Is this snake a blackback?

Ok. I'm not going to go into detail, but while selling a snake as a black back, it was questioned as to whether it really is a black back. Please just answer is it a black back in your opinion? Yes or No?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...tblackback.jpg

Thanks

I am not going to try to tick anyone off, but what makes a black-back? I think a "true" black back has NO dorsal pattern. This snake has a striped tail, and the first half of it's body looks normal. I would say that MAYBE a 1/3 of this snake is 'black back'

Help me out, what is a black back then? I mean yes....a black back...but if this snake pictured above is considered a black back...then most of animals are black-backs! :P As far as I see it, the snake above is just a normal with an aberrant pattern.

..again, I am not trying to tick anyone off....I just see this being a black back ball a stretch...maybe someone can help me out as to what constitutes a black back?

In the end....it's just a very nice looking snake. :) :gj:



oooo...I just noticed too that there are some white scales on it's back....where it is NOT BLACK....could this mean that it is calico too?............................................................................ ....................................................JK :)

According to this from Ralph's page - the only TRUE genetic black backs are het red axanthics.

Anything else is simply a descriptor. There is far more "black back" on the pictured snake than dorsal patterning. I would describe it as a black back myself, and apparently, Ralph also described it as such on the care card that came with the snake when originally sold to Randy.

So, who's wrong? Ralph when he described it as such when he sold it?

Quote:

---

Genetic Morph: Black Backed
Status: "Could Be" Dominant or Simple Recessive
When: 1999 to present
By Whom: Several breeders and hobbyists working on refining the trait.


The Black Back is very variable in ball pythons..........I don't think that any breeder has actually figured out what the actual "genetics" of this trait is?.........I know I and others have produced them through selective breeding and line breeding.........some have produced clutches of half Black Backs and half normals from just breeding a nice Black Back to a normal...............others have produced Black Backs from breeding two Black Backs together that were unrelated.............so this trait seems to be very "forgiving"......but not what I would say "predictable"...........we all have our "Black Back" projects hiding in our snake rooms.........:)

As of now the only person who has consistently produced Black Backs is Corey Woods............these Black Backs are what we call the "hets" for the Red Axanthic...........when breeding a Red Axanthic to a normal............all the babies produced are Black Backs of some degree..........so I have it listed in the proven section because they can be reproduced........ I produced 25 "het red axanthics" in 2003......all were some degree of a Black Back. The snake pictured on this page is not from Corey Wood's line of Red Axanthic............it is a pic of your "standard" African hatched baby Black Back.

Text by Ralph Davis

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

According to this from Ralph's page - the only TRUE genetic black backs are het red axanthics.

Anything else is simply a descriptor. There is far more "black back" on the pictured snake than dorsal patterning. I would describe it as a black back myself, and apparently, Ralph also described it as such on the care card that came with the snake when originally sold to Randy.

So, who's wrong? Ralph when he described it as such when he sold it?

---

.....perhaps the name "Black Back" is incorrect then? Just like how Patternless Leopard Geckos were/are called lucys even tho they are not try leusitics? I duno...."black back" just doesnt seem like the right name for the phase then. If someone tried to sell me a snake like that above at an inflated price because it is a "black back," I wouldn't bite...again, it looks like someone trying to get an extra buck from a normal....we have all seen it before....

At best, that snake is a dinker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerhart

.....perhaps the name "Black Back" is incorrect then? Just like how Patternless Leopard Geckos were/are called lucys even tho they are not try leusitics? I duno...."black back" just doesnt seem like the right name for the phase then. If someone tried to sell me a snake like that above at an inflated price because it is a "black back," I wouldn't bite...again, it looks like someone trying to get an extra buck from a normal....we have all seen it before....

At best, that snake is a dinker.

---

So take out the black back part of it - what would you pay for a female that is close to breeding weight (no matter the pattern)? I don't think the asking price is out of line for an almost breedable weight female.

There's an asking price, complete disclosure of her eating habits, and there's a picture for you to judge - is this snake worth it to you to spend the asking price? If not - no big deal. To someone else - it probably is worth it.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

So take out the black back part of it - what would you pay for a female that is close to breeding weight (no matter the pattern)? I don't think the asking price is out of line for an almost breedable weight female.

