoy genetics; that's my passion in this hobby. What 'its' (the morph) worldly acceptable tradename comes to be, really isn't that 'spectacular' to me. Oh, hey, I won't deny I'd love to produce something new, different, a first and have the pleasure to 'name', but in all reality, when we educate at shows, most folks are really buying their first corn in most cases because of colour, not name, not genetics.

But I think along the same lines as Brent. If this issue is really to be resolved, all members of every corn internet access community should be involved. If we are going to do it 'right', then let's do it RIGHT...involve everyone who has a serious interest...whichever community they are involved in.

I've been around reading, following this thread since it's inception. What will the corn community as a whole gain if only a select few adopt/adapt?

As in recognizing the S+ factor and what is being done in efforts to create clean lines, this too is on the same level.

The knowledge this thread has uncovered needs to be shared/spread throughout the corn community. How the 'hearer' chooses to handle the facts is entirely up to them. Judging only separates and deters from the goal; education leads to a much more productive end.

Well, my .02... and I think that's almost at par... :sidestep:

Ruth

 

[El Jefe]

I guess I'm confused on something here....


So why does this guy get to name his upper keys stripes 'granites'? What's so wrong with calling it exactly what it is? An upper keys stripe.

Exactly!!! That is why I posted what I did in post 100 on this thread. If they are really stripes....then keys stripes seems farily appropriate.

Post 100:
http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=504808&postcount=100

 

[jaxom1957]

Exactly!!! That is why I posted what I did in post 100 on this thread. If they are really stripes....then keys stripes seems farily appropriate.

Until test breedings are done between the Keys granites which appear striped and corn snakes with the motley-related stripe gene, no one is in a position to refute the original breeder's contention that his snakes represent a new morph. The snakes may be nothing more than striped Keys, but they also may be something completely different. If their gene is not compatible with stripe, the breeder certainly had a basis for electing to call his snakes by a unique morph name, and some respect should be shown for his choice.

 

[El Jefe]

Until test breedings are done between the Keys granites which appear striped and corn snakes with the motley-related stripe gene, no one is in a position to refute the original breeder's contention that his snakes represent a new morph. The snakes may be nothing more than striped Keys, but they also may be something completely different. If their gene is not compatible with stripe, the breeder certainly had a basis for electing to call his snakes by a unique morph name, and some respect should be shown for his choice.

We may not be able to refute that the snakes are a new morph, however, I personally think arguing over a name for an unproven morph is a little silly. It appears there needs to be a lot more done with this "morph" before anyone really knows anything. :shrugs:

 

[Roy Munson]

Until test breedings are done between the Keys granites which appear striped and corn snakes with the motley-related stripe gene, no one is in a position to refute the original breeder's contention that his snakes represent a new morph. The snakes may be nothing more than striped Keys, but they also may be something completely different. If their gene is not compatible with stripe, the breeder certainly had a basis for electing to call his snakes by a unique morph name, and some respect should be shown for his choice.

There's no Big Book of Corn Rules, so I don't expect real answers, but I have to question how these informal naming rules work. Do they only apply to new genes, or do they apply to new looks and combos as well? Does it matter if these Keys-Granites express the stripe gene with which we're already familiar? Even if it is the familiar stripe gene, would it make a difference if it spontaneously appeared in Keys lines or if it was introduced from outside of Keys lines? (Good luck proving that anyway.)

What about a situation like the "Matrix" corn I just bought. That name was coined by the Bensons at Ultimatecorns where the snake was produced. They sold the snake as a hatchling, and I bought it as an adult. If I prove that this snake's pattern is the result of a single recessive gene, am I bound by unwritten corn honor to oblige the Bensons' original name for the look, or can I name it what I want? And if I'm not obligated, and I name it something else, is the "Matrix" name up for grabs, or do the Bensons own it forever? Or do I own it forever since I purchased the original animal and changed the name?

Some people seem to be claiming that if the Keys-Granites are proven to be nothing more than Keys-Stripes, that they don't need a special morph name of their own other than Keys-Stripes. If this IS proven, then will that make it ok for us to continue to use "Granite" for Anery-Blood? Are we premature in trying to rename Anery-Blood Granites since, despite their long history, the Keys-Granites are STILL unproven as being anything other than a Keys-Stripe?

