The Should-Bloodred-Morphs-Have-Separate-Names Thread

[Kat]

Vote.
-Kat

 

[Amanda E]

Well, I've thought about this a lot in the past few days... I think that Hurley does have a point and that there probably should be dicussion to figure this whole thing out, but I'm still all for keeping it simple, and IMO, this means sticking with the genetic descriptions.

 

[dana100mph1]

I think they should. If only for the reason that some people out there that might not us this forum(i don't think that there are many), and eventually they will come up with their own name and then someone else will call theirs something different, and then there will be all kinds of different names out there. but I'm just a newbie so what do I know lol. But this is just my opinion and you know what they say about opions. haha

 

[Menhir]

Please add a button:
"If the name is descriptive and well sounding - yes"

 

[Russ Bates]

Morph Naming and Creativity

I disagree with all the trade names that are coming up with corns these days. It's getting to the point (and I'm not pointing fingers..just generalizing) were every corn with different coloring or crossing seems to warrant a name all of its own. I realize we are in a day and age that produces so many different color morphs of corns it's crazy but IMO (and I know you didn't ask) all the new found names for corns is just getting a bit overboard.

I will have to say I like the approach some have taken to accurately document their breeding programs. For me anyways it bolster's credibility in discovering new morphs. I thoroughly enjoy seeing all the new pics, colors, morphs, and reading about everyone's breeding programs.....I guess I'm just growing tired of seeing new names for same ol stuff popping up on the forums.

Ok I put the gun to my head - go ahead and pull the trigger. At least I spoke my mind. Let me get out my reserve supply of thick skin, something tells me I'll need it

Russ Bates

 

[Jynx]

Absolutly! I only use the term "diffuse." Most of us breed for the resale aspect...how confused do you think someone will get if you say you have an anery bloodred? I think that gene and coloration should be two different things. Charcoal bloodreds are pewters...thats a start.

 

[Russ Bates]

The average corn enthusiast

wouldn't be confused if you said you had an "Anery-Bloodred A". The newbie on the street would but then again he/she is not going to understand amel versus albino.

Russ

 

[ecreipeoj]

Amanda E, You should change this, to support your argument. I am not picking on you, but I see this constantly. I know that it has already been done in the past, but we do use a lot of Common names rather that genetic names a lot already. I think a good mix will work best. Nobody wants to call a Snow Corn Anery A, Amels. I don’t want to call Pewters, Anery B Bloods.

Some of the double and triple homo morphs that contain Amel, Anery A or Hypo may end up being called by there genetic listing like poor old Hypo Lavenders. I know Kat has wanted this one named, but I don’t know her position on Snow Bloods. What about Hypo Bloods, wouldn‘t that be the same as Hypo Lavs?

I think the main three genes will use a listing of the genetic names most of the time, but the second and third genes of similar type can get confusing. Pewters are a great example and I think Phantom Corns would be great for Charcoal Ghost.

Projects I'm working on:
Bloodreds (Normal, Hypo, and Anery A)
Coral Snows and Ghosts
Caramels, Ambers, and Butters (Eventually adding Motley)

It should read,
Projects I’m working on:
Bloodreds (Normal, Hypo, and Anery A)
Hypo Amel, Anery A Corns and Hypo, Anery A Corns
Caramels, Hypo Caramels, and Albino Caramels (Eventually adding Motley)

Ambers and Butters are great example of Common names being used rather than a genetic listing of names. I think it is working very well. Amber Bloods is starting to be used. I would not suggest Hypo Caramel Bloods for them. I believe a mix is best and it will be that way no matter which side we choose to be on.

I have been thinking about Magma Corns for Lava Bloods. Either one will work obviously, but I guess I would rather see Magma Corns which would be in line with Pewters.

I am torn when it comes to Avalanche Corns for Snow Bloods. I think Avalanche Corns may work better for Ice Bloods. LOL I am ready to talk about naming things that don’t even exist yet, but they will.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Ok...Let me throw some opinion out there...

I voted no. I put a lot of thought in it...but I don't think it's a good idea...

