Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I don't there was any doubt what the snake would be called until someone started this controversy by asking what the new morph would be called. Even Mark called them snowglows as can be seen in this post in December...

"Well I really have to say thanks to Ryan for the trade/sale we did. He got an excellent animal and so did I which works for us both. I want to say before anyone looks at the pics that I strongly recommend proper quarentine for all animals coming into your collection. Now with that said, I will say I was unable to follow those precautions in this situation, however, I did thoroughly inspect the new animal before placing it with mine, and it was also recently quarentined at Ryans and I trust his setup. This female Orangasm Double het snow had been with my male Coral Sunglow up until I replaced him with this male Orangasm Triple het for SnowGlow. Well as soon as i put this male in she started to ovulate, so I hope she sheds soon and gives me a due date "
-----
Davey Giltner

I produced a small litter of triple hets in 03 and my son, who passed away that year, said he thought the snakes should be named Avalanche boas. If I had produced first that is what it would be. I know other breeders who also may produce the hypo snow this year who did not intend to call it a snowglow.
Bill Kirby

Which brings up another point...
What you produced were tripple hets for avalanch. If you then sold them as triple het for avalanch, and someone produced hypo snows with them, wouldn't those be called avalanch?
I am pretty sure (based on Mark calling his triple het a het snowglow) that they were probably sold as such.You can't go changing the name of a line just because ownership changes."Oh this isn't a lipstick sunglow anymore, its a lolipop". He had a triple het snowglow, and didn't get the new snowglow, but produced a new moonglow?
-----
Davey Giltner

It is already an accepted name.....The SnowGlow....and in reality when talking about triple hets that is what seems to roll off your tongue...lol...
....
I think what concerns me the most is the FACT that Justin did produce the FIRST hypo snow!!!!
...
I think the name should go to Justin....and although I really don't know what he would want to name it...he should be able to choose the name.
....
So hopfully everyone will agree that Justin gets to name the new hypo snow and Mark gets to keep and breed the new live one!!!
....
Sounds like a win..win situation for everyone!

...

Hope this helps, Andy Federico

.....................
-----

I have no problem with him calling them moonglow line snowglows.That would differentiate between the line the same as any pastel line is labeled differntly but in the end they are all pastels. However, many moons ago snowglow was accepted. I saw a few triple het snowglows for sale, and you can't tell someone who bought triple het snowglows that they are going to produce moonglows and not snowglows...they don't have het moonglows. It just doesn't work that way.
If Mark wants to call his line of snowglows "moonglows", more power to him, but I think for the sake of the community there needs to be a set name the signifies the morph as well as the line , not just the line.
-----
Davey Giltner

What I had were hypos het for anery and het for albino. They would only be triple hets for avalanche if I produced the first hypo snow and named it avalanche. The other people may have called their animals triple het for snowglow but until the definitive animal is produced and named they were nothing more than hypos het for anery and albino. You don't have naming right's to a morph just because you produce hets. A line or a morph isn't named based on the hets.

For example, what if the first produer of the hypo snow decided to name this boa a Blizzard which is totally within their rights. Is he/she not allowed to use this name because dhets for another project are called dhets for Blizzard even though a Blizzard has not yet been produced? Obviously they could name it a Blizzard. The animals for the other project would still be what they always were doublehets for type2anery and albino.

I think this does raise a good overall point and that is in the naming of hets. I would propose that hets for combination morphs be named exactly what they are and leave the naming of the actual morph to the first producer of the animal. For example dhets hets for the albino blood boa would be called exaclty that and whoever produces the first albino blood can call it whatever he or she wants. I think this would make things easier and avoid some of the current problems.

Bill Kirby

That every time the "MoonGlow, Avalanche, SnowGlow, Yellow Snow" gets brought up, it is then described as the Hypo Snow? Why make up a new word for a definition that already has a recognizable term and then always have to refer to the recognizable term when reffering to the new name? Right now, I think there's an ego battle going on.. Oh well, it'll all get sorted out through the wash.. Take care

is it a hypo snow, or an anery sunglow, or an albino ghost?
-----
Davey Giltner

which one has everyone been reffering to in the last few days??