I'm serious when I say that I have no idea how this naming-rights business works. Unfortunately, no one else knows how it works either since there aren't any consistent or agreed-upon guidelines. Right or wrong, the marketplace paradigm (i.e., the "if it sticks" system) is the only one that I can make any sense of at this point. :shrugs:

 

[jaxom1957]

There's no Big Book of Corn Rules, so I don't expect real answers, but I have to question how these informal naming rules work. Do they only apply to new genes, or do they apply to new looks and combos as well?

The approach I took was to review current trade names, noting when new names were created and when descriptors were added to existing names. It become apparent that color morphs and combinations of color morphs were usually given new trade names, but morphs combined with patterns were not. A caramel hypo became an amber, but a caramel motley was still called a caramel. Color morphs combined with bloodred were being given trade names, which, to me, seemed at odds with the common practice. However, bloodred was initially treated as a color morph, and only later was the diffused pattern associated with the morph treated as a pattern morph on its own.

For many, if not most, bloodred or diffused morphs in combination with other color morphs will warrant new trade names. I'm more inclined to refer to the morph solely by its pattern, diffused, in combination with whatever color morph is also present: charcoal diffused rather than pewter, amel diffused rather than fire, etc., reserving "bloodred" for those snakes that show both the diffusion and the color saturation. I find this to be in keeping with common practice for referring to pattern altering mutations.

Does it matter if these Keys-Granites express the stripe gene with which we're already familiar? Even if it is the familiar stripe gene, would it make a difference if it spontaneously appeared in Keys lines or if it was introduced from outside of Keys lines? (Good luck proving that anyway.)

I think it matters more whether the two are in fact one mutation than it does whether one was introduced into the other. The compatibility is what I find important.

What about a situation like the "Matrix" corn I just bought. That name was coined by the Bensons at Ultimatecorns where the snake was produced. They sold the snake as a hatchling, and I bought it as an adult. If I prove that this snake's pattern is the result of a single recessive gene, am I bound by unwritten corn honor to oblige the Bensons' original name for the look, or can I name it what I want?

You are free to use whatever name you find appropriate, just as Rich Z was free to call his snakes "mocha". However, there is no guarantee that other hobbyists will use the term you choose. If the buying public decides that your snakes are best described as "paisley", you may end up the proud originator of paisley corn snakes rather than matrix corn snakes or kingpin cornsnakes or whatever other name you prefer.

And if I'm not obligated, and I name it something else, is the "Matrix" name up for grabs, or do the Bensons own it forever? Or do I own it forever since I purchased the original animal and changed the name?

No one "owns" a name until they trademark it, something that hasn't happened with corn snake morphs yet (to my knowledge). Should respect be shown to both the Bensons and to you by avoiding naming some other morph "matrix"? In my opinion, the answer is an obvious "yes", but that is just one man's opinion. I don't dictate the ethics of other hobbyists.

Some people seem to be claiming that if the Keys-Granites are proven to be nothing more than Keys-Stripes, that they don't need a special morph name of their own other than Keys-Stripes. If this IS proven, then will that make it ok for us to continue to use "Granite" for Anery-Blood? Are we premature in trying to rename Anery-Blood Granites since, despite their long history, the Keys-Granites are STILL unproven as being anything other than a Keys-Stripe?

I would place myself with those who think a Keys snake expressing the already familiar stripe gene needs no new trade name because I don't believe the addition of a pattern morph to any color morph requires a new trade name. That having been said, neither do I feel that the addition of a gene for diffusion merits anerys being given a new trade name. Even if it merited such, simple respect for the person who already used the name granite for his Keys snakes would cause me pause about using the same name for a completely different morph or combination of morphs. I find it ethically questionable to usurp a previously used name for a morph, however poorly publicized or how little test breeding had been done to prove it out. Granite should no more have been used for anery bloodreds than should have mocha or matrix.

I'm serious when I say that I have no idea how this naming-rights business works. Unfortunately, no one else knows how it works either since there aren't any consistent or agreed-upon guidelines.

There are no legal rights in question, but there are questions of ethics. There was a period of time after hobbyists began to use granite as a trade name for anery bloodreds in which the previous use of the name was brought to their attention. For me, the ethically correct choice would have been to abandon using the term for anything other than that original Keys snake morph, then and from then on. Choosing another designator at that time, when relatively few anery diffused existed, should have been no more difficult than choosing lavender over mocha. That hobbyists who were aware of the prior use continued to use granite saddens me. It reflects poorly on our business ethics and diminishes my opinion of our community as a whole.

