Might be a new Morph

If we dismissed all "normalish" looking dinkers we would have missed out on quite a few cool supers and combos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Green

If we dismissed all "normalish" looking dinkers we would have missed out on quite a few cool supers and combos.

---

Exactly.
I've produced some stellar looking specters and some that look very normal like.
What they produce, even the normalish looking ones, is pretty spectacular imo.

Hope you are on to something new here. Def looks like something going on there other than just normal. Once you get a female, hopefully you will prove it out! I wonder if the person who bought your female as a dinker is reading?

So what are the comparison points that make it different than a normal?

I do see the usefulness of dinker normals, I'm curious to see the specific cues the OP is seeing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

They are very bright and clean, I'd be very interested to see how this gene turns out in combos. A lot of new genes look like this, not much more than a normal and then you combine it and wham, you get something like the atomic fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Green

If we dismissed all "normalish" looking dinkers we would have missed out on quite a few cool supers and combos.

---

Not dismiss. Like I said, just refer to them as het with markers, and define the super as a recessive morph, examples = het pied and het red axanthic. I'm just saying we don't need 500 "morphs" when 250 of them are barely discernible. We should save the cool names for the cool phenotypes, and call the hets what they are. If it's something that really stands out, like pastel or lesser, that's one thing. But I think something like disco which is essentially invisible to anyone other than the most experienced breeders should be called a het disco, whereas the super disco should be the disco morph and considered recessive rather than co-dominant. That's not dismissing, it's just cleaning up the ever-growing morph list and eliminating the clutter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

Not dismiss. Like I said, just refer to them as het with markers, and define the super as a recessive morph, examples = het pied and het red axanthic. I'm just saying we don't need 500 "morphs" when 250 of them are barely discernible. We should save the cool names for the cool phenotypes, and call the hets what they are. If it's something that really stands out, like pastel or lesser, that's one thing. But I think something like disco which is essentially invisible to anyone other than the most experienced breeders should be called a het disco, whereas the super disco should be the disco morph and considered recessive rather than co-dominant. That's not dismissing, it's just cleaning up the ever-growing morph list and eliminating the clutter.

---

Then it would be classified incorrectly, an inc-dom morph just needs a intermediate heterozygous form, doesn't matter how subtle. A recessive wouldn't have a marker if it is truly recessive.... yea we already have enough misclassified genes. As for disco they are a few shades lighter than a normal ball python, hardly need experience to see that. and red axanthics are inc-dom, not many people will argue that. het red axanthic is very visual.

As for this morph the thing is quite a few shades lighter than a normal, I wouldn't call it desert. The color is might be similar but lacks the cleanliness of the desert which is it's most sought-after trait for most. I don't see it being a game changer right now, but they probably said the same thing about the orange dream. Good luck with the project.

But if het red axanthic is co-dom, why is it correct to call it "het red axanthic" and the super "red axanthic" but it would be incorrect to call a disco a "het disco" and the super one "disco", if they are the same type of gene? And still we have the het pied which is reasonably visible although variably subtle.

I guess the subtle markers are just a little confusing since normals are so variable. My Cleo (bottom left pic) has a crazy reduced pattern and is almost as light as my fire girl. Yet, she's just a normal by anyone's opinion here. As opposed to Kay (top second from left), who is as normal as they come. Hard to believe one is as normal as the other. Yet some differences that are more subtle are considered a co-dom morph.

Maybe seeing the snakes in person would help as opposed to pictures (as is true of the fire a lot of times), but some of it still seems really confusing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ball Clan

But if het red axanthic is co-dom, why is it correct to call it "het red axanthic" and the super "red axanthic" but it would be incorrect to call a disco a "het disco" and the super one "disco", if they are the same type of gene? And still we have the het pied which is reasonably visible although variably subtle.

I guess the subtle markers are just a little confusing since normals are so variable. My Cleo (bottom left pic) has a crazy reduced pattern and is almost as light as my fire girl. Yet, she's just a normal by anyone's opinion here. As opposed to Kay (top second from left), who is as normal as they come. Hard to believe one is as normal as the other. Yet some differences that are more subtle are considered a co-dom morph.

Maybe seeing the snakes in person would help as opposed to pictures (as is true of the fire a lot of times), but some of it still seems really confusing to me.

---

HRA wasn't named in keeping with the general naming style of most ball morphs. The het form is a visual, like all inc dom morphs. It would be equivalent to calling a pastel a "het pastel" and calling a super pastel just "pastel". Hope that helps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MootWorm

HRA wasn't named in keeping with the general naming style of most ball morphs. The het form is a visual, like all inc dom morphs. It would be equivalent to calling a pastel a "het pastel" and calling a super pastel just "pastel". Hope that helps!

---

Exactly my point. That's why it's strange that either it doesn't get changed or the door is open to do that with other, more subtle co-dom morphs.

I suppose it's not a big deal, really. I'm just curious as to what the rules are, if there are any, and what is grounds for bending, breaking, or changing them. That's all.