Can we as a reptile community stop using the terms "dwarf" and "super-dwarf" reticulated pythons altogether? Are these labels too misleading? Are they really just marketing labels designed to appeal to people looking for a smaller snake? After all, they are all still "reticulated pythons".

Pure "super-dwarf" forms may in fact exist, but they will only ever be normal/wild type localities. When we want to bring morphs into them, there will no longer be such thing as a "pure" super-dwarf or dwarf morph. Why? Because all retic morphs come from mainlands. Even, if at some point in the distant future we are able to cross mainland out, you will still need to start with a mainland whenever you want to bring a new morph into super dwarves. Sure, dwarves and super dwarves might have some unique lineages, but 80-90% of it is how much they are fed, which no one will tell you. Even in the wild, that is the main reason they are smaller in the first place. I would venture to bet that even a "pure" super dwarf can still get bigger than 6-7 feet if they are fed enough.

They may not quite be mainland sizes, but still a big snake with the potential to get 15+ft, especially if it has those morph genes in them. Personally, I would tell anyone wanting a snake in the 5 to 9 ft range to just go get a carpet python, a boa constrictor, or any number of other species for which we more reliably know how big they can potentially get. How about we just call retics by their localities, and get rid of the labels and percentages altogether. What are everyone's thoughts?