There's an asking price, complete disclosure of her eating habits, and there's a picture for you to judge - is this snake worth it to you to spend the asking price? If not - no big deal. To someone else - it probably is worth it.

;)

---

Fair enough...drop the name "black back" and I agree, it's a nice looking female ball. :)

From how I know it, like Ralph says, the only true genetic black backs are het reds. I always assume anything else is just a nice description of the animal.

On that note, not all het reds have those nice black backs with no dorsal pattern.

That animal above reminds me of my female that has a dominant black back like feature.

It's a little difficult to see in this picture...
Here
but she does have a nice dorsal stripe. I consider her to have a nice black back. It's nothing like a het red... but still a very dominant feature.

In my experience black back has been used as a general term to describe very dark black back. Similar to a reduced patteren ther is no guarantee of genetics its just more of a descriptive term.

Now if someone says genetic reduced or blackback then that changes the impression to say yes this is a proven trait.

Like any trait there are variations. I have seen pastels (that I know are genetic) that are so dirty in color that an untrained eye might mistake them for a normal. So judgement always come into play when making a purchase.

I would say yeah you can call that a black back. How nice of one is up to personal opinion. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Quote:

---

The page at http://ball-pythons.net says:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to West Coast Jungle again.

---

RAUL!!!! You beat me to it, Pastel example and all! Very well said!!!

If that snake was in my collection I'd note it as a blackback or partial blackback...it has been used as a descriptive term for ball pythons for years, and most folks can recognize it.

Everyone has their own personal tastes as to what would make one a "so-so" example or a "perfect" example.

Just my $10.02 (fuel surcharge thingy again)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KLG

Just my $10.02 (fuel surcharge thingy again)...

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

In my experience black back has been used as a general term to describe very dark black back. Similar to a reduced patteren ther is no guarantee of genetics its just more of a descriptive term.

Now if someone says genetic reduced or blackback then that changes the impression to say yes this is a proven trait.

Like any trait there are variations. I have seen pastels (that I know are genetic) that are so dirty in color that an untrained eye might mistake them for a normal. So judgement always come into play when making a purchase.

I would say yeah you can call that a black back. How nice of one is up to personal opinion. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

---

The perfect response.... :)

I'd say she's a ok example of a black back in description of her looks.

I like the dark backed animals but unless it was proven genetic I wouldn't spend more for her than another nice looking normal.

Raul thanks that was a great answer. Thanks to everyone else too.:)

Black backs dont need to have a pure solid black stripe to be called black backs.. As long as they are black back from head to tail with very few breaks they can be considered black backs. Then you need to prove them out for them to be worth more then a normal. Mine are codom black backs.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...1/bunch159.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

Similar to a reduced patteren ther is no guarantee of genetics its just more of a descriptive term.

---

Not true any more. :devilish:

I'm going to agree with those that say Black back is a descriptive term not a genetic term.

And yes, there are other genetic black backs besides the red het :rolleyes:

A predominantly black back is a "black back". :)

Jas, thats not a black back at all...


...it's a white back!!:8:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petboy15

Jas, thats not a black back at all...


...it's a white back!!:8:

---

No its NOT!:mad:

I think shes a black back, and if I had the cash I would buy her. I need some close to breeding age females. My girl looks just like the normal colored BB in the pic.

Black Back in my book!:bolt:

Yes, I think it is a black back. 28 41.79%
No, I do not think it is a black back. 39 58.21%


I think this thread is most interesting. It demonstrates one of the only things I dislike about ball-pythons.net Please let me explain.

The poll results at this point shows that the clear majority says that the snake in the pic should not be considered a black back. (as of this post, 28 say it is a blackback, 39 say it is not.) Obviously most people vote prior to reading the thread.

Well, once you read the thread, you see that most everyone says that it is a blackback. The complete opposite of the initial poll results.

Why is this? I will be happy to tell you. It is because there are ball python.net "favorites" on here, that everyone is afraid to agrue with, in fear of being "pounced" on by everyone else. It is a shame that this happens, becuase it takes away from the forum. NEWS FLASH!!! Sometimes the people we love on this forum are WRONG. I guess it is human nature to be afraid to step up and say what you really feel in a situation like this.

This snake should not be described as, or considered a black back. It is a beautiful normal. IMHO, only If you cut off the top third, bottom third, and eliminated the blushing on the little piece you have left, should it be described as or considered a black back.

