Dodoma and Flame. Distinguished by the fact that they are a naturally occurring population that has little speckling as they age. I don't know of anyone that has tried to argue these as separate morphs. If there is an argument, it would probably just be that "Dodoma"s have a well documented history whereas "Flame" could be called such with a shakier history. I think that if someone were to make that argument, it would probably be grounded in a greed based attempt to sell a mix bred litter for more money.

High Orange as a morph is easily distinguished by the fact that the animals are either just the top of a litter or slightly bred to produce larger patches of orange. It's a name given to animals that don't stand out enough to have a real morph, but are felt to deserve a way to represent that they stand out compared to "pet store" quality specimen. This is one of the, if not the most, abused terms.

Nuclear is similar to Dodoma, except it is a naturally selected line, as opposed to a naturally isolated population caused by, well genetic isolation.

NuclearMeltdowns, I have no opinion yet as to if I recognize as a legitimate morph, partly because there was a lack of work (no offense to Chuck/SGR, who have obviously produced some of the most beautiful KSGs I've ever seen,) but mostly because we simply haven't seen how the genetics may pan out may generations down the line. Basically, whereas Nuclears and Dodomas will produce the same appearance time and again as long as they are left to randomly mate, NuclearMeltdowns may not. I'm guessing that time will show that they typically will, and that we can all recognize it as completely legit, but it will take time.

You can make an argument that there should only be two recognized morphs, with High Orange used to describe animals vastly different from the other three types. But it's an entirely semantic argument. Dodomas viewed as local or as a morph will retain the value as a locality based pheno and genotype. Nuclears will always be descendants of the line. In the pet trade, it's virtually pointless to try to argue with the general terms used. (Ex. the use of co-dom to describe traits that in no way resemble co-dominant traits)

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]