Butters and Lessers, are there distinctions?

Alright, I am proposing this to the community as a whole, and trying to remove my own personal views from this.

Are there distinct differences between these two morphs?

If there are distinct differences that have held up over time seperating the lines, they must remain as they are, separate.

If there are not distinct differences between the two morphs that have held up over time they should be condensed into a single morph.

If there are distinct differences those differences need to be stated for identification purposes of the two lines, if those differences do not hold up to the vast majority of individuals within the line, they are not distint enough to be viewed as distinct differences.

Can we determine that there is a distinct difference between the lines for the purpose of line identification? Or can we not?

People like to think there is a difference, since "butters" are generally priced higher than lessers, but they're exactly the same. The only variation in pattern is the normal variation that occurs in any morph, and can be found in any lesser or butter animal.

I remember there was a thread someone on the forum made awhile ago that went like "Which ones are butters and which are lessers?" to prove if anyone can tell a distinct difference between the two, since some users were insisting that there was a difference. And he posted pictures of a few of his snakes. People were guessing and debating, which one looks more "buttery" than the others... In the end, the answer was that all of them were lessers, and he doesn't even own butters. LOL

Red that's great! I agree they're the same morph and have a few of each title that I wouldn't be able to differentiate if I hadn't labeled them as what they where purchased as.

That seems to be the general consensus I run into; they are the same morph, but the lines have been separate for so long that it's... idk considered good form or something? To continue labeling any snakes you produce according to what line you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lizardlicks

That seems to be the general consensus I run into; they are the same morph, but the lines have been separate for so long that it's... idk considered good form or something? To continue labeling any snakes you produce according to what line you have.

---

Yeah, I also heard it's ethical to just keep going with differentiating the names. So I technically have to call my super lesser a "lesser butter", since that's what I bought him as LOL.

Haha, and see that's what I wonders, there are probably lot of lucies that came from a lesserxbutter pairing that then went on to make more babies. There's no way to tell what line they are, so what, do you just market it as the more expensive one?

Red, considering you have a lesser butter, its offspring have now been muddied to the point you can no longer distinctly declare one a lesser and another a butter. Leading to an asterisk next to your animals, which can no longer clearly state a line distinction.

While you may engage in ethical behavior by disclosing this to customers, others may decide to not do so and sell one at a higher price because the name itself holds value in someone's eyes. The end result is further confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lizardlicks

That seems to be the general consensus I run into; they are the same morph, but the lines have been separate for so long that it's... idk considered good form or something? To continue labeling any snakes you produce according to what line you have.

---

If that's the general consensus of the community, perhaps we should rebrand the morph as a single thing, like with pastels, then have separate lines to offer a distinction between them for those who have been maintaining a "pure" line.

As an example, we rebrand them Plattys, so one can have a Butter line Platty, or a Lesser line Platty. Personally I like this name because it works well with Ralph's original Platinum (Platty Daddy), and the het daddy gene.

Then you end up with 3 options, Plattys, Butter Plattys, and Lesser Plattys. Which leads to a group for undetermined snake lines, but maintains the line distinction, as with Pastels.

So I'm curious. Does a Butterxlesser bel run the same risks for bug eyes as a super lesser?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxylepy

As an example, we rebrand them Plattys, so one can have a Butter line Platty, or a Lesser line Platty. Personally I like this name because it works well with Ralph's original Platinum (Platty Daddy), and the het daddy gene.

---

Except people (including RDR himself) generally use Platty as shorthand for PlattyDaddy so you would have to rewrite the entire usage of that epithet throughout the hobby which is as impossible as rebranding all of them to Lesser alone or Butter alone.

Also, rebranding the lines a la Pastel is not going to help in a case like Red's because, while there are different lines of Pastel, if you have a SuperPastel from two different lines once you breed it out I can just about guarantee you cannot ID which babies carry the allele from a specific line.

Really, it is easier to just let people call them whatever they want to call them. Both Butter and Lesser have been around long enough that neither is worth more than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J880011

So I'm curious. Does a Butterxlesser bel run the same risks for bug eyes as a super lesser?

---

Yes, they do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asplundii

Also, rebranding the lines a la Pastel is not going to help in a case like Red's because, while there are different lines of Pastel, if you have a SuperPastel from two different lines once you breed it out I can just about guarantee you cannot ID which babies carry the allele from a specific line.

---

Alright, I'm kind of confused by this statement, I think we're on the same page with it, but something is being lost. What I was suggesting is a third generic term to incorporate offspring of exactly Red's situation. Leaving the two lines as distinct for those who would want them distinct, but as lines of the generic form. While the generic form would be for uncertain lineage.

If you breed 2 lines of Pastel together for a super, then that super pastel breeds and the offspring are unable to be identified as one line or the other, what you have as Pastels, the generic term.

Also, Platty is just me throwing that up against the wall, I even said the name would need to come from the community and was using that as an example (a personally liked one, but I'm not that attached to it)

Heres the thread mentioned above, it was a little experiment on this very topic: https://ball-pythons.net/forums/show...er+butter+vote

They are the same morph. Any "difference" people point out can be seen in any of the lines of butter or lesser. The reason for these differences is genes other than the lesser/butter gene. A combination of potentially hundreds of genes are responsible for the traits you see and call differences. The silvery sides, yellow/tan coloring, contrast, white outlines, ect. can either be in butter or lessers. We call these polygenetic traits. Its the same reason some pastels are bright yellow and others are brown.

while butter and lesser are considered same morph different line, there are separate lines of both butter and lesser themselves. The original lessers was made in 2001 from the first imported platty. The original butters were also made in 2001. This is the reason we had two different lines each having their own polygenetic traits that stuck with the morph until they were outcrossed enough to see they were the same. But then RDR imported another animal he called butter, as it looked like the original butters. Sean from EBN imported a lesser line, Noah used to sell an "african" line of lesser. I've heard that Kevin imported his line of lesser. So we have lines that also have their own lines. Fun stuff eh?

As for the naming changes, I highly doubt you would get this notoriously stubborn hobby to agree on something, I mean we still call them co-dom traits right? If we could merge them, I would say use the more common name, which I think lesser easily wins and if you feel you need to keep the line name in there, have it be something like Lesser (Butter line). Just like Pastel (Bell line). It wouldn't be the shock of a total rename and gives a default answer for when you have something like a butter lesser bel, just like when you have lemon/bell super pastels.

Which would be prefectly reasonable either way it goes. But, do we have any proof of lessers/butters being the same thing? And any proof of general consensus being they are the same?

While I've been on here for a long time and have seen it develop as such, I don't know of any polls or places where this information is proved out.

What's your qualification of proof? Honestly for me it was just looking at enough animals to see the "lesser traits" also showed up in butters and vise versa. As for general consensus, the previous posts on multiple forums and facebook are overwhelming in agreeance of it being the same.

Personally I like the name butter better. More food pun potential :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lizardlicks

Personally I like the name butter better. More food pun potential :D

---

LOL same, it kinda gives a nicer feeling than "lesser"! I honestly think it's part of what makes people say things like "I like butter better, because they look more buttery", because they like the word. Haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxylepy

But, do we have any proof of lessers/butters being the same thing? And any proof of general consensus being they are the same?

---

Absolutely! As has been pointed out over and over, besides normal variations within any of the same morph, they both look the same and do the same thing when added to any combo. I don't see how it gets any clearer that they're the same thing. It's not like someone looking at a mojave and a phantom and not being able to see a difference which isn't that drastic but we know a super Mojo and a super phantom look completely different.