Like I said in another post recently, don't get me wrong. I really like ralph Davis, and I even own one of his spiders. I plan to buy from him again in the future.

That said, just because he says something does not make it a fact. If he called this snake a black back, he was trying realy hard to make a sale.

Mike

"I think it is funny how some of you follow so much in other peoples footsteps, that you sometimes don't even look up to see for yourselves...."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

Yes, I think it is a black back. 28 41.79%
No, I do not think it is a black back. 39 58.21%


I think this thread is most interesting. It demonstrates one of the only things I dislike about ball-pythons.net Please let me explain.

The poll results at this point shows that the clear majority says that the snake in the pic should not be considered a black back. (as of this post, 28 say it is a blackback, 39 say it is not.) Obviously most people vote prior to reading the thread.

Well, once you read the thread, you see that most everyone says that it is a blackback. The complete opposite of the initial poll results.

Why is this? I will be happy to tell you. It is because there are ball python.net "favorites" on here, that everyone is afraid to agrue with, in fear of being "pounced" on by everyone else. It is a shame that this happens, becuase it takes away from the forum. NEWS FLASH!!! Sometimes the people we love on this forum are WRONG. I guess it is human nature to be afraid to step up and say what you really feel in a situation like this.

This snake should not be described as, or considered a black back. It is a beautiful normal. IMHO, only If you cut off the top third, bottom third, and eliminated the blushing on the little piece you have left, should it be described as or considered a black back.

Like I said in another post recently, don't get me wrong. I really like ralph Davis, and I even own one of his spiders. I plan to buy from him again in the future.

That said, just because he says something does not make it a fact. If he called this snake a black back, he was trying realy hard to make a sale.

Mike

"I think it is funny how some of you follow so much in other peoples footsteps, that you sometimes don't even look up to see for yourselves...."

---

Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? 39 people said no, Because they are like you. Havent got a CLUE!

The first reply is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Someone was strong enough to stand up and state what they realy thought... but look at how they had to word it.

"I am not going to try to tick anyone off, but what makes a black-back? I think a "true" black back has NO dorsal pattern. This snake has a striped tail, and the first half of it's body looks normal. I would say that MAYBE a 1/3 of this snake is 'black back'

Help me out, what is a black back then? I mean yes....a black back...but if this snake pictured above is considered a black back...then most of animals are black-backs! As far as I see it, the snake above is just a normal with an aberrant pattern.

..again, I am not trying to tick anyone off....I just see this being a black back ball a stretch...maybe someone can help me out as to what constitutes a black back?"

Why did they feel the need to appoligize multiple times for stating an opinion?

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JASBALLS

Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? 39 people said no, Because they are like you. Havent got a CLUE!

---

I don't know it all my friend. But I do know that YOU are a follower. look up yourself sometimes.

Mike

"I think it is funny how some of you follow so much in other peoples footsteps, that you sometimes don't even look up to see for yourselves...."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

I don't know it all my friend. But I do know that YOU are a follower. look up yourself sometimes.

Mike

"I think it is funny how some of you follow so much in other peoples footsteps, that you sometimes don't even look up to see for yourselves...."

---

I follow Myself! Thats is it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

Yes, I think it is a black back. 28 41.79%
No, I do not think it is a black back. 39 58.21%


I think this thread is most interesting. It demonstrates one of the only things I dislike about ball-pythons.net Please let me explain.

The poll results at this point shows that the clear majority says that the snake in the pic should not be considered a black back. (as of this post, 28 say it is a blackback, 39 say it is not.) Obviously most people vote prior to reading the thread.

Well, once you read the thread, you see that most everyone says that it is a blackback. The complete opposite of the initial poll results.

Why is this? I will be happy to tell you. It is because there are ball python.net "favorites" on here, that everyone is afraid to agrue with, in fear of being "pounced" on by everyone else. It is a shame that this happens, becuase it takes away from the forum. NEWS FLASH!!! Sometimes the people we love on this forum are WRONG. I guess it is human nature to be afraid to step up and say what you really feel in a situation like this.

This snake should not be described as, or considered a black back. It is a beautiful normal. IMHO, only If you cut off the top third, bottom third, and eliminated the blushing on the little piece you have left, should it be described as or considered a black back.