Their are so many people out there making up names for morphs...if you were to really look into it...it's a mess. I get thoroughly frustrated when I see it. We need to set a standard. We all know their are dishonest people who are selling "het for miami, het for candy cane" etc. corns out their...We may not be able to clear the whole corn naming and clarification of make ups...but we can make it a lot easier...

Blood is a common morph. snow is a common morph. anery is a common morph. I think it's safe to say that someone saying "Snow Blood" would understand that it's a Snow Bloodred. Naming it a Snow Blood "Avalanche" is just going to make individuals new to the hobby think harder about WHY it's an "Avalanche" corn.

Their is already a ton of confusion about why morphs are what they are...What the trade name means...I think it'll just cause us all more frustration...

JMO

 

[Amanda E]

Amanda E, You should change this, to support your argument.

Projects I'm working on:
Bloodreds (Normal, Hypo, and Anery A)
Coral Snows and Ghosts
Caramels, Ambers, and Butters (Eventually adding Motley)

It should read,
Projects I’m working on:
Bloodreds (Normal, Hypo, and Anery A)
Hypo Amel, Anery A Corns and Hypo, Anery A Corns
Caramels, Hypo Caramels, and Albino Caramels (Eventually adding Motley)

Well, I have said in another thread that I'm actually okay with the already established names, like those few in my signature, except I'm still not totally okay with the Coral description of Hypo Snows, because I've seen Coral used for Hypo Snow as well as high pink Snows, so maybe I will change that, I don't know. :shrugs: I've also decided that if the majority of people decide that there should be trade names picked that it should only be after a sustained discussion over many weeks (months?) so MANY people can make their opinions known, not just a few people.

 

[jazzgeek]

Well, here goes....long time lurker, first time poster. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment to have chosen this thread for my first reply, but here's my two cents (and yes, I may have some change due).

I voted "no", but qualify it with the following rhetorical questions:

1) When you need to blow your nose, what's the first thing to cross your mind - Kleenex® or "facial tissue"?

2) More to the herp point - If I were to mention to you that I keep a "Sandfire" bearded dragon, what color/pattern comes to mind? OK, now how about a "Citrus" dragon?

Point being is that, over time, trade names tend to essentially cloak the genetics of a morph to the point of 'genericizing' it.....thus, just about any bearded dragon that's got a bit of red/orange has been referred to as a "Sandfire", which is unfortunate, given the time and effort that Bob Mallioux of Sandfire Dragon Ranch spent to breed that particular line.

The flip side to this is, of course, marketability to those new to the hobby, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you were a newbie browsing your local pet shop, what sounds more appealing - a 'Sunglow' corn, or an 'Amelanistic/Hypomelanistic' corn? If, after taking your pretty lil' sunglow home, you then delve into the genetics as to what makes it red and orange, (as opposed to white and grey and black), all the better.

The key to all this, of course, is walking that razor's edge between breeding for the ducats needed to further develop new morphs and/or expand your breeding projects (which benefits you), and educating yourself and those looking to you for advice so as to broaden the understanding and care of the snake (which benefits all of us).

And that doesn't happen by simply tagging your newly-discovered recessive trait as "Skippy's Hyper-Rainbow Pinstripe", "Bob", or "fhqwghads". Personally, I'd rather see an advancement in an accepted and recognized morph/pattern registration system than an advancement of a new morph trade name.

In other words, when the AKC or UKC recognizes the "Labradoodle", I'll be happy to recognize the "Avalanche Raider".

Be gentle. It's my first time.

Regards,
jazz

 

[CornCrazy]

I have been reading these name discussions for quite some time and finally decided to chime in...

I agree with Amanda, Russ, and Jazz. I voted no. I think that the "name game" has become quite confusing. I personally prefer to know what I am getting. There have been new names popping up all over the place so fast that it's hard to keep up with them. To be honest, I don't think it matters about the outcome of this thread. I think that the new names are going to keep popping out even if the majority of the people on this forum vote "no." If that happens, then the rest of us will just have to go along, I guess. :shrugs:

 

[Menhir]

I don't have a problem with the trivial names instead of "genetic" or built up names. No one is said to use these names, but you can if you want.

