First let me say congratulations to you on the production of a Blizzard even if it was not viable. I was not aware this had happened or I would not have used the Blizzard as an example in my posts below. What did it look like?



We have shared many conversations on this kind of topic over the years and what we clearly agree on is a desire to have consistancy. My posts below were not about whether I like the name snowglow or not. Rather, they were about promoting a consistant approach to the naming of new morphs based on what I have been told over the years. I understand your point about the first person to make combination hets with a sentinel animal and that could be a consistant point that people could agree on.



Like you, I try to use genetic descriptions of what I offer for sale such as 50% Hogg island het for blood instead of het for X. The reason for this is consistancy and My belief that I don't have a right to name X unless I produce it.



I also agree that this does not need to be a divisive issue. Hopefully people can come to some basic agreement on the naming of new morphs. If Tracy has a set protocol that may be a good starting point. There will be many new combination morphs in the next few years and I think this is a good time for the boa community to address this issue.



As to what is a Type 2, especially if it is compatible with type, we will leave that for another day.



Good luck to you this year.



Bill

[ Show Entire Thread ]