Beef about some morphs

Okay...I'm not big into morphs myself, but I'll admit there are some that look pretty cool and as long as there's no hybrids, more power to everyone that works morphs. But the appeal of some of these morphs are lost on me.

The first one is the woma ball. Honestly, the only beef I have about these guys is their name. I mean, there's already a woma python (completely different python species) and there are in existence, woma x ball hybrids (called "walls"). So...there has to be some confusion going around when someone refers to their "womas"; are they talking about a woma ball, or an actual woma? And likewise, when the name "woma ball" is mentioned, are they refering to a wall? I was just wondering what the thought process was behind the naming of the woma ball. IMHO, it looks nothing like a woma python. Does anyone else see this?

Second is that I know these morphs are dictating the ball python market and the industry in general, and thats great. BUt I think people are starting to split hairs when it comes to deciding these things. For instance, the yellow-belly, "russos" and the mojave balls; I've looked at these snakes and they look just like a normal ball to me minus a few minute subtle differences. And yet there's a difference of several hundreds of dollars in price. Am I missing something here? And the sable for example; its almost like someone was "well, this one's a little darker than the rest. Let's slap $500 on it."

Any thoughts?

OK I see your reasoning on the naming issue... As for the Yellow Belly, Russo's, and Mojaves... Yes the YB and Russo's can be vague but look what they produce when bred together....WHITE SNAKES
The Mojaves really do not look like a normal at all... and they produce WHITE SNAKES also when bred to each other or certain other WHITE SNAKE producing morphs.....

Well, yellowbellies are co-dom.. breed them together and you get an ivory ball.

Two mojaves make a blue-eyed leucistic, and two woma's make a pearl. that's part of the reason for the price. I personally think mojaves look nothing like a normal, and are one of the most lovely morphs. There are some not-so-pretty ones, but a really nice one is just gorgeous to me.

Some of the more 'bland' looking morphs can really shine when mixed into a pastel line.. or albino.

It's all about the Supers and the Combos they make...

I wish I knew what kind of normals your seeing that look like mojaves. Those things are soooo nice looking! ;)

According to Kevin (NERD) he named the Woma ball after the Woma python because he saw a resemblance in pattern. Grant it - a lot of the ones you see now days haven't held that awesome reduced pattern of the originals. When one refers to the Woma ball they are referring to the morph not the hybrid. A Wall is a Wall a Woma is a Woma.

Second it's not about the subtle differences - its in the genetic make up and potential that make the price tag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Okay...I'm not big into morphs myself, but I'll admit there are some that look pretty cool and as long as there's no hybrids, more power to everyone that works morphs. But the appeal of some of these morphs are lost on me.

The first one is the woma ball. Honestly, the only beef I have about these guys is their name. I mean, there's already a woma python (completely different python species) and there are in existence, woma x ball hybrids (called "walls"). So...there has to be some confusion going around when someone refers to their "womas"; are they talking about a woma ball, or an actual woma? And likewise, when the name "woma ball" is mentioned, are they refering to a wall? I was just wondering what the thought process was behind the naming of the woma ball. IMHO, it looks nothing like a woma python. Does anyone else see this?

Second is that I know these morphs are dictating the ball python market and the industry in general, and thats great. BUt I think people are starting to split hairs when it comes to deciding these things. For instance, the yellow-belly, "russos" and the mojave balls; I've looked at these snakes and they look just like a normal ball to me minus a few minute subtle differences. And yet there's a difference of several hundreds of dollars in price. Am I missing something here? And the sable for example; its almost like someone was "well, this one's a little darker than the rest. Let's slap $500 on it."

Any thoughts?

---

Yeah man, Cinnamons are the same way to me.. they may make something else though. The local pet store around me has one for $500, which I thought was a little high. And as I was walking out, the guy said he would do $400. I told him I wasn't looking, but I thought that was odd.

It's my new favorite pet store though.. the local ones seem to be better than the chains.

So instead of putting a fancy name on it, why not just call yellowbellies and russos "normal het. for ivory" if thats really all they're used for? I dunno...I guess if the snake has a fancy name, I expect it to look unique. If I walk up to a table, and see "het. ivory" I know actually what that means. If I just see "yellow-belly"...I don't know what that means, but I think I'm looking at a normal and wonder to myself "why is this so special?" But then I guess I'm not inside the BP morph circle to automatically know all that ahead of time.