Are we talking about international standards a breeder has to use? No!
If you want to call your snow spinky-pinky do so, but be honest what the person you are selling it gets.

One word to the name discussion. Daniel and I also throw the name "Sulfur" for ButterBlood into the ring, cause I think it's pretty descriptive and well sounding.
Avalanche is also pretty descriptive, but doesn't roll of my tongue very well - perhaps a language problem but I think it's ok.

What I personally dislike and will never use is "Raider" and I'll tell you why.
Nearly all the names used as trivial names for morphs are descriptive for their look and taken out of "nature". Things like Charcoal, Lavender, Butter( :shrugs: ), Blizzard all fit that "nature" thing, just like Pewter, Avalanche or Sulfur do.
Raider doesn't. That's point 1.
Point 2 and thats imho the worse thing - it's not free of personal usage or preference. I think if we get to the point where we name morph "Juli" or "Angela" because we love(d) a woman named like that or we call them "Terminator" cause we love the film so much, I'll be the first person using only "genetic" names instead.
For me, naming a morph after the favorite football team is the first step in that direction that I won't go along with.

Sorry, didn't have much sleep, so please try to guess the meanings in the sentences :santa:

 

[E. g. guttata]

I don't really consider myself even an amature breeder, but I do have one pair of corns that I breed (regular and amel currently). I feel that corns should be labled by their genetic background. I do find myself calling snows snows, but with the genetics that it seems others are experimenting with, I think that jumpping the gun is a bad idea. Will amature breeders produce some of those corns and label them in their own way? Yes. But people still will do that if they have a specific trade name anyway, just to be able to sell them. Keeping them labled with their genetic background makes it hard to confuse people, unless the person doesn't know the different genes. If that happens to be the case, I think they should look it up or ask questions.

 

[wikkedkornman]

not to be a prick, but all this voting doesn't really matter. people will call their projects whatever they choose, whether it's snow-blood, avalanche, or some other name. no matter what is decided here on this forum, nobody is "the authority" on corns - or any other lifeform for that matter. unfortunately, all the votes here only represent a tiny fraction of all the corn collectors worldwide.

 

[Russ Bates]

Yeah but

if this is true, then you're ok with buying a Chevette when it is sold as a Cadillac and pay the Cadillac price....right? People will ultimately do what they want to, this has been proven over time. Pretty soon if it's not already happening on KS, corns will be just like ball pythons and every one will be selling a pastel..spider..T positive, clown morphed corn snake. Ok maybe not that bad but it is possible.

Normal......what's normal?
Russ

 

[ecreipeoj]

Since I was the first idiot to suggest Raider Corns, can I retract my suggestion and throw in the trash with a long list of bad name suggestions? That way we don’t have to talk about it any more. How about Cinder Corns? Does that bring to mind a black and gray snake or an orange snake?

I like Sulfur Corns for Butter Bloods, which is already a combo of common and genetic names. Lavender Bloods are going to be readily available soon and in the need of a Common name or Pro- Con Name game thread. It is true that this forum only represents a small fraction of the people into Corns, but the message and influence does get out to the masses. Trade Show and Books reach many of these people and they in turn reach the rest. Word of mouth gets them all eventually.

I am in favor of Common/Trade names for our mutant morphs. An Anery Blood can be a Common Name and genetic name in the same package, if no other name is appropiate. Genetic names confuse new comers to our hobby more than Common Names. An Hypomelanistic, Anerythristic A Corn Snake is going to be Latin to new people at first and unpronounceable, but a Ghost Corn is a good start. What they learn from this starting point is up to them.

Practically every product or hobby that we have has Common names and genetic names applied to them. Lampropetis triangulum campbelli have a common name of Pueblan Milk Snakes. This is not a new concept. It is true that a lot of bone head names are suggested like Raider Corns, but they do not stand the test of time. I have been involved in this hobby since many of the genes were first discovered and we have always used Common and genetic names. Snow Corns and Ghost Corns were coined many moons ago.

