In the previous post that was deleted I posted some things and Michael Burton requested that I re-post some of the things that I said. Here is a piece of one of those threads where I was discussing the difference between having the right to name a dead neonate that represents something known and intentional vs. the right to name any strange looking neonate that happens to be dead...

Lets say, for example, that you breed two seemingly NORMAL boas together and have a premature or stillborn litter that yields a few "oddities." You can feel free to draw some theories about what happened with the litter. Maybe the parents were "Hets" (happened with the Scoria Boa) or maybe the odditiy is a spontaneous mutation (happened with the Arabesque). But these are only theories until it is done again, alive or dead. At this point it can't be expected to carry a permanent name because it hasn't been PROVEN. Let's say that you did a second breeding and again, bad luck struck and the litter was born premature or the baby was rolled on and crushed (which happens) can you name the mutation at this point? The animal has been produced on numerous occasions thus proving that it is an inheritable trait. Just because it isn't alive doesn't mean that it never existed.

In this case there is a dead neonate that was the direct result of an intentional breeding project that consisted of Hypomelanism, Anerythrism and Amelanism (Kahl Strain) which yielded a specimen (alive or dead) that was an acutual representation of all three genes. This was an EXPECTED result. Not a fluke.

The dead Hypo Anery Kahl Strain Albino EXISTED 4 days before the other.

This has been an interesting and enlightening chain of events. If you have something special dead or alive... CLAIM IT or LOSE IT!

I also gave examples of 2 Ball Python mutations the Pearl (Super Woma) and the Power (Super Spotnose) which both perished after birth for various reasons. I stated that no one would have the right to re-name these mutations if they produced an animal that lived longer.

After weighing the facts, I still agree that Justin has the right to the naming since he did produce the mutation FIRST. It seems that he has tried to contact Mark about the name and chain of events so we will just have to wait and see what is decided. Will they both pick? Will one give the other the right? Time will tell. Ultimately the market place will decide.

I think it is time we cross our arms and wait for a resolution. Celia re-posted the pictures and I re-posted this at someone else's request. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse.

Thank you,
-----
Sean Bradley
Owner : EbN
www.ExoticsByNature.com
www.BallPythonMorphs.com
www.BoaConstrictorMorphs.com
www.CornSnakeMorphs.com

[ Show Entire Thread ]