This kinda stemmed from an experience several months ago when I went to a show. This one guy had a bunch of baby red-tail boas (not balls, mind you). Most were like $70-80ish, but this one had a $499 price label on it. It sure didn't look very special to me, so I asked him why it was so much higher. His reply was "I dunno...I just picked that one out of the bag and it didnt look like any other RTB I'd ever seen." Upon further inspection, the boa did kinda have a interesting pattern....but certainly not enough to warrant a $400 difference...especially if it wasn't proven to be genetic or anything.

I'm not saying all dealers and breeders are like that, and I guess the price is worth it based on their potential for other more awesome morphs. But I'm just waiting for someone to slap an extra $50 on a BP just because it has a micky mouse shape in its markings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skoalbasher

Yeah man, Cinnamons are the same way to me.. they may make something else though.

---

A super-cinnamon is a black snake, so yeah, they make something different. They also make for some pretty stellar combos because their floating pattern tends to dominate over other genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

So instead of putting a fancy name on it, why not just call yellowbellies and russos "normal het. for ivory" if thats really all they're used for?

---

The reason why is because the trait is a co-dominant, and therefore the trait is expressed in the phenotype in both the heterozygous and homozygous states (just like pastel, cinnamon, etc.) Although these morphs may look normal to the untrained eye, they can most definitely be discerned by looking at the animal if you know what to look for, unlike recessive traits such as piebald, clown or alibino which can only be proven through breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tosha_Mc

When one refers to the Woma ball they are referring to the morph not the hybrid. A Wall is a Wall a Woma is a Woma.

---

Okay, well Ive heard some folks simply use the word "woma" when they're actually referring to woma balls. Hence my confusion.


Ah well...I guess if I ever discover a new morph, I can name it whatever I want. Maybe I'll just call it a "green tree" ball python just for the heck of it.

This mojave really looks like a normal to you?

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9.../TheMurph6.jpg

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/Murphy18.jpg

Now there's a nice mojave! *drool*

I have to put a little plug in for my cinnamon too.. how many normal BPs have a neck stripe like this?

https://ball-pythons.net/gallery/fil...2/8/saigon.jpg

Here is a question for you first and foremost:

Have you seen any of these animals in person???

Okay...I'll let the mojaves slide. Guess I was looking at some pretty ugly ones. And as I already said, they're apparently worth it if they produce ivories. BUT....if all they produced were just more mojaves, then I probably would not pay $400 for one. I guess thats my point. I understand now its what they can produce is what dictates the price, not necessarily what they look like. Shows how little I know about BP morphs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

Here is a question for you first and foremost:

Have you seen any of these animals in person???

---

Never seen a sable in person, but the others I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Okay...I'll let the mojaves slide. Guess I was looking at some pretty ugly ones. And as I already said, they're apparently worth it if they produce ivories. BUT....if all they produced were just more mojaves, then I probably would not pay $400 for one. I guess thats my point. I understand now its what they can produce is what dictates the price, not necessarily what they look like. Shows how little I know about BP morphs.

---

Mojaves produce Blue Eyed Leucies.

Yellowbellies produce Ivories

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

if all they produced were just more mojaves, then I probably would not pay $400 for one.

---

That would depend on the market you are. I would buy "pronto" a mojave for usd400.
In Spain they cost around €800-1000, that´s around USD1300-1600. And, believe me, they´re sold without problems.

Quote:

---

Mojaves produce Blue Eyed Leucies.

Yellowbellies produce Ivories

---

Yes...I know that now. I was just saying that if that wasn't the case, and all yellowbellies produced were just yellowbellies, I probably wouldn't pay much more for them than I would a really pretty normal.

But yeah, JoMo made a good point about the market. But even then, it all boils down to what its worth to you personally and what your purposes are. Its only worth what you're willing to pay for it.

I have seen poor examples of Ybs but then I have seen some hotties that you just KNOW are not normal.

I don't know snake price tags have never bothered me...But then I think they are worth every penny. The combos are endless however a base looks just as good. IMO. Goodness I love Herps.

As for the names..I love them they are so creative and some are a bit humorous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

But yeah, JoMo made a good point about the market. But even then, it all boils down to what its worth to you personally and what your purposes are. Its only worth what you're willing to pay for it.

---

That´s the market law, isn´t it ?

What do you think of Spiders? They only produce spiders, no supers - but they are great in combos - so they also hold value as combo potential. Ever seen the Super Stripe? Got to have a yellow belly to make one. Ever seen the Crystal ball python? Got to have a mojave to make one.

Don't look at just the animal, but the potential and power behind that animal in combos as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Okay...I'll let the mojaves slide. Guess I was looking at some pretty ugly ones. And as I already said, they're apparently worth it if they produce ivories. BUT....if all they produced were just more mojaves, then I probably would not pay $400 for one. I guess thats my point. I understand now its what they can produce is what dictates the price, not necessarily what they look like. Shows how little I know about BP morphs.

