What is the best example of....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

Here is my take, recognizing quality comes down to experience and personal taste. I would never go what some book says or some pole on a forum.

If you can't look at a morph and recognize what's right or wrong then you need to do some more homework ;)

Experience is what you want, not some award;)

---

How do you know what's 'right and wrong' with no standards?
Even without them written down, there are standards that exist, so you're agreeing with me without even realizing it. :P



But at the same time, you both said it's up to the individual's taste, and that there are standards (rights, and wrongs) So which do you truly believe in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snake lab

Im still wondering if the yellow ribbon mice taste the same as the red ribbon mice

---

I was talking about red mice genotypes. ;)
And if you really want to know, red and yellow mice probably taste the same to your snake, but don't feed them unless you want your python to be a fatty. :gj:

This word we keep using, standards, is obviouslly either meabing different things or your just not getting the point. You cant just write a specific standard for a specific morph because its all based on interpretation. For example, a pastel. How can you say that the standard for a pastel is a certain color or blushibg or pattern. Some like reduced pattern, some like a busy pattern, some like more blushing, some like darker blacks. There are just too many variables involved to do what your talking about. This thread has gone on for so many pages and you keep saying the same thing. It WONT work.

It can work, there's no reason it can't. Every other animal can have a million variations of each 'showable' variety, but the ones that are shown are the ones that individual clubs have standards for.

Just because standards aren't written, doesn't mean that they can't be. That's what you're missing. You seem to think it -can't- be written.


This is how easy it is to make a standard.
Step 1 - invent a club, out of the blue
Step 2 - Write down a standard

the end. It's no more complicated than that. People here, including snake lab, seem to think there is some mystical aspect to writting standards that can't be done to ball pythons. And that's simply un-true.

Eventually, someone is going to start a club, I've even talked to a few people who are very close to doing so. ;)
I would, if i knew a damn thing about ball python genetics, but I don't.
I think chances are, you're probably going to see at least 2-3 different clubs pop up at the same time in the next 8-12 months. :)



How does this affect you? It doesn't, if you don't join in it. It has no affect on you what-so-ever unless you choose to be part of it. :gj:

You said it the best. You dont know a damn thing about ball python genetics. You cant write a standard on a specific morph. I do know ball python genetics and im telling you it cant be done.

It can be done, and someone will do it. I don't understand how you think it can't be done, when it's being done every day by anyone who looks at a ball python. You pick the 'best' ones, and select for them. :confuzd:


It seems like you're not really adding anything to the conversation at this point. You just keep chiming in with 'can't do it, can't be done, not possible'.

Er, I know a reasonable amount about ball python genetics (without actually being a geneticist), and I believe it can be done.

You see, a standard is written to illustrate an ideal. People then do their best to produce animals that come as close as possible to that ideal.

I honestly don't understand why you would think that a standard couldn't be written...I could write one. It would be entirely arbitrary, but then, in truth, all standards are entirely arbitrary. People simply agree to hold them as an ideal. That's where the club comes in--people will talk over what they think (for example), the ideal lemon pastel ball python should look like. Then they will write the standard based on what they agreed on.

The end. That's all there is to it--standard written.
What does knowledge of genetics have to do with that, anyhow?

You have to write the standard before you can begin selectively breeding to meet it.

(As for which snakes get sold, and which stay--a snake that appears to be the best example of a morph may not be held back if another snake which is similarly good but is a better feeder, or has a better personality, is available as well. I know I've let at least one very pretty snake go because it had a temperament like a tree boa, lol).

Plus, a lot of folks here are posting photos of their holdbacks, of course.

This is a very brown pastel. She's a holdback because of her mad blushing. Not every holdback is perfect, sometimes they have one trait to an extreme, but are lacking another.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r...083109-1sm.jpg

I agree with winged's points. Also, take a look at the first page of responses on this thread:
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...=1#post1765694

Notice the general consensus on the quality of that bumblebee.. More people find that its not as "clean" or bright yellow as it should be. Obviously there is a standard, and that bee just didn't meet everyone's standard. That bee probably won't win any of the "ribbons" lol.

Quality of a morph is determined by a standard that each individual has. The pastel that winged posted a picture of is not very yellow which he recognizes, but it still possesses a quality that he seeks, and others seek as well.

I personally don't like the blushing in pastels. I rather see dark black and bright yellow to see that contrast! Thats why i freaking LOVE fireflies lol. Though my killerbee is extremely blushed out, and i think it suits her :)

Right, but bold black and bright yellow are characteristics of the lemon pastels, while high blushing is characteristic of the line that Graziani works with.

Both are pastels, but they're being selectively bred for different sets of traits. Each of those versions will have its own standard.

Selective breeding in ball pythons is in its infancy--compare it with what has been done with leopard geckos. There's a lot of room there for dramatic changes in the appearance of these animals over time, both morphs and normals.

I think one reason standards for specific morphs haven't really shown up yet is because people are so focused on making fancy combo morphs instead of improving the base morphs. The person who can stuff the most genes into a single animal wins. :P