Right or wrong, the marketplace paradigm (i.e., the "if it sticks" system) is the only one that I can make any sense of at this point.

The free marketplace benefits from its gadflies, those who are willing to voice unpopular opinion and point out the clay feet of even its most beloved idols. It's possible that nothing will change, that hobbyists will shrug their shoulders and let the slight stand. The result just might be that, as a community, we decide to be better than that, to accept that a mistake, however innocent, was made and take steps to rectify it. Whether granite remains the popular choice for anery bloodreds is of less importance to me than the lesson I take from the controversy: before I exercise my right to name charcoal lavender ultramel diffused line I created last week "poledancers", I'll do a bit of research first to avoid stepping on the toes of any possible "poledance" predecessors.

 

[Joejr14]

Until test breedings are done between the Keys granites which appear striped and corn snakes with the motley-related stripe gene, no one is in a position to refute the original breeder's contention that his snakes represent a new morph. The snakes may be nothing more than striped Keys, but they also may be something completely different. If their gene is not compatible with stripe, the breeder certainly had a basis for electing to call his snakes by a unique morph name, and some respect should be shown for his choice.

Bullhonkey.

Imo, you have no business 'creating a trade name' for something that is unproven.

Does that mean I get to run out and create a name for sunkissed blizzard because I'm 99% sure my snake is homo sunkissed, amel and charcoal? Or do I need to wait to test it out?

Was nobody able to question Joe Pierce when he first put up his 'translucent' corns on the market?

Until someone has proven what they have as new, I'm going to question it. And I'm certainly not going to adhere to calling something some bizarre new trade name just because it doesn't look 'normal' when you haven't taken the time to test it out. The originator of the 'granite' corn has made it perfectly clear via his ad on Kingsnake that he wants nothing to do with any discussion about the name, nor does he want to discuss the genetics of the animals in question.

...So, if he's unwilling to spend some time testing his 'granites' out with a stripe corn to see if what he has is in fact a new morph, I'm totally unwilling to call his snakes 'granites'.

 

[jaxom1957]

Bullhonkey.

How can anyone argue against such a cogent, insightful response?

Imo, you have no business 'creating a trade name' for something that is unproven.

Does that mean I get to run out and create a name for sunkissed blizzard because I'm 99% sure my snake is homo sunkissed, amel and charcoal? Or do I need to wait to test it out?

If the parents are known to carry the genes necessary to create a sunkissed amel charcoal, you are free to call your snake anything you like. The rest of us have the right to either call the combination something else, if we prefer, or to call it nothing at all until we see what offspring it produces. What we don't have the right to do is to name our lava amel charcoal by the same name if we are aware of you prior use. The only snakes that should, ethically, be called by the name you elect for your sunkissed blizzard are other sunkissed blizzards.

Was nobody able to question Joe Pierce when he first put up his 'translucent' corns on the market?

Since I don't know what you're talking about, I have no response to that question. Joe was able to name a combination "Topaz" based on the appearance of the hatchlings; he did not have to wait for the offspring to grow to adulthood and reproduce themselves. Had he done so and the snakes did not breed true, it would not invalidate the name for the combination, merely the validity of those particular snakes using it.

Until someone has proven what they have as new, I'm going to question it. And I'm certainly not going to adhere to calling something some bizarre new trade name just because it doesn't look 'normal' when you haven't taken the time to test it out. The originator of the 'granite' corn has made it perfectly clear via his ad on Kingsnake that he wants nothing to do with any discussion about the name, nor does he want to discuss the genetics of the animals in question.

...So, if he's unwilling to spend some time testing his 'granites' out with a stripe corn to see if what he has is in fact a new morph, I'm totally unwilling to call his snakes 'granites'.

You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that he hasn't proven his morph. Based upon what? Offspring are being offered that are either homo or het for the trait in question, indicating that he has, in point of fact, proven the morph. Whether or not his snakes carry the same gene widely called stripe has yet to be tested, to my knowledge, but that doesn't invalidate his claim that his Keys snakes differ from other Keys snakes in a manner which is reproduceable and consistent with Mendelian genetics. Should their pattern gene prove to be the same as the known stripe gene, his claim to the morph name granite would be meaningless. However, until that claim is rendered moot, usurping the name granite for an unrelated morph combination is, in my opinion, ethically inexcusable. If you or anyone else is unsatisfied that his snakes represent a new morph, you are free to ignore them. Continuing to call anery diffused snakes "granite" smacks of arrogance and is the classic definition of hubris: to intentionally diminish another's honor. No wonder he doesn't care to debate the issue, when those on the other side have already shown they have no respect for him.

