Quote Originally Posted by Herpquest View Post
Derek, you are quite right and I appologise for my comments. I am often quoted as having said this and that when the opposite is often the case.
People who 'really' kow me, know that I am not the person portrayed, and will help any-one who asks for or needs help.
Once again, please accept my appologies for my publlic outburst.
Eric Davies

Takes a honerable man to apologise . well done herpquest .

Quote Originally Posted by Bill Buchman View Post
However, I STRONGLY believe that more/different morph names is BETTER than lumping even remotely similar animals with NO GENETIC ties TOGETHER. Separation of lineage is BETTER. Allowing the viewing/buying public to decide which morphs they wish to support, and applaud -- is BETTER.

Differentiation, for lack of a better word, is GOOD. Differentiation is right. Differentiation works. Differentiation clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of proving and NAMING ball python morphs!!! Viva the DIFFERENCE!!!
I will have to say that i disagree with you mate . I think there are possibly too many names for morphs of which many might indeed be the very same morph . I would prefer to use a specific bloodline of a certain morph rather than a new name all together(even if it does point in someway to the original) . Say for example the albino boas have their lines names after the khal strain and the Sharp strain . So if these sulphur and ember and Fire are bred together and proven to be compatible then i would for one be happy to call them what they would be (Fires) and simply differentiate the lines by their owners or founders or even a specific breeders name . This way they can still be differentiated easily but it means we are all calling an 'apple' an apple if you get what i mean. Does anyone have fires and sulphurs that is willing to try the cross out ?