Like I said in another post recently, don't get me wrong. I really like ralph Davis, and I even own one of his spiders. I plan to buy from him again in the future.

That said, just because he says something does not make it a fact. If he called this snake a black back, he was trying realy hard to make a sale.

Mike

"I think it is funny how some of you follow so much in other peoples footsteps, that you sometimes don't even look up to see for yourselves...."

---

Wow, If it so horrible here why do you participate? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You seem to be the only one who is getting upset?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

Wow, If it so horrible here why do you participate? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You seem to be the only one who is getting upset?

---

When did I say that "it is so horrible here?" What makes you think that I am getting upset??? Please be specific in your answer.

I love this site, and the people that participate in it. The fact that I log in every chance I get shows that pretty well.

I am stating an opinion that goes against the people that post all day long. That is all. Of course your first response to that is that I should no longer participate in the forum. Thanks.

Ah, the pouncing I mentioned before has begun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

Yes, I think it is a black back. 28 41.79%
No, I do not think it is a black back. 39 58.21%


I think this thread is most interesting. It demonstrates one of the only things I dislike about ball-pythons.net Please let me explain.

The poll results at this point shows that the clear majority says that the snake in the pic should not be considered a black back. (as of this post, 28 say it is a blackback, 39 say it is not.) Obviously most people vote prior to reading the thread.

Well, once you read the thread, you see that most everyone says that it is a blackback. The complete opposite of the initial poll results.

Why is this? I will be happy to tell you. It is because there are ball python.net "favorites" on here, that everyone is afraid to agrue with, in fear of being "pounced" on by everyone else. It is a shame that this happens, becuase it takes away from the forum. NEWS FLASH!!! Sometimes the people we love on this forum are WRONG. I guess it is human nature to be afraid to step up and say what you really feel in a situation like this.

This snake should not be described as, or considered a black back. It is a beautiful normal. IMHO, only If you cut off the top third, bottom third, and eliminated the blushing on the little piece you have left, should it be described as or considered a black back.

Like I said in another post recently, don't get me wrong. I really like ralph Davis, and I even own one of his spiders. I plan to buy from him again in the future.

That said, just because he says something does not make it a fact. If he called this snake a black back, he was trying realy hard to make a sale.

Mike

"I think it is funny how some of you follow so much in other peoples footsteps, that you sometimes don't even look up to see for yourselves...."

---

Not really, id rather post on why it is a black back than complain why its not. A lot of people who vote do so without even really thinking about it to see what everyone else is saying. If you breed that snake to what ever there is a good chance that the offspring will have somewhat of a black back, even if its not alot.

Mike,

Would you call this a black back?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...PretJune19.jpg

Just an observation - but it appears that you are determined to be right in this. If even the founders of this hobby call it a black back, why are you calling them wrong? Not just Ralph, but even Kara of NERD stated she would call Randy's snake a black back.

I don't think it's written any where that people must justify their vote. If people want to express their opinion, then they can..if they choose not to, then they can do that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

What makes you think I am upset? Please be specific in your answer.

---

Well, you started a thread stating that we're not doing our job.

Quote:

---

I am stating an opinion that goes against the people that post all day long. Of course your first suggestion is that I no longer participate.

Ah, the pouncing I mentioned before has begun.

---

You continue to to respond to this thread trying to justify why it is not a black back, and then talk about the people who chose not to respond with justification to their vote... Noone is pouncing on you. Raul is not pouncing on you, I am not pouncing on you, just merely expressing my thoughts..is that not acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

Mike,

Would you call this a black back?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...PretJune19.jpg

Just an observation - but it appears that you are determined to be right in this. If even the founders of this hobby call it a black back, why are you calling them wrong? Not just Ralph, but even Kara of NERD stated she would call Randy's snake a black back.

---

Yes Robin, IMHO, I would consider this a blackback. when you look at it, it is pretty obvious. The Majority of the back is black, unlike the snake that started this thread.

I am not determined to be right. I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I don't just take what an acomplished person says as fact like some do. As the poll on this thread proves, most when first looking at the pic in question do not consider it a black back. Kara says she thinks it could be called a partial black back. Does the fact that Kara has an opionion make the majority of the people that responded to the poll wrong like jasballs suggested?