---

Mojaves were going for $1500 + just two/three years ago, until MKR crashed the market on them - and people were happily paying that much for them.

Okay, okay...now you guys are starting to repeat yourselves. I was made aware by the first page of this thread that there's potential behind these morphs. I understand now...I have "seen the light". Please stop trying to convince me that yellow bellies and mojaves are Gods gift to ball pythons.

Quote:

---

Mojaves were going for $1500 + just two/three years ago, until MKR crashed the market on them - and people were happily paying that much for them.

---

Indeed. All I can say to that is it must be nice to be made of money.

Michael,

I've always been a big critic of the naming trends in ball pythons and I own all the morphs you mentioned, (except for the russo het BEL)

While a Yellow Belly may look a lot like a normal to many people they scream out "I'm AWESOME" to those of us who are bp fanatics.

It wouldn't be a good idea to call a mojave a het BEL simply because then we would lose all distinction between russos, butters, phantoms, lessers, mochas and mojaves... none of which look alike.

My biggest beef with morph name is not the names of the base morph but the names of the combos. I think its awesome to call a spider pastel a bumble bee but it has to stop somewhere! You can 't make up a new name for every new combo and it also makes it a LOT harder for the bp newbie to learn the combos.

I say call the combos by what they are. super pastel spider pied or whatever. Otherwise we'll all eventually require massive IQ's to breed morphs :)

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Yes...I know that now. I was just saying that if that wasn't the case, and all yellowbellies produced were just yellowbellies, I probably wouldn't pay much more for them than I would a really pretty normal.

But yeah, JoMo made a good point about the market. But even then, it all boils down to what its worth to you personally and what your purposes are. Its only worth what you're willing to pay for it.

---

Quote:

---

You can 't make up a new name for every new combo and it also makes it a LOT harder for the bp newbie to learn the combos.

---

Yeah I think thats where a lot of the frustration comes from. Newbies see the albinos and the leucies and the piebalds and get excited, and they look at yellow-bellies and such and think "whats so special about those?". Its just simply ignorance (like with me); they just don't know.

However, Nerd's site has proven fairly helpful in laying out most of these morphs and where they come from, etc.

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ner...ollection.html

Justin,I couldnt agreee more,call the morph what it is and not silly names that you need a degree to figure out.
Kevin
www.kmsreptiles.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkobylka

My biggest beef with morph name is not the names of the base morph but the names of the combos.

---

I agree with this 100%. I've been working on a piece of software for the last few weeks that does morph combination forecasting, and the combo morphs are a real PITA.

What's really bad are when there are 2-3 versions of a particular combo morph that were named differently by the producers, but are genetically indistinguishable.

I've found the bigger breeders have the contents of many of their older designer combos listed, which makes life a little easier, but without a central body defining each morph and combo, it's a crap-shoot as to whether or not you can reliably infer the contents of a particular animal given only it's combo name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Nerd's site has proven fairly helpful in laying out most of these morphs and where they come from

---

I agree to a point, but their combo maps are only based on their collection, which is somewhat limiting when another large breeder (ie. RDR) has the same genetic combination by another name.

I just received my YB from VPI last week and a Cinnamon from BHB today and while they are not "amazing crazy looking" they are much different from normals. You just need to put them all next to each other and you will see there is nothing normal about them. I think a lot of people see that they are not crazy colors and say they look normal. Pics tend to not do these morphs justice either. I got them for the supers they produce and with the pastel i'm getting i'll see pewters eventually:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkobylka

Michael,

I've always been a big critic of the naming trends in ball pythons and I own all the morphs you mentioned, (except for the russo het BEL)

While a Yellow Belly may look a lot like a normal to many people they scream out "I'm AWESOME" to those of us who are bp fanatics.

It wouldn't be a good idea to call a mojave a het BEL simply because then we would lose all distinction between russos, butters, phantoms, lessers, mochas and mojaves... none of which look alike.

My biggest beef with morph name is not the names of the base morph but the names of the combos. I think its awesome to call a spider pastel a bumble bee but it has to stop somewhere! You can 't make up a new name for every new combo and it also makes it a LOT harder for the bp newbie to learn the combos.

I say call the combos by what they are. super pastel spider pied or whatever. Otherwise we'll all eventually require massive IQ's to breed morphs :)

Justin

---

Justin,

This subject is something I have been struggling with on a number of different levels.

