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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerhart

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

Fires are het for black eyed leucistic.

---

Gotchya! Thanks! :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

Fires are het for black eyed leucistic.

---

Are sulfurs as well?

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

Are sulfurs as well?

JonV

---

Yes

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nevohraalnavnoj

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.

Well, start breeding some fires to mojaves and mojave YBs to see if fires can make those crazy red, super stripe looking snakes, or a BEL with khaki patches. If they can, I'm getting a fire for sure :gj: If they can't, I'll be paying the extra for a sulfur or sulfurxYB.

First of all, Sulfurs are not more expensive than Fires. Secondly, Sulfur:Fire is the same as Black Pastel:Cinnamon. Black Pastels and Cinnamons produce the same Super, so why should one be named different or priced different? Orange Hypos and Butterscotch Hypos are compatible, so shouldn't they be called the same thing and sold for the same price?

My point in the above, is that the original Sulfur female did not come from a Fire line, and therefore were given a different name to distinguish them from the Eric Davies "Fire" line. They are most probably the same morph, but come from two distinct lines. Noone can say they are the same morph until the are proven compatible, which has yet to be done. Just as another poster said a bit ago, VPI/TSK/Jolliff Axanthics are not the same morph, because there genes are not on the same chromosone, even though they have very similar appearances.

I hope that helps to explain things somewhat,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

Well, start breeding some fires to mojaves and mojave YBs to see if fires can make those crazy red, super stripe looking snakes, or a BEL with khaki patches. If they can, I'm getting a fire for sure :gj: If they can't, I'll be paying the extra for a sulfur or sulfurxYB.

---

The sulfurs did not make blue eyed lucys. It made a normal black eyed lucy. A lot of black eyed lucys have the patches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

First of all, Sulfurs are not more expensive than Fires. Secondly, Sulfur:Fire is the same as Black Pastel:Cinnamon. Black Pastels and Cinnamons produce the same Super, so why should one be named different or priced different? Orange Hypos and Butterscotch Hypos are compatible, so shouldn't they be called the same thing and sold for the same price?

My point in the above, is that the original Sulfur female did not come from a Fire line, and therefore were given a different name to distinguish them from the Eric Davies "Fire" line. They are most probably the same morph, but come from two distinct lines. Noone can say they are the same morph until the are proven compatible, which has yet to be done. Just as another poster said a bit ago, VPI/TSK/Jolliff Axanthics are not the same morph, because there genes are not on the same chromosone, even though they have very similar appearances.

I hope that helps to explain things somewhat,

---

The VPI / TSK / Jolliff Axanthics are all axanthics, but are distinguishably different. Are the fires and sulfurs, super forms, or crosses distinguishably different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

The VPI / TSK / Jolliff Axanthics are all axanthics, but are distinguishably different. Are the fires and sulfurs, super forms, or crosses distinguishably different?

---

What is so distinguishable about the different Axanthic lines. I have seen plenty of baby Axanthics that you could not tell apart if you weren't told what line they were.

As for Sulfurs and Fires, I do find them different at birth. From what I have seen, Sulfurs start out a bit more drab and get lighter with age. The Fires start out pretty bright or light colored, and tend to retain their color as they age. As for the Supers, no there is not much difference, but the difference between a Super Lesser and a Mojave Lesser Leucy is almost unnoticeable, and sometime completely undistinguishable.

I agree with Tim, I think Fire's are different from sulphurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

What is so distinguishable about the different Axanthic lines. I have seen plenty of baby Axanthics that you could not tell apart if you weren't told what line they were.

---

I was referring to them into adulthood. VPI's hold their color much better, then SK, then Jolliff.

And thanks, I did not know that about sulfurs / fires. If they hatch out distinguishably different, then I agree they are two different lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

I was referring to them into adulthood. VPI's hold their color much better, then SK, then Jolliff.

And thanks, I did not know that about sulfurs / fires. If they hatch out distinguishably different, then I agree they are two different lines.