When you go to Rich Z, Don S, or Kathy Loves site, you will find a Common Name, a discription, the genetic make up of the morph and a photograph of one. I do not see a problem here. Some morphs are just better left as a genetic listing of names like Anery Striped Corns, but that is there common name too. A new comer does not have a clue that Anery means anerythristic until they do some reaserch.

I see a common point that comes up against Trade Names. “They are just trying to get more money for them.” Just because a small fraction of people at a trade show throws a pretty name on something to try to sell it does not mean that Rich Z is doing the same thing when he coined and began selling Amber Corns. His site list Amber Corns with a description of their appearance, there genetic make up, Hypomelanistic Caramel Corns, and there are several photos of examples of this morph. Amber Corn is a very good trade name for Hypomelanistic Caramel Corns. An Amber Bloodred Corn is very clear and better in my opinion than the genetic listing of genes involved. Pewter Corns is better for Anerythristic B, Bloodred Corns as well and Ghost Bloods is better than Hypomelanistic, Anerythristic A Bloodred Corns. Some morphs can have a good common name and some seem to be stuck with the genetic listing of genes involved but most are a combo of the two like Snow Bloods.

Corn Snakes are sold, just like millions of other products like Advil (Ibuprophen) This is not wrong, this is common. Trade Names are design to be recognizable, but that in itself is not dishonest.

 

[E. g. guttata]

Not to be even more of a prick, but if everyone takes the point-of-view "Because this is only a small percentage of all corn collectors, then this doesn't really matter" then we shouldn't even be bothering to communicate with others who want to try to make improve the trade. Which basicly means that this forum shouldn't exist and we should al do what we want. But seeing as how this form does exist and we can communicate, we should at least work through some of these things, like the naming issue, so that eventually there will be something better than some shmuc (technical term) out there throwing corns together and making stuff up.

 

[So Pirate55]

agreed. What i think everyone is searching for is some sort of standard among the names or at least a little unity.

If someone was to mention Granite Corn to me, i'd think Anery Blood. However, when i asked my gf what an aneryblood is, she mentioned something about red.....thought a little while and responded with "i thought your anery was gray and black". When asked what a Granite Corn looks like, she said, "i dunno, gray with black specks?" That's not dead on, but it's pretty close to describing the look of the corn. If a person is concerned with the genetics of a corn, they are going to ask. Many people who breed see "new" morphs everyday and they inquire about the genetics, especially if it's at a show. If the listings are on a website, then a description along of the animal with any genetic information should be provided. I honestly believe that there is not a Yes/No answer to this question. We need a blend of all the common names along with the genetic information, but the main thing we need is unity.



Wow, no offense, but you'd think this was a dem/rep debate going on here with some of the strong stands. I love the passion that so many of you bring to the hobby. It's the opposing views and abilities to compromise that keeps it all balanced.

 

[TheIronRod]

Let the change add up, I'm in for two

Hello all,

I don't want to start some kind of arguement so realize right off I'm only adding my two cents. So please don't get upset and yell it me its only my opinion. I just wanted to reply and say that I really didn't think that raider was that bad of a name. If someone had named each type of corn thus far with football team names and then someone added a "earthy" name we would be seeing the same discussion about common names now. And as far as the favorite team thing, it was my understanding that it was because the snake had black and silvery markings and a skull pattern on its head that it was called raider. For all we know the originator might hate the raiders. I can see myself doing the same thing and I don't like them. As far as the topic as whole goes. I have loved fish for years. And I currently work in that industry. Fish have the same problems, but if you go around to any fish keeping joe and you ask them if they want a astronotus ocellatus. They will look at you like what the ...... are you talking about. But if you say, hey do you want that oscar there. They will go oh yeah thanks would you. And before anyone says anything I know there is a small difference but not much. The common person has to be able to talk about what they have even if they don't understand how it got to be the way it is. Its up to those of us who have knowledge to inform them later of what they really have, when they are ready. Remember you don't have to know genetics to take great care of something, and just because you do doesn't mean you will

Thanks for listening

Rodney