The only thing that I am not especially comfortable with about the whole "25% Angolan 75% Ball" thing is the inherent implication that the genetic makeup is precisely defined.



Here is an example of one potential problem that I could see arising from this nomenclature:



Person X breeds an Angolan Python to a Ball Python and produces Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball).

Person Y breeds an Angolan Ball to a Ball Python and produces Angolan Balls (25% Angolan 75% Ball).

Person Z breeds an Angolan Ball to an Angolan Python and produces Angolan Balls (75% Angolan 25% Ball).

Person Y now takes one of their Angolan Balls (25% Angolan 75% Ball) and breeds it with one of person Z's Angolan Balls (75% Angolan 25% Ball). Since the average of 25 and 75 is 50, the Angolan Balls that person Y has just produced are now labelled "Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball)".

The potential problem as I see it, is that the Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball) just produced by person Y will in all likelihood look nothing like the Angolan Balls (50% Angolan 50% Ball) produced by person X.



In my opinion, labelling any hybrid with an artificial percentage ratio is heading off down the wrong path. It's really not a question of giving credit to this or any other project; it's more a question of adopting some form of naming convention that does not misrepresent the animals.



Personally, I can see problems looming no matter which approach is adopted. Assigning relatively meaningless species-specific percentage ratios to a hybrid is, in my opinion, misleading. On the other hand, contriving names that represent specific back cross breedings also leaves much to be desired.



Perhaps the simplest way to describe any of these hybrids would be something along the lines of...

Angolan Python x Ball Python = Angolan Ball

Angolan Ball x Ball Python = Angolan Ball (Ball heavy)

Angolan Ball x Angolan Python = Angolan Ball (Angolan heavy)

Any other breeding of any of these = Angolan Ball (unknown)

[ Show Entire Thread ]