---

Eddie,
While I cannot claim to have any other line of Axanthics other than VPI, I can say that of the 4 adult female VPI Axanthics and 2 adult male VPI Axanthics that I have, there is quite a bit of variability. So, I personally would not claim that adult Axanthics are all that differnet. I have also seen a few very nicely colored adult TSK Axanthics.

Now if we are not talking definitives, and are making generalizations, then I agree, VPI Axanthics are typically better looking adults.

A few answers for you. Sulfurs are not more expensive than Fires and I don't think they ever have been. Can you tell me one codom trait that was not named and sold before a Super was produced? Most were named before ever being proven genetic. I originally was telling people these were similar to fires but took some heat for it, so a name was given to them. I tell everyone they are more than likely a new line of fire and the supers appear to be identical. Sure since now we've seen the super they can probably be called fires. But I'd be willing to bet there would be more threads like this saying you can't call them fires because you haven't bred them with an original line fire. I personally won't be doing that breeding because I don't own any Davies line fires. Also, are you aware there are other lines of codom hypos with a black eyed lucy super and they are not called fires?

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Sandoval

Also, are you aware there are other lines of codom hypos with a black eyed lucy super and they are not called fires?

Eric

---

No, I was not aware of that. What are they called?

Amir calls his the Flame Hypo and I believe there is another line out there but off the top of my head can't think of it. Too many morphs and names to keep up with:)

Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Sandoval

Amir calls his the Flame Hypo and I believe there is another line out there but off the top of my head can't think of it. Too many morphs and names to keep up with:)

Eric

---

I have never heard of that. I hear ya about too many names. I am always amazed with the new morphs coming out. I really like the sulfurs. I love the black eyed lucys, especially the ones with the blotches. They also make really awesome combos.

I will most likely be giving you a call next season to pick up a pair of sulfurs. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

The sulfurs did not make blue eyed lucys. It made a normal black eyed lucy. A lot of black eyed lucys have the patches.

---

I meant black eyed lucy when I typed that. I don't know why I abreviated it BEL. I didn't know super fires made white snakes with patches. I haven't seen very many black EL. I'm still interested to see if the Davies line makes mojo x yb x fire combos that look like the sulfur combo. That's one badass snake.

The super fire also produces patches in the yellow sections. Fire mojaves and yellowbelly's have also been produced and look the same. I personally do not know the difference in price between the two. As far as different lines the animal should still be the same mutation for namesake. Cinnamons and Black Pastels are vastly different in appearance and the combo morphs as well as super forms are different looking snakes. Much more so than the Fire/Sulfur. This is not only about the fire/sulfur as well Tim. I would like breeders to be more honest to people who may not know the difference between the animals. I guess my point is why keep making the mutations more confusing with Sulfurs, Goblins, Flame Hypo's and whatever special "Lines" may exist? If you line has to be special throw your name on it for easier identification Ie: Envy's Line Fire. And let's say my line fire does prove unique in the long run I can then appropriate name it as a new mutation and anyone who purchased a Envy line fire knows they have this new mutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I'm still interested to see if the Davies line makes mojo x yb x fire combos that look like the sulfur combo. That's one badass snake.

---

I don't think I have seen that one. I bet it is HOT!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

I don't think I have seen that one. I bet it is HOT!!

---

Pics were released on this morph on kingsnake. A few have been produced and for some reason some breeders did not want their pics released. I will have some Fire/Sulfur Mojaves this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

I would like breeders to be more honest to people who may not know the difference between the animals.

---

This is assuming that the breeder is dishonest. I am sure most breeders would not have any qualms about explaining this to the prospective buyer if the buyer asks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

This is assuming that the breeder is dishonest. I am sure most breeders would not have any qualms about explaining this to the prospective buyer if the buyer asks.