I have a new dominant morph I have proven(last fall) that is still under wraps. I am making 2-3 combos with him from known morphs this season. I also may hatch a new combo morph or two as well -- depending on hatch dates. What do I name them? Do I stick with the Pastel-Yellowbelly format or come up with a new cute, witty, insightful, original, etc...name. It is a little stressful trying to find a name in the color/food genres -- many are taken.

I have been thinking way outside the box in naming concept!!!! Nothing to do with colors, foods, insects, gemstones, or any other earth science. Something so out there that whether you thought loved the name, or thought absurd -- you would know "I" named it.

The "naming thing" should be discussed considering the number of new morphs coming in the next few years coupled with the many new people coming into the hobby/business. I would like to hear the opinions from new folks to veterans. Insights from those of you who have been around more than my 16 months in the hobby would certainly be of great value to me and maybe others?

Justin, you would be one of those people along with many others on this forum. As with many things ball python, there seems to be no clear answer to this one. It seems that whichever way you go someone will take issue or just plain will make the other valid choice. I guess a poll would give us some raw numbers, but would not allow for discourse. Ideas EVERYONE!!

my question on this thread is why if the mojo the butter and the lesser have the same identical type patterining why the diffrent names just because one is lighter then the other they all produce blue eyeds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Buchman

Justin,

This subject is something I have been struggling with on a number of different levels.

I have a new dominant morph I have proven(last fall) that is still under wraps. I am making 2-3 combos with him from known morphs this season. I also may hatch a new combo morph or two as well -- depending on hatch dates. What do I name them? Do I stick with the Pastel-Yellowbelly format or come up with a new cute, witty, insightful, original, etc...name. It is a little stressful trying to find a name in the color/food genres -- many are taken.

I have been thinking way outside the box in naming concept!!!! Nothing to do with colors, foods, insects, gemstones, or any other earth science. Something so out there that whether you thought loved the name, or thought absurd -- you would know "I" named it.

The "naming thing" should be discussed considering the number of new morphs coming in the next few years coupled with the many new people coming into the hobby/business. I would like to hear the opinions from new folks to veterans. Insights from those of you who have been around more than my 16 months in the hobby would certainly be of great value to me and maybe others?

Justin, you would be one of those people along with many others on this forum. As with many things ball python, there seems to be no clear answer to this one. It seems that whichever way you go someone will take issue or just plain will make the other valid choice. I guess a poll would give us some raw numbers, but would not allow for discourse. Ideas EVERYONE!!

---

I appreciate that you're taking the whole naming thing so responsibly. I also have the chance at a new combo this year so

I'm just going to call it what it is. (if I hit the LONG odds it would be the super pastel pied.) The only problem I have with that is that the next guy to produce one might go ahead and name it...

I like the fact that all the base morphs have cool names. I think that's awesome. The name should have some clue as so the look of the animal IMO. Most base morph names really do fit the animal they belong to. After the base morphs I've resolved to call things by their ingredients.

It would be really interesting to have a set naming system kind of like chemical compounds in chemistry or latin naming of medical stuff... but i don't want to ppl to have to take a college course in order to understand bp combos!!!!!

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty

my question on this thread is why if the mojo the butter and the lesser have the same identical type patterining why the diffrent names just because one is lighter then the other they all produce blue eyeds

---

Pattern is not identical. Mojaves have a very distinct pattern while lessers and butters vary. The lessers all come from Ralph Davis's original, so anything named lesser came from that line. Butters are from a different line but if anyone wanted to make the arguement that butters and lessers are the same they would have a good point.

mojaves though are very different, maybe not to the untrained eye but still they are. Even the BEL's they produce are different with coloration on the head.

The main thing is it has been proven that there are genetic differences that are reproduced in the offspring. In theory if you produced a BEL from a lesser/mojave and then bred that to a normal it would make lessers and mojaves. Just like a cinny and black pastel would do if you had a super of the two.

Ralph Davis also proved that a pied and lesser combo make a white snake but you wouldn't say they were the same because they also produce a white snake now would you.

The fact that they produce BEL's means they have genetic similarities but doesn't make them the same morph.

thank you for the clarification that was one thing that was bugging me i knew they were diffrent lines i dont know i guess i havent seen enough lessers or butters in person to really tell. but from what i seen that the vendors had of them they looked like mojos just a lot lighter in color

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

What do you think of Spiders? They only produce spiders, no supers - but they are great in combos - so they also hold value as combo potential. Ever seen the Super Stripe? Got to have a yellow belly to make one. Ever seen the Crystal ball python? Got to have a mojave to make one.

Don't look at just the animal, but the potential and power behind that animal in combos as well.

