Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

Yes I agree with you if someone is willing to pay more then "market price" then it is their own fault. I just don't agree with it.

---

Not to sound harsh, but who are you to say what is "market price"? How is $100 so exorbitant? Personaly I have seen market prices differ by more than $100. I have seen them differ by as much as $300-500. It all depends on the quality and by the breeder. Obviously the said snake was worth the extra $100 that was spent on it.

What is this? As long as they are labeling it correctly then what is the problem? Het ivory is just another way to say Yellowbelly. Het lucy is just another way to say Lesser or any other "het lucy" morph. If somebody pays $100 more for the same thing because it's labeled differently then that's great for the breeder who just sold that snake! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

I am not arguing the point of that I understand the genetics and know what het and homo means, the thing that urcs me is that some of these breeders are selling them more cause they are calling them a het. I know that lesser is the heterzygouse form and lucy is the homo, but to sell the snake for 100 dollars more then what is worth is not right. That is my problem with it.

---

Why aren't all breeders calling them hets then and informing their customers? maybe it will stop the confussion. why can't they sell them for 930420584032543 dollars more than what "market value is" if they want, if the price isn't right people don't buy it.

Quote:

---

I have talked to a few breeders out by me such as evan stahl who also disagrees with calling the co-doms het for something since they were not called "hets" when first introduced.

---

WHAT?? Co-doms have to be introduced as hets as soon as they are declared co-dom. having different het and homo forms is what proves its a co-dom. by design every co-dom has it het form declared when it's proven. just because they "lingo" doesn't call it that, doesn't mean anything. their problem is with the lingo, not the truth.

To someone thinking of breeding, that is still a bit new to the genetics, using the term "het" for something will get them asking some questions and be more likely to get you a sale.

Vender A has a lesser for $300
Vender B has a lesser (het. for lucy) for $350

Perspective buyer asks vender B, what does "het for lucy" mean. Vender B explains, if you were to breed lesser to lesser, you have a 1 in 4 chance of producing this snake (show them the lucy you have for sale). Vender B also can explain some of the other cool combo morphs that can be made with the lesser.

Essentially, Vender B's display caused the perspective buyer to engage in conversation. It can be the conversation that sells the snake, not necessarily the snake itself in some situations. Now as long as Vender B isn't telling lies, I have no problems with him engaging in conversation to help sell his snake.

9/10 times the perspective buyer isn't going to buy, but when one does, Vender B has spent a lot of time explaining his snakes, breeding, etc, so warrants a bit more on the sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dkoehl26

The reason why is when the breeders first started introducing the co-doms they never mentioned anything about hets. As of recently everyone is now starting to call them hets. All your recessive gene snakes have always been called het. I have talked to a few breeders out by me such as evan stahl who also disagrees with calling the co-doms het for something since they were not called "hets" when first introduced.

---

I just wanted to point out:

I hope you know that "when breeders first started introducing co-doms", they are using the term "co-dominant" incorrectly. Stop listening to "those breeders", practically everyone uses terminology incorrectly. I know that I have been guilty of it as well, but I actively make an effort to correct myself.

Instead of buying into the pseudo-genetics language that has arisen from a lack of proper knowledge about modern genetics, I heartily advise that you pick up a book on genetics, or AT THE VERY LEAST spending a day on wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I just wanted to point out:

I hope you know that "when breeders first started introducing co-doms", they are using the term "co-dominant" incorrectly. Stop listening to "those breeders", practically everyone uses terminology incorrectly. I know that I have been guilty of it as well, but I actively make an effort to correct myself.

Instead of buying into the pseudo-genetics language that has arisen from a lack of proper knowledge about modern genetics, I heartily advise that you pick up a book on genetics, or AT THE VERY LEAST spending a day on wikipedia.

---

I have spent more then a day researching the genetics but not from wikipedia. I have the books that were put out by NERD. I also used the following websites. World of Ball Pythons which explains Genetics very well and the punnet square.Also Markus Janes Ball Pythons which also says pretty much the same stuff. I have done more then enough research on them. I have been breeding reptiles mainly snakes for 12 years. I just started with the ball pythons. Use to breed Burms and Retics till I almost had a fatal accident which pushed me out of the breeding 5 years ago. I just recently got back into it with ball pythons. I did not want this to turn into an argument, I was just wondering why breeders are starting to label them differently then what they were first introduced as.

I guess it just drives me crazy because that terminology has only recently been used for co doms. I've always understood the fact that co doms ate technically het for a super form but for years almost no one referred to them that way.

People get use to a certain thing and it can cause confusion. Like the people that have tried advertising a snake that's het for pastel. There is no het for pastel buy technically pastel is het for super pastel. See? It messes new people up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayCee

To someone thinking of breeding, that is still a bit new to the genetics, using the term "het" for something will get them asking some questions and be more likely to get you a sale.

Vender A has a lesser for $300
Vender B has a lesser (het. for lucy) for $350

Perspective buyer asks vender B, what does "het for lucy" mean. Vender B explains, if you were to breed lesser to lesser, you have a 1 in 4 chance of producing this snake (show them the lucy you have for sale). Vender B also can explain some of the other cool combo morphs that can be made with the lesser.

Essentially, Vender B's display caused the perspective buyer to engage in conversation. It can be the conversation that sells the snake, not necessarily the snake itself in some situations. Now as long as Vender B isn't telling lies, I have no problems with him engaging in conversation to help sell his snake.

9/10 times the perspective buyer isn't going to buy, but when one does, Vender B has spent a lot of time explaining his snakes, breeding, etc, so warrants a bit more on the sale.

---

I agree with this. It's a good learning tool to use with new people.

When I'm showing off my mojo's I tell people all the time he is heterozygous, and the homozygous form is a lucy (an almost all white snake, baby blue eyes, and a purple tented head). A Lucy is such an amazing animal to talk about, how can you not tell people if something is het for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

I have a spider het Bananabee het Black Bee het Bumblebee het Butterbee het Calider het Cinnabee het should I go on?

I think it could get quite silly soon in particular the base morphs are het half the designer morphs out there. I think that there needs to be some system for naming new morphs and for what breeders can and can't call het.

---

This makes zero sense to me. So far, a spider has no proven homozygous form. And, none of the animals listed above are homozygous at all. Maybe you should visiti wiki.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I just wanted to point out:

I hope you know that "when breeders first started introducing co-doms", they are using the term "co-dominant" incorrectly. Stop listening to "those breeders", practically everyone uses terminology incorrectly. I know that I have been guilty of it as well, but I actively make an effort to correct myself.

Instead of buying into the pseudo-genetics language that has arisen from a lack of proper knowledge about modern genetics, I heartily advise that you pick up a book on genetics, or AT THE VERY LEAST spending a day on wikipedia.

---

Modern genetics calls the Mendelian system obsolete

The pseudo-genetics system in the snake world works and its already established, who cares about terminology anyways, Mendelian made it up how long ago, why can't we change it?