Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 1,466

0 members and 1,466 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,209
Threads: 248,623
Posts: 2,569,251
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, MoonMoon09

Sulfur = Fire

Printable View

  • 10-21-2008, 09:23 PM
    envy_ld50
    Sulfur = Fire
    Okay this has been eating away at me for awhile now. From the begging of the sulfur inception they were thought to be fires but were not acquired from a proven line. I cant stress this enough but this is why you need to hold back your project and prove it out! Don't start selling snakes as a new unknown morph! What would one do if they had somehow acquired a snake that looked different than a normal but similar to another morph? I for one would first try to prove a super and then do crosses. The Sulfur is 100% a fire until there is undisputed proof it is not. The super is the same, crosses appear to be visually the same as well. I understand people want to defend sulfur's as they payed more for them and want to have an exclusive morph. However I think we need to start proving projects out before slapping new names on proven morphs. That's my 2 cents.
  • 10-21-2008, 09:26 PM
    nevohraalnavnoj
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by envy_ld50 View Post
    The Sulfur is 100% a fire until there is undisputed proof it is not.

    Wouldn't it be the exact opposite? Isn't that like saying VPI Axanthics and TSK Axanthics are compatible until proven otherwise? Isn't the impetus for proving compatibility on the producer claiming the compatibility?

    Or maybe I am not understanding the argument in question?

    JonV
  • 10-21-2008, 09:27 PM
    Jerhart
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Isnt a super sulphur a Black eyed leucy...while a super fire is a blue eyed leucy? :confused: I am new to Suphurs so I am not sure if I have this right.....but I for one believe they are different from the FIRE.
  • 10-21-2008, 09:28 PM
    PythonWallace
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jerhart View Post
    Isnt a super suphur a Black eyed leucy...while a super fire is a blue eyed leucy? :confused:

    Fires are het for black eyed leucistic.
  • 10-21-2008, 09:29 PM
    Jerhart
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PythonWallace View Post
    Fires are het for black eyed leucistic.

    Gotchya! Thanks! :gj:
  • 10-21-2008, 09:30 PM
    nevohraalnavnoj
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PythonWallace View Post
    Fires are het for black eyed leucistic.

    Are sulfurs as well?

    JonV
  • 10-21-2008, 09:31 PM
    Wh00h0069
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj View Post
    Are sulfurs as well?

    JonV

    Yes
  • 10-21-2008, 09:32 PM
    nevohraalnavnoj
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    So the issue in question is whether sulfurs have something "extra" to warrant them being different from fires? Or are they just fires with a higher price tag? Is that what the argument is about?

    JonV
  • 10-21-2008, 09:44 PM
    envy_ld50
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj View Post
    So the issue in question is whether sulfurs have something "extra" to warrant them being different from fires? Or are they just fires with a higher price tag? Is that what the argument is about?

    JonV

    At this point they are fires. Thier has been nothing "extra" produced from the morph. Until a sulfur is PROVEN to be different in any way shape or form is it not misleading to sell one as something new. Fires are a very very variable morph. The clutches I have seen have been different from snake to snake. They all have the same traits however.
  • 10-21-2008, 09:46 PM
    Wh00h0069
    Re: Sulfur = Fire
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj View Post
    So the issue in question is whether sulfurs have something "extra" to warrant them being different from fires? Or are they just fires with a higher price tag? Is that what the argument is about?

    JonV

    Yes he is stating the the fires and the sulfurs are the same thing, but the sulfurs are more expensive.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1