Your position is a valid and arguable. However, I would submit that the heat which has been generated by the Fire/Sulfer conflict is a perfect example of why more is better.
Do we think that Mr. Davies is going to position himself to purport the Fire and Sulfer as the same morph -- I highly doubt it -- and I would SUPPORT his position.
I hesitate to discuss anyone elses project, so I'll use one of mine as an example. I proved an animal which I named Het Cajun. If I were to group it with an existing morph, the Het Red, Lori Ball, Black Lace are the 3 that come to mind -- there may be more. The captive hatched foundation female that produced for me last season has NO connection to the similar morphs mentioned.
Let's say also, for argument's sake, that my Het Cajun is a prettier base morph, makes a better super, and is FAR better in combos. Or the reverse all of that -- say any one of the others is clearly the best in all those important areas. Why would the breeder with the 'better" animal want to be linked in name with the others?
I believe, based on what I have observed, most ball python people don't seem to expend the energy needed when paying attention to lines of the same morph -- at least to the extent required to address the differentiation issue at hand.
More names makes sense because it is EASIER for most people in the hobby. I don't feel that compatibility necessarily makes morphs the same -- it just makes them compatible. But I could be mistaken...
Originally Posted by Bill Buchman
Your position is a valid and arguable. However, I would submit that the heat which has been generated by the Fire/Sulfer conflict is a perfect example of why more is better.
Reply With Quote