That is a gorgous snake by the way that you asked me about... Is it up for sale???? :D

Macavana, I don't know you. I don't know the guy with the snake for sale. I'm not in any clique. I haven't got enough common sense to be afraid to say something that may be contrary to what the majority here think. The only person that I can see that did something out of line was you who essentially accused this guy of fraud and misrepresentation. The value of these snakes are not set in stone. You say that you have a Spider from Ralph Davis. I inquired to Ralph Davis about a Spider and felt that he wanted more than I was willing to pay and I obtained one elsewhere. Should I consider Ralph a crook because of his asking price or you a sucker because you paid more than I did? Well I do not. If the two of you were satisfied with your transaction that is all that matters. I really don't understand at all what you think that you are fighting for here.

Nope - Pretzel's not going anywhere. :)

So - would you concede that Randy's snake is a partial blackbak?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

When did I say that "it is so horrible here?" Please be specific in your answer.

I love this site, and the people that participate in it. The fact that I log in every chance I get shows that pretty well.

I am stating an opinion that goes against the people that post all day long. Of course your first suggestion is that I no longer participate in the forum.

Ah, the pouncing I mentioned before has begun.

---

I am not suggesting you not post anymore. The tone of your post was that this place is hostile. I have no chip on my shoulder, your approach suggests you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsirkle

You say that you have a Spider from Ralph Davis. I inquired to Ralph Davis about a Spider and felt that he wanted more than I was willing to pay and I obtained one elsewhere. Should I consider Ralph a crook because of his asking price or you a sucker because you paid more than I did? Well I do not. .

---

Dude, what are you talking about? I purchased a spider produced by Ralph. I paid the correct price for a spider. I love the snake. You've lost me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

Nope - Pretzel's not going anywhere. :)

So - would you concede that Randy's snake is a partial blackbak?

---

Are you sure???? I am in LOVE with that snake!!!! she is just stunning!

Yes, I will be willing to concede that Randy's snake is a PARTIAL blackback on one condition.... That of course being that every other normal in the world without a stripe / broken stripe is now also ofiicialy considered a blackback.

:gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

Yes Robin, IMHO, I would consider this a blackback. when you look at it, it is pretty obvious. The Majority of the back is black, unlike the snake that started this thread.

I am not determined to be right. I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I don't just take what an acomplished person says as fact like some do. As the poll on this thread proves, most when first looking at the pic in question do not consider it a black back. Kara says she thinks it could be called a partial black back. Does the fact that Kara has an opionion make the majority of the people that responded to the poll wrong like jasballs suggested?

That is a gorgous snake by the way that you asked me about... Is it up for sale???? :D

---

Oh, So know its Jasballs and not Hey Jas!! Mike, I work with this morph the black back. I know one when I see one. I wouldnt of even posted towards you if you werent making a schmuck of your self in the post. I have nothing against you Man. Just stating My opinion.. Mike, Just so you know I'm done posting to this thread. Good luck Randy!

I see. YOU get to determine what the right price for a Spider is. I can't determine what is the right price for me to pay. YOU get to determine what a black back is. Certainly Ralph isn't able to determine the right price for a Spider when he isn't able to tell a what a Black Back is. Maybe he should have consulted with you before he put it in writing that the snake in question is a Black Back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsirkle

I see. YOU get to determine what the right price for a Spider is. I can't determine what is the right price for me to pay. YOU get to determine what a black back is. Certainly Ralph isn't able to determine the right price for a Spider when he isn't able to tell a what a Black Back is. .

---

Dude, seriously. All joking aside. Leave that stuff alone. it can and will kill you. Just say "NO!"

I am not quite sure how to interpret your last post. However, I have made my point and it seems to me that no good purpose will be served to continue this any further.

Just throwing this out to muddy the waters a little more.....

Earlier in the thread someone quoted Ralph as saying the only true blackback was the Red Axanthic - well if you look at a bunch of pictures of red axanthics and their hets - MOST of them tend to have just as much if not more going on pattern-wise in their dorsal area than the posted snake. Yes some have clean black backs and some are patterned.

Agendas aside - what is the difference?

When it's all said and done - a genetic blackback ain't worth any more than a normal anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tosha_Mc

a genetic blackback ain't worth any more than a normal anyway.