---

True, one point of view that has been mentioned many times is using special names to make said animal more attractive and special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

First of all, Sulfurs are not more expensive than Fires. Secondly, Sulfur:Fire is the same as Black Pastel:Cinnamon. Black Pastels and Cinnamons produce the same Super, so why should one be named different or priced different? Orange Hypos and Butterscotch Hypos are compatible, so shouldn't they be called the same thing and sold for the same price?
My point in the above, is that the original Sulfur female did not come from a Fire line, and therefore were given a different name to distinguish them from the Eric Davies "Fire" line. They are most probably the same morph, but come from two distinct lines. Noone can say they are the same morph until the are proven compatible, which has yet to be done. Just as another poster said a bit ago, VPI/TSK/Jolliff Axanthics are not the same morph, because there genes are not on the same chromosone, even though they have very similar appearances.

---

Not to get off topic here, but along the lines of what Tim is saying.......it might be prudent not to consolidate but to keep the sulfur and fire name tags.

Years ago I thought that black pastels should just be called cinnys so that we could keep things from getting confusing.
Now, especially after seeing many cinnys, black pastels, and crosses in person, I think it is a good thing that the different name tags stuck. To me, even though they look similar, some pewters made with a black pastel look distinctly different than pewters made with a cinny. IMO more work needs to be done with these two morphs and ALL the white snake combos to figure out exactly how things work......things may not be as simple as they appear right now.
As Tim mentioned, first fires and sulfurs have to be bred together to be proven compatible (which in my mind will happen but I have been wrong about plenty of things :oops: ). Then those "homozygous" animals need to be bred to normals to see what is produced.......then we will start to get some answers.
What if fires and sulfurs end up being alleles rather than two lines of the same exact mutation?

Just food for thought......

Awesome thread guys and very interesting stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Compel

Not to get off topic here, but along the lines of what Tim is saying.......it might be prudent not to consolidate but to keep the sulfur and fire name tags.

Years ago I thought that black pastels should just be called cinnys so that we could keep things from getting confusing.
Now, especially after seeing many cinnys, black pastels, and crosses in person, I think it is a good thing that the different name tags stuck. To me, even though they look similar, some pewters made with a black pastel look distinctly different than pewters made with a cinny. IMO more work needs to be done with these two morphs and ALL the white snake combos to figure out exactly how things work......things may not be as simple as they appear right now.
As Tim mentioned, first fires and sulfurs have to be bred together to be proven compatible (which in my mind will happen but I have been wrong about plenty of things :oops: ). Then those "homozygous" animals need to be bred to normals to see what is produced.......then we will start to get some answers.
What if fires and sulfurs end up being alleles rather than two lines of the same exact mutation?

Just food for thought......

---

Joe,

Spot on! This is how I view the situation as well. Unfortunately the original breeder let the project leak before any of this had been done. I feel it is ethical to refer to this as a fire from both the sulfur and Flame Hypo standpoint! At this point in time everything is the same. I believe the Flame Hypo has been bred with the Davies fire. When we can prove that the sulfur is indeed it's own mutation or an allele of the fire we then can add extra tags to the baggage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wh00h0069

I don't think I have seen that one. I bet it is HOT!!

---

Here is the thread with pictures: http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...799#post902799

I don't know if this breeding has been done with the fire line, but since I can't afford a spector to make super stripes, I'm planning to get a sulfur to try for this 3 way combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

I guess my point is why keep making the mutations more confusing with Sulfurs, Goblins, Flame Hypo's and whatever special "Lines" may exist? If you line has to be special throw your name on it for easier identification Ie: Envy's Line Fire. And let's say my line fire does prove unique in the long run I can then appropriate name it as a new mutation and anyone who purchased a Envy line fire knows they have this new mutation.

---

I have to agree.....it is getting confusing. While the unique names for similar looking animals may help sort stuff out when breedings don't turn out as expected, I can't imagine what it will be like four or five years from now with the way we are currently naming things.

If I am not mistaken, Dave and Tracy group some morphs into "complexes" in their book.....I just gave myself ANOTHER reason to look at that book again;)
It is a good idea that may help streamline or organize things.

Eric's has really produced some of my favorite animals right there in that thread! I love the Black eye's and how well the mojave mixes as well.

