Posted by:
kirby
at Sun Apr 9 21:46:05 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by kirby ]
The point you are missing is that the person who makes the hets doesn't have the right to name the morph. Yes Jeremy would be out of luck. He came up with a name for marketing and because he resonably assumed since he produced the first dhets that he would likely produce the first visual morph. If someone else produced the snow with the type 2 anery they could call it anything they want. A different name would not change the genetics of the double hets. Furthermore, since no one has produced a blizzard yet any new morph could be named a Blizzard; note I am not advocating this but it is a usefull example.
Following your line of reasoning Frank should be able to name the hypo snow because he made the triple het that was critical to the production of the animal. Or anyone else who made triple hets in 03 or 04. This is the problem with having people who produce the hets name the morph.
The triple hets made a hypo snow. They didn't make a snowglow. The snowglow only exists if and when the first person who produces the animal names the morph that; until then it is only an idea. Again using the Blizzard example those dhets are only double het for Blizzard if the visual morph is produced and it is named a Blizzard. What if those dhets never produce a snow(Blizzard)? Are they still dhet for Blizzard?
There could only be a consensus about the name if the people who could produce the morph first all agreed to use a given name once the first visual morph was produced. Obviously that was not the case here. Neither Justin or Marc or anyone else was under any obligation to name the visual morph a snowglow.
Bill Kirby
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: I totally disagree - kirby, Sun Apr 9 21:46:05 2006