» Site Navigation
1 members and 695 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,909
Threads: 249,112
Posts: 2,572,157
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
Re: Might be a new Morph
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.
It is called het red axanthic because the guy who made it called it het red axanthic, nothing more to it. You can call something w/e you want, it has nothing to do with the classification.
It isn't incorrect to call it het disco, all your are saying is heterozygous disco, which it is. it will just be misinterpreted because of the goofy lingo we have. just saying disco implies the heterozygous, you are not specifying heterozygous or homozygous. Saying super implies the homozygous.
A morph isn't a morph until it is proven out, the OP breed two dinkers together and made that. Of course nothing is set in stone but its reasonable to think that is the homozygous version of the gene. Even if the OP dinkers are subtle, obviously they could pick them out to make that animal. so it visual in someway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ball Clan
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.
There is no board of ball python naming, the person who makes it calls it what they want.
-
Re: Might be a new Morph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ball Clan
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.
THERE ARE NO RULES!!! Lol the only rule is that if you discover it, you get to name it. It doesn't matter if there's no rhyme or reason. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to get everyone to use a standardised nomenclature. We can't even use the correct terms for inc dom, co dom and recessive, let alone the individual morphs. You're fighting an uphill battle, my friend.
-
Darn, OWAL beat me to it!
-
Not fighting, just trying to learn. But that pretty much tells me what I was trying to find out. :)
-
Here are a few more pics, some of the coolest one pre first shed.
-
Ohhhh, so the pink isn't shed. That's neat.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
-
Cool. Yeah that one is pretty wild-looking compared to the normal.
-
These guys look promising to me
-
Thanks guys.
I guess there is a possibility that they are in fact a new line of Splatter. I am still seeking out advice and information from Chris over in the UK, the originator of the Splatter Ball. The Splatter is very unique in one way, it produces three variances, not just two like a regular Co Dom. With say a Sulfur, you get a Sulfur and Super Sulfur. With the Splatter, you get Splatters, Super Splatters and a Yellow Splatter. The Yellow is the odd one, looks as good or better than a Super but does not produce all Splatters like a Super would. Should be a fun couple of years trying figure this one out.
Dave
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...pscd799f8d.jpg
This is one I am convinced looks like a Splatter.
This is the nice reduced one.
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps701390d3.jpg
http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps884a06b0.jpg
-
I don't know much of anything..but what I do know is as soon as I saw the pic I thought normal???but very good looking at that.
|