---

That is a matter of opinion for sure... I would be willing, and so would many others, to pay much more for a true black back, like robins "pretzel". When it REALLY is a blackback, the difference is immediatley noticable.... Immediately noticable from the norm... isn't that pretty much the definition of a morph? ( assuming of course that its children look the same?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

That is a matter of opinion for sure... I would be willing, and so would many others, to pay much more for a true black back, like robins "pretzel". When it REALLY is a blackback, the difference is immediatley noticable.... Immediately noticable from the norm... isn't that pretty much the definition of a morph? ( assuming of course that its children look the same?)

---

Mike did someone pee in your cheerios or something this morning? You have been ragging over and over about that snake and its getting old :rolleyes:.If YOU dont like the snake fine move on to another thread ;).My god its VERY stupid to argue over a certain way a snake looks or doesnt look :rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

B]My god its VERY stupid to argue over a certain way a snake looks or doesnt look[/B] :rolleye2:

---

Sorry dude, I thought that was the basis of our hobby!!!!
LOL!!!
You sound EXACTLY like my fiance that HATES snakes!

LMAO!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

Sorry dude, I thought that was the basis of our hobby!!!!
LOL!!!

You sound like my fiance that HATES snakes!

LOL

---

So our basis is to argue over and over on how a snake looks huh? I thought it was the love of the species :rolleyes:.So give me your opinion on this pic.What would you call it? I CALL IT A CAT :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:. http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/k...hons/gabby.jpg

It is the love of the species and HOW IT LOOKS! Correct me people here if I am wrong...

As for the pic.... Yes, it is in fact a cat. A terrorist of hatchlings... a soon to be victom of my finest females... A rat is a Rat is a RAt.


Going to bed now... Have to go to work tommorow to afford the lifestyle that allow me to post every night..... and to afford not to make me dip into the savings account for the upcoming daytona show!!
\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcavana

It is the love of the species and HOW IT LOOKS! Correct me people here if I am wrong...

As for the pic.... Yes, it is in fact a cat. A terrorist of hatchlings... a soon to be victom of my finest females... A rat is a Rat is a RAt.


Going to bed now... Have to go to work tommorow to afford the lifestyle that allow me to post every night..... and to afford not to make me dip into the savings account for the upcoming daytona show!!
\

---

Wow i guess we are full of ourselves aren't we now :rolleyes:.To the original question YES THAT IS A BLACK BACK AND A NICE ONE AT THAT :gj: :gj: :gj:

Alright guys. This isn't a civil discussion anymore. Clearly, we all see things in a different way, so there's no need in adding more fuel to the fire. Consider this a warning :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanledet

Alright guys. This isn't a civil discussion anymore. Clearly, we all see things in a different way, so there's no need in adding more fuel to the fire. Consider this a warning :)

---

Yes sir :salute: :8:.Its all good Nate :gj:

I haven't read this thread in days. Mike, have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

You aren't the end all decision in this industry, you can only make decisions for yourself on what you are willing to pay for a normal female. You cannot force anyone to change the price of any animal, you are not them.

Have you ever seen a het red in person? Have you ever seen a clutch of co-dom black backs in person? Have you seen them ALL, or only a select few?

I ask because you tout yourself as if you have, and that you are a Connoisseur of black backed animals.

Like Tosha said, and I have said, and others have said.... A snake doesn't have to be completely free of dorsal patterned dots like Robins to be a black back!

Robins is an EXCELLENT example of a "non het red" black back!

There are varying degrees of this feature just like any other characteristic.

Just like a reduced animal doesn't have to be 100% banded to be considered reduced.

It looks better that way yes, but if it has 20% of spots on the back, and the rest is clean, wide and black like the owners... yes... people consider "black back" as a perfectly good description.


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...tblackback.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...PretJune19.jpg

Do you see the similarities? The first picture isn't as clear and perfectly positioned like Robins... but it is VERY clear they carry a lot in common.

It's one thing to have an opinion, but when you start parading it as a hard fact in the face of many other more experienced opinions; telling others that your way is the only correct opinion; your going to be told otherwise.

I also find it interesting that whenever someone has a problem with a repeated answer they are getting, they are being "ganged" up on.

Consider the idea that you may just be wrong Mike! Consider the idea that your idea of a black back is very particular, but not the only correct definition!