 

[Joejr14]

The point I'm trying to make is this:

Joe Pierce originally coined the name 'Translucent Hypos' for that strange form of hypo he had pop up in his okeetee lines. Funny that you've never heard of them, but perhaps you've heard the trade name 'Lava'?

I'd be willing to bet a very big chunk of folks out there would have no idea what 'transparent hypo' or 'blue ice' would be as a morph name. So does that mean if I called my sunkissed blizzard a 'translucent corn' I'd be stealing the name that Joe Piece coined 5 years ago?

The difference here between that issue 5 years ago and this current one is that Joe knew he had a form of hypo. He tested it out BEFORE attempting to sell his new form of hypo. All one has to do is reference Joe's original post on this forum after Chuck P sent him an email to find out more information on the subject.

I'll save everyone the trouble and link it:

http://cornsnakes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=51717&postcount=21


Joe had the new mutation pop up in a 2.4 group of F1 wild caught okeetees. He knew it was something different---so he tested it out. He bred a male with a known hypo A, as well as a sunkissed. Both clutches consisted of all normal hatchlings.

What we have going on here is a guy selling what appears to everyone as an upper keys stripe. All this guy has done is proven the trait to be inheritable, and Mendelian recessive. The stripe gene fits both of those criteria. To my knowledge, he has not bred his 'granites' with a stripe corn to prove out whether or not it is a new gene. If it's NOT a new gene, like most suspect, why would that name hold? Imo, that snake looks nothing like any form of 'granite' I have seen. Most chunks of granite that I've looked at have not had any stripes in them. They're essentially metallicly freckled with different base colors. To me, granite is a much better descriptive name for an anery blood.

Rich coined his new form of anerythrism 'mocha' back in the day. Someone got some of those 'mochas' in their hands and decided they were going to call them lavender. What name fits better? Do you think Rich owns the trade name 'mocha' now, even though it's not used? Do you think Rich would be pissed at me if I hatched out another form of anerythrism that instead of black---was a deep brown and was in fact 'mocha' looking?

And furthermore, if the OP of the ad decided on the name 'granite' many years ago, how come aside from Kathy's book---there's no written mention of it? Does this mean if I show Dean a new hatchling that I believe to be new and tell him that I'm calling it a 'Pumpkin Corn', that I forever own that name because I told someone? What if he was the only person I told for 5 years, and then went onto a website selling 'Pumpkin Corns'.

"If a tree falls in a forest, does anyone hear?"

How technical are we going to get with the naming of a morph that might just be a single recessive we already have a name for----and for a trade name that was never really pursued.

:shrugs:

 

[Jay@PJCReptiles]

"If a tree falls in a forest, does anyone hear?"

I heard it because I was the one who chopped the damn thing down. TIMBERRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!! :grin01: :sidestep:
Jay

OH, BTW, I vote Anery Blood and leave it at that.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

So I missed Hamburg this weekend, but Jeff was kind enough to take some shots of his sub-adults for me. Their appears to be a large variance in color with these. I did throw the copyright marks all over the photos since he is the only one that has them that will provide photos.

 

[tom e]

What we have going on here is a guy selling what appears to everyone as an upper keys stripe. All this guy has done is proven the trait to be inheritable, and Mendelian recessive. :shrugs:

Is that a fact? I'm not being smart, I just don't know.. How do you know that he has not proved them out as a seperate gene from stripe? That's kind of an odd statement to make unless you know for sure...

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Is that a fact? I'm not being smart, I just don't know.. How do you know that he has not proved them out as a seperate gene from stripe? That's kind of an odd statement to make unless you know for sure...

Because Jeff told me he hasn't paired it with Stripe and doesn't plan on it. I believe I said that on one of my posts.

 

[El Jefe]

Interesting looking snakes. Still looks like a striped miami...but I guess we won't know until sometime spends hundreds of dollars to do that test since the owner apparently will not do it.