Quote Originally Posted by PythonWallace View Post
This is a little off topic, but it seems counter productive, or bad marketing to name an incompatible, and different mutation altogether, a different line of an existing morph. If a buyer is looking for a recessive animal that will clean up a project, they have to go with a hypo or ghost. But since most hypos are compatible, and blue and greens are only compatible with themselves, most people will go with compatible lines to be safe. But if the incompatible lines were given different names altogether, like a spirit ball or something, that would offer an entire new morph option, and more people would probably decide to go with the rarer spirit ball than to decide on an incompatible line of the hypo phenotype. Or maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.
that would mean (sticking with the VPI/TSK axanthic thing) that when they both proved (phenotypically) to produce the same look (an axanthic appearing animal) both breeders should ahve tested their compatibility with each other to prove they were the same genotypically speaking then argued over who gets to call thier axanthic and who doesn't.


It just means there are multiple "lack yellow pigment" switches in ball pythons. both are phenotypically axanthic (just as green ghosts are phenotypically hypo). no line has more right to use the word "axanthic" than the other. Buyer beware, do your research, know what you're buying.