Sulfur = Fire

Amir calls his the Flame Hypo and I believe there is another line out there but off the top of my head can't think of it. Too many morphs and names to keep up with:)

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Sandoval

Amir calls his the Flame Hypo and I believe there is another line out there but off the top of my head can't think of it. Too many morphs and names to keep up with:)

Eric

---

I have never heard of that. I hear ya about too many names. I am always amazed with the new morphs coming out. I really like the sulfurs. I love the black eyed lucys, especially the ones with the blotches. They also make really awesome combos.

I will most likely be giving you a call next season to pick up a pair of sulfurs. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

The sulfurs did not make blue eyed lucys. It made a normal black eyed lucy. A lot of black eyed lucys have the patches.

---

I meant black eyed lucy when I typed that. I don't know why I abreviated it BEL. I didn't know super fires made white snakes with patches. I haven't seen very many black EL. I'm still interested to see if the Davies line makes mojo x yb x fire combos that look like the sulfur combo. That's one badass snake.

The super fire also produces patches in the yellow sections. Fire mojaves and yellowbelly's have also been produced and look the same. I personally do not know the difference in price between the two. As far as different lines the animal should still be the same mutation for namesake. Cinnamons and Black Pastels are vastly different in appearance and the combo morphs as well as super forms are different looking snakes. Much more so than the Fire/Sulfur. This is not only about the fire/sulfur as well Tim. I would like breeders to be more honest to people who may not know the difference between the animals. I guess my point is why keep making the mutations more confusing with Sulfurs, Goblins, Flame Hypo's and whatever special "Lines" may exist? If you line has to be special throw your name on it for easier identification Ie: Envy's Line Fire. And let's say my line fire does prove unique in the long run I can then appropriate name it as a new mutation and anyone who purchased a Envy line fire knows they have this new mutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I'm still interested to see if the Davies line makes mojo x yb x fire combos that look like the sulfur combo. That's one badass snake.

---

I don't think I have seen that one. I bet it is HOT!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

I don't think I have seen that one. I bet it is HOT!!

---

Pics were released on this morph on kingsnake. A few have been produced and for some reason some breeders did not want their pics released. I will have some Fire/Sulfur Mojaves this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

I would like breeders to be more honest to people who may not know the difference between the animals.

---

This is assuming that the breeder is dishonest. I am sure most breeders would not have any qualms about explaining this to the prospective buyer if the buyer asks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

This is assuming that the breeder is dishonest. I am sure most breeders would not have any qualms about explaining this to the prospective buyer if the buyer asks.

---

True, one point of view that has been mentioned many times is using special names to make said animal more attractive and special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

First of all, Sulfurs are not more expensive than Fires. Secondly, Sulfur:Fire is the same as Black Pastel:Cinnamon. Black Pastels and Cinnamons produce the same Super, so why should one be named different or priced different? Orange Hypos and Butterscotch Hypos are compatible, so shouldn't they be called the same thing and sold for the same price?
My point in the above, is that the original Sulfur female did not come from a Fire line, and therefore were given a different name to distinguish them from the Eric Davies "Fire" line. They are most probably the same morph, but come from two distinct lines. Noone can say they are the same morph until the are proven compatible, which has yet to be done. Just as another poster said a bit ago, VPI/TSK/Jolliff Axanthics are not the same morph, because there genes are not on the same chromosone, even though they have very similar appearances.

---

Not to get off topic here, but along the lines of what Tim is saying.......it might be prudent not to consolidate but to keep the sulfur and fire name tags.

Years ago I thought that black pastels should just be called cinnys so that we could keep things from getting confusing.
Now, especially after seeing many cinnys, black pastels, and crosses in person, I think it is a good thing that the different name tags stuck. To me, even though they look similar, some pewters made with a black pastel look distinctly different than pewters made with a cinny. IMO more work needs to be done with these two morphs and ALL the white snake combos to figure out exactly how things work......things may not be as simple as they appear right now.
As Tim mentioned, first fires and sulfurs have to be bred together to be proven compatible (which in my mind will happen but I have been wrong about plenty of things :oops: ). Then those "homozygous" animals need to be bred to normals to see what is produced.......then we will start to get some answers.
What if fires and sulfurs end up being alleles rather than two lines of the same exact mutation?

Just food for thought......

Awesome thread guys and very interesting stuff.