---

Just to clarify on the above bold statement. Brian (BHB) made a Crystal with a Lesser last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkobylka

I appreciate that you're taking the whole naming thing so responsibly. I also have the chance at a new combo this year so

I'm just going to call it what it is. (if I hit the LONG odds it would be the super pastel pied.) The only problem I have with that is that the next guy to produce one might go ahead and name it...

I like the fact that all the base morphs have cool names. I think that's awesome. The name should have some clue as so the look of the animal IMO. Most base morph names really do fit the animal they belong to. After the base morphs I've resolved to call things by their ingredients.

It would be really interesting to have a set naming system kind of like chemical compounds in chemistry or latin naming of medical stuff... but i don't want to ppl to have to take a college course in order to understand bp combos!!!!!

Justin

---

YES! Somebody makes it after the person who named said combo what it is --"Super Pastel Pied" -- Nice Justin!!! Hope you hit it. I digress. The second maker decides he wants more "BLING" attached to this new combo -- so he names it. And let's say most would agree it is a GREAT name. That is not the point!!!

If someone makes a combo from an ESTABLISHED LINE (captive-hatched and wild-caught are a completly different argument) of base morphs 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. -- he "should" follow suit and respect WHATEVER the primary-maker named it -- even if that name does not "float his boat".

With that in mind, I am not sure I will be able to show the resolve as you. I would rather a snake I produced carry my absurd name rather than take the chance that it will become known by someone else's absurd name! The possibility of someone naming something I, or anyone else, produced FIRST just "burns my butt". It is rude IMO.

For those of you who read this post and are thinking why is this guy getting his painties in a bunch over this naming thing -- just wait and see how many times this comes up this issue comes up in the next 2-3 years.

I think a rule book is in order. I've got it! A think-tank should be formed at Daytona this summer and this "name game" should be settled once and for all!!! LOL

Seriously, I'm with you Justin. Name combos according to what made them. But, if someone hits a combo and gives it a hideous/ridiculous/infantile name -- FOLLOW SUIT!

what if you have a super pastel, spider, albino, pied???:O

wouldnt you rather just call it a "super paspiedbino"?:D

Or how 'bout a "super alpastyspider pie?" See how ridiculous this can get?

Let's just mix all the morphs together and call them the "Ultimate Balls of Steel" or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigballs

what if you have a super pastel, spider, albino, pied???:O

wouldnt you rather just call it a "super paspiedbino"?:D

---

Don't you mean Super paspiedbinobee?
Probably I would go with pied killerbino bee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigballs

what if you have a super pastel, spider, albino, pied???:O

wouldnt you rather just call it a "super paspiedbino"?:D

---

Yes! Good One. I think that would be a more economical alternative which would still have a name based on the base morphs. You didn't name it -- let think... the "Terminator Cyborg Ball"!!!

I can't wait till someone hits the super form of the califragilisticespialidocous ball. :bow::bow::bow: :rofl::rofl:

Justin

Has anyone heard of the booger ball?

yea i have one now.....let me take care of that:D

i think its to do with laziness not calling the combo morphs by their full name....who wants to type out super pastel spider pied you can just say "killer spied"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Buchman

Yes! Good One. I think that would be a more economical alternative which would still have a name based on the base morphs. You didn't name it -- let think... the "Terminator Cyborg Ball"!!!

---

ok well since i produced it i was thinking we call it: the "darkside of the forceball"!

so in the future if anyone creates a super pastel, spider, albino, pied just remember it will be called the "darkside of the forceball".

unless you guys can come up with a better name to drive everyone crazy!

A few people have been breeding Mojaves x lessers and coming up with BEL's. I would consider them along the lines of pastel lines. Where there are exceptional mojaves and terrible lessers. Also with the crystal being produced with a lesser just adds more to the debate that they are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Has anyone heard of the booger ball?

---

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=110103

Basically, I call any Ball Python with two dots on the side of the nose a "Booger Ball".

It is not mainstream, nor is it proven.

It was a joke with a couple of my friends, and I stuck it to a couple of my babies. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brimstone111888

A few people have been breeding Mojaves x lessers and coming up with BEL's. I would consider them along the lines of pastel lines. Where there are exceptional mojaves and terrible lessers. Also with the crystal being produced with a lesser just adds more to the debate that they are the same.

---

you get what you pay for.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...s/IMGP2276.jpg

I would never consider that two morphs the same, I think butters look like lessers half the time, but never mojaves. People just want to say that theirs looks like a lesser, while in reality they do not. Ive seen one Lesser thats Pattern( and pattern only, colors were no where near) and it was super unreduced.