Joe,

Im not sure exactly which complex's they have listed but it's interesting. The BEL complex is still the biggest if im not mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

Joe,

Spot on! This is how I view the situation as well. Unfortunately the original breeder let the project leak before any of this had been done. I feel it is ethical to refer to this as a fire from both the sulfur and Flame Hypo standpoint! At this point in time everything is the same. I believe the Flame Hypo has been bred with the Davies fire. When we can prove that the sulfur is indeed it's own mutation or an allele of the fire we then can add extra tags to the baggage.

---

Lol....I think you misunderstood what i meant. I don't see it as you do....I think the "extra tags" should stay right where they are until the morphs are proven to be compatible. The different names might actually have some merit. Maybe they are just very similar but will manifest themselves differently in crosses. If that is the case, then the different name tags will prove to be useful.

At this point, I do assume that the fire and sulfur are the same (the super forms look similar to me) but that is just my opinion......and my opinion doesn't really mean much until someone does the homework. It is just my opinion....not fact.

For what it is worth, I appreciate it when a breeder runs a project through the ringer to figure out all the twists and turns. But I can't fault a breeder for letting some snakes out before all questions are answered.......sometimes it just comes down to available space.....sometimes it comes down to time.....sometimes it comes down to money.

The original Sulfur female does not look like an adult Fire. Eric and I have had a recent discussion about it, and two options seem to be feasable. One, my female Sulfur could be the oldest het Black Eyed Lucy in existance, and maybe they all end up looking like her, when they get her age....she could be almost 20 years old. Second, she could have a hidden gene of some type. No Sulfur to original Sulfur breeding has been done yet.

The Sulfur story is already on a thread on BP-Net somewhere, so I am not going to go into it again.

I do not think the Sulfurs are more expensive than Fires?

If you do not like the name, feel free not to buy a Sulfur, or buy one, and change the name to Fire, once you receive it:) With me, it was not an ego thing, naming it...it was a convinient thing, for the simple fact that I proved out two similar looking females in 2005, and got tired of not knowing which project people were emailing me about. There is alot more too the story, the reasoning behind the naming, and there is alot of False or just misinformed information floating around...If you have a question, feel free to post it, one at a time, and I will answer it to the best of my ability.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Compel

Lol....I think you misunderstood what i meant. I don't see it as you do....I think the "extra tags" should stay right where they are until the morphs are proven to be compatible. The different names might actually have some merit. Maybe they are just very similar but will manifest themselves differently in crosses. If that is the case, then the different name tags will prove to be useful.

At this point, I do assume that the fire and sulfur are the same (the super forms look similar to me) but that is just my opinion......and my opinion doesn't really mean much until someone does the homework. It is just my opinion....not fact.

For what it is worth, I appreciate it when a breeder runs a project through the ringer to figure out all the twists and turns. But I can't fault a breeder for letting some snakes out before all questions are answered.......sometimes it just comes down to available space.....sometimes it comes down to time.....sometimes it comes down to money.

---

In my opinion it is easier to add additional information on a morph at any point in time than it is to take it away. For example: If a potential buyer were to buy a "Sulfur" from me and it then proved out to be the same as a fire, technically they would not get the actual animal they purchased! I try to think of things from multiple perspectives.

I personally would not be able to sell a sulfur if I had them as it's own morph only because it has not been PROVEN. Davies has done the work and proven his line. He held back the animals and made sure they were a new morph. Again I would love to be the person with the a unique looking snake that may be a mutation. I would PROVE said snake to be unique in some sort of factor before actually applying a name and selling the animal.

As breeder, it is our job to do these? things if we want to avoid this cluster! When I sell an animal it 100% has to be proven to be what I call it. That's just how I feel. On the reverse if we apply these tags and new names to unproven animals and flood them on the market what are we achieving but self gain? We get credibility for the morph and initial market exclusivity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmberBall

The original Sulfur female does not look like an adult Fire. Eric and I have had a recent discussion about it, and two options seem to be feasable. One, my female Sulfur could be the oldest het Black Eyed Lucy in existance, and maybe they all end up looking like her, when they get her age....she could be almost 20 years old. Second, she could have a hidden gene of some type. No Sulfur to original Sulfur breeding has been done yet.

