Not defending Dan, he did what he did. But your post brings up a point, that needs questioning.
This morph naming is like naming a inch section of water in a stream. The next day, that section is gone. When working with non recessive genes. its a constant flow. So the characters you use, are obsolete quickly.
As these animals are inbred over and over. Then new genes added(outbred) the base genetics is constantly being changed.
At this point, the super is what deserves a name. As its end result of the conda gene, only the conda name does not fit.
Years ago, the traits for Anaconda, were accurate. As they are what occurred then. Now, its changed or polluted(not in a bad way) and there are many other variations or key indicators.
Dans test, was a good test. Non white sided(normal bellied) low expression condas, produced what looks like a super. The test should be, do it again. To go back to some archaic test. is not the test of a conda, to produce super condas is? Super condas is the morph, not low expression.
You simply should not go on and on, with what occurs in the middle.
Again, the original condas, were low expression. They were not the end product of that gene. The supers are the end product.(as far as I know) You folks proved that. So its time to move on to correct naming. The name conda, fits low expression but not supers. That is the reality. Ask the originator to make up a new name.

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