I find it interesting how the terminology differs from industry to industry.
In chinchillas, there is only one real "co-dominant" (incomplete dom) mutation. The homozygous and heterozygous forms are differentiated by putting "homo" and "hetero" in front of the mutation name (homo beige vs. hetero beige).
An animal that is heterozygous for a recessive mutation is called a "carrier" of that mutation (sapphire carrier, violet carrier). I'm sure that's common to many different heterozygous recessive animals, not just chinchillas ...
Evidently in birds, a heterozygous recessive animal is said to be "split to" that mutation ... :confused:
I don't have a real problem with the term "super" -- it may be made up, but it does seem to have a consistently agreed upon meaning. When I think of "super," I assume it to mean the visually distinct homozygous form of a visual heterozygous mutation (the homozygous form of a co-dominant or incomplete dominant mutation). I think what gets confusing is when folks use it to mean any homozygous animal.
Regarding the OP's complaint, I guess I will say that it bugs me a tiny bit as well (though I have no good reason for that; just one of those meaningless things that irritate you). However, I don't think that it's at all deceitful or unethical unless the seller is somehow trying to imply an untruth: that the animal is (for example) het for leucistic in addition to being a mojave (ie, that there are two different genes there), or that his mojaves are het for leucistic while everybody else's aren't.