---

Hey Dave,
Did the founding female kind of look like what used to be called a burgundy? If remember the correct girl.......she was pretty.

Hidden genes????? AAAHHHHH.......that would be a reason to distinguish fires from sulfurs....

Big congrats to you and Eric by the way.....awesome snakes.

I understand whats being said and agree to an extent but I will never have either so I don't care lol. On the serious side though I do agree that sulphers and fires are probably the same thing just diffrerent lines thats all someone needs to breed a fire and sulpher and see if they are compatible. that would help prove your argument but not entirely example being the lesser and mojo lesser x lesser = bel, lesser x mojo = bel

ok heres my shot, so i belive the fire and sulfer are just like a cinnamon and black pastel, they look basiclly the same with minor differences but noticeable at the same time, they both make basically the same super. yet when breed to other morphs you can also see the difference, like a black pewter and cinamon pewter look different, just the same as a sulpher pastel and fire pastel look differnt, i personaly like the fire pastel better just like i like the cinnamon pewter better too. so diffrerent morphs but close to the same results, i think it really comes down to what people perfer when it comes to other morph crosses with the fire and sulpher, i perfer the fire and the cinnamon crosses , get it

and i dont know if most you know but sulfers have been around for some time know Exoticsbynature for example have had them for years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmberBall

The original Sulfur female does not look like an adult Fire. Eric and I have had a recent discussion about it, and two options seem to be feasable. One, my female Sulfur could be the oldest het Black Eyed Lucy in existance, and maybe they all end up looking like her, when they get her age....she could be almost 20 years old. Second, she could have a hidden gene of some type. No Sulfur to original Sulfur breeding has been done yet.

The Sulfur story is already on a thread on BP-Net somewhere, so I am not going to go into it again.

I do not think the Sulfurs are more expensive than Fires?

If you do not like the name, feel free not to buy a Sulfur, or buy one, and change the name to Fire, once you receive it:) With me, it was not an ego thing, naming it...it was a convinient thing, for the simple fact that I proved out two similar looking females in 2005, and got tired of not knowing which project people were emailing me about. There is alot more too the story, the reasoning behind the naming, and there is alot of False or just misinformed information floating around...If you have a question, feel free to post it, one at a time, and I will answer it to the best of my ability.

Dave

---

Hi Dave,

I appreciate you coming into this thread to provide your knowledge on the issue. It is possible your original Sulfur is a fire. If she is that old I am sure she looks much different that any other fire they are always changing as they age. She may also be a fire hiding some special gene as you mentioned.

Was there any reason you did not try to prove the gene out? I know that things in this hobby do get confusing which is my point to this thread! False information just hurts the whole hobby, Why not try to eliminate this information out of the gate?

If we could trim out the additional names for morphs that have not yet been proven and earned to have their additional names we could keep things more organized. Once a unproven snake becomes proven it becomes it's own new mutation.

It's the same elsewhere. If I receive an apple I phone stripped of it's logos and added my own logo's does that make it my product? NO! It may not even be a legitimate I Phone. However if I took it to the apple store and spent the extra time I would know exactly what I had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe_Compel

Hey Dave,
Did the founding female kind of look like what used to be called a burgundy? If remember the correct girl.......she was pretty.

Hidden genes????? AAAHHHHH.......that would be a reason to distinguish fires from sulfurs....

Big congrats to you and Eric by the way.....awesome snakes.

---

Hidden genes would not exactly make it a different morph. It would have to be proven again. Nerd has womas that have hidden gene's when bred to lessers however they are still womas. IE; Sulfur's could possibly fires with a little something extra, but that still makes them fires. I believe that Ember should have went with a tag such as. Ember Fire or the Ember Fire Line.

I think naming it a sulpher from the begining was the right thing. They are different lines with different looks and untill they have even been proven compatable one must consider that they may not.

It may come down to the butter lesser thing. They are different lines of a similar morph and the different names tell you what the lineage is.
All lessers come from Ralphs line and butters are different lines. Ralph himself owns both and feels that way.

All sulphurs come from Davids original animal and are a different lineage than fires, even if they are proven compatable they still come from different genetic lines which i think is helpful when discussing genetics. I have seen both and to me fires start off and stay lighter than sulphurs.

I like knowing as much as I can about genetics and lines so I can pass on the most accurate info to anyone inquiring about an animal I am working with.

Thats my take on it.

agreed, like i said black pastel and cinnamon pastel same but different

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

I think naming it a sulpher from the begining was the right thing. They are different lines with different looks and untill they have even been proven compatable one must consider that they may not.

It may come down to the butter lesser thing. They are different lines of a similar morph and the different names tell you what the lineage is.
All lessers come from Ralphs line and butters are different lines. Ralph himself owns both and feels that way.

All sulphurs come from Davids original animal and are a different lineage than fires, even if they are proven compatable they still come from different genetic lines which i think is helpful when discussing genetics. I have seen both and to me fires start off and stay lighter than sulphurs.

I like knowing as much as I can about genetics and lines so I can pass on the most accurate info to anyone inquiring about an animal I am working with.

Thats my take on it.

---

Fires are variable. Each Fire looks different in shade and pattern. I have done alot of research on fires and received information from Davies including pictures that show color changes in continued breeding. The fact that they may be different lines makes them no different. They are still the same morph.

With what some breeders have said in this thread it would be okay for me to get a imported animal lets say a wide pattern Mojave that has very high blushing. Upon getting this new lineage animal from Africa I can call it the purple dragon! And anyone who sees the new purple dragon is now being misled (intentional or unintentional) because I didn't PROVE it to be different.

I just don't see how anyone can be okay with saying hey it looks different so I believe it is different. Also on the topic of super cinny's and black pastels. They are different not only by lineage but by mutation characteristics. Cinny's produce different colors and their pattern is often more circular.

If we want to argue that davies fires and Ember's sulfurs are different lines we would actually need to do blood tests to determine this how would anyone possibly know without it.

I think they should be called sulfurs as well. With all the ball python mutations out there, nothing is really going to make the names any easier for you. Plus it might not prove to be compatible with the Davies line fires, then we would just have another 1.000 threads questioning compatibility like we saw with the enchi pastels, axanthic lines and ghost lines. I think it's clearer and easier to remember that mojaves, lessers, butters and het Vin Russos are all compatible for the BEL complex, compared to all the different lines of hypos that for the longest time, seemed like everything you heard contradicted the last thing that was said about the hypo lines' compatibility. My point is, I think everyone who proves out a project should not assume it will be compatible with anything else, and should name it whatever he wants. Even if it does prove to be compatible it still won't be any easier to remember since we already have things that have the same or similar names that aren't compatible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by envy_ld50

Fires are variable. Each Fire looks different in shade and pattern. I have done alot of research on fires and received information from Davies including pictures that show color changes in continued breeding. The fact that they may be different lines makes them no different. They are still the same morph.

With what some breeders have said in this thread it would be okay for me to get a imported animal lets say a wide pattern Mojave that has very high blushing. Upon getting this new lineage animal from Africa I can call it the purple dragon! And anyone who sees the new purple dragon is now being misled (intentional or unintentional) because I didn't PROVE it to be different.

I just don't see how anyone can be okay with saying hey it looks different so I believe it is different. Also on the topic of super cinny's and black pastels. They are different not only by lineage but by mutation characteristics. Cinny's produce different colors and their pattern is often more circular.

If we want to argue that davies fires and Ember's sulfurs are different lines we would actually need to do blood tests to determine this how would anyone possibly know without it.

---

How would that be misleading? If you import a snake that proves genetic, name it the purple dragon, and sell them all day long. I'd be interested in a new line of BEL complex snake like that.

blood test! sense when did we need that to determine genetics of ball python morphs, i dont think comparing fires and sulfers to cinnamons and blacks is to far off. like i said they also have differnt looks just like the cinny and black and there combos are different looking to, but still have the same super;)