I don't know, Haven't paid much attention to what anyone said, I am just typing to make calluses on my fingertips while my guitar amp is getting worked on.
-----
Davey Giltner

If you have a hypo het albino, is it not a dh sunglow?
If you have a hypo het anery, is it not double het ghost?
You know what the combinations will produce, but do you have to wait until you produce sunglows and ghosts before you can call your animals double hets? You know what they will produce, but you don't know exactly what the babies will look like...the same way people knew, or thought they knew what a triple het snowglow would produce.
The genes are all there, albino, hypo , and anery.The name was in place. The only thing missing was the animal. Now it is there, and it has been proven that a triple het snowglow produces hypo anery amelanistics.
If I produce an animal tomorrow that I call a blizzard, does that mean Jermey Stone is out of luck on naming the type 2 snows blizzard?What if someone produces type 2 snows and calls them Mayonaise boas...does that mean nobody can call them blizzards even though blizzards ws adopted as the name of the unproduced morph years ago?
-----
Davey Giltner

I guess technically who ever produces the first Type 2 Snow has the right to name it whatever they want. If it were me out of respect for Jeremy I would call it a Blizzard, but I guess not everyone would.

...and if Jeremy is the first to produce one, but it is stillborn, does he have to wait and hope whoever produces the next one keeps the name?
If Mark's _____(fill in the blank) died today, would the next person get to name them, since theres would be the only ones in the world?
-----
Davey Giltner

Stillborn YES. Born, lived, able to sustain life in our atmosphere, and breath air then died days later NO. I don't know if this is the "correct" answer but it is my opinion.

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

I understand what you are saying, but as the post I quoted shows, Mark himself used the term het snowglow, perhaps the person he got it from sold it to him as such, and the person that sold to them did also.
I am trying to understand how someone goes from calling an animal a triple het snowglow, and then have babies being born called moonglow. Where are the snowglows that his animals were claimed to be triple het for?
This thread has less to do with the controversy than the other ones, I was just wondering why the name changed. I honestly don't care what the animal is called, just wondering why the accepted name (accepted even by the person who produced it second and now gets to name it) has been changed. The person who produced it first was going along with the community accepted name, and he can't name it?
Moonglow sure beats "Sunglost" anyday though
-----
Davey Giltner

Bill, I understand what you are saying, but here is where I disagree with you on the the Blizzard issue.

I think if someone produces DH's of a first kind, they should name the more that will be produced. Now, does that mean anyone could change it? Of course, but should they? The only reason I would think they would do that is for pure "RECOGNITION" or if the first name of the DH's was inconsitant with what it was going to be. (I guess that could be speculative).

I think that names should be consistent with other snakes. Not just someone who produces something and names it just to put his NAME on the snake. I know there are a few examples where this doesn't work. Hypo in Ball pythons for one. They call it a ghost. I don't know WHY!!!!! Anyway.......Blizzard for instance.

In Cornsnakes, there is a Snow, and a Blizzard. The Snow is the Type 1 Gene. The Blizzard, is the Type 2 gene. So, this is why I called it this. Not to Put "MY" name on it. (I know there is still some uncertainty weather the Type 1 and 2 genes are compatible). However, they are different enough to give them a name. I also think there may be more to the Type 2 gene then just anerythristic. But that is stricktly my opinion.

So, if someone produces a Live version of the animal from DH Blizzard to DH Blizzard, and names it a different name. . (There has been a STILL BORN BLIZZARD PRODUCED). That doesn't meant that WILL be the name.

For Insantance. GHOST BOAS. You were the first to produce them. Long before you produced them, many people had DH ghost Boas. Had you of produced them, and called them the KIRBY boa, I am sure the ghost name still would have prevailed. Ghost is a name that was being followed by the Cornsnake Breeders. It was talked about in magazines and all over the Net long before it was ever produced. So, did the first person who produced DH ghost boas name them that? I don't think so. It is the Same with the SNOW....

Now, here is where I may agree with your principle. If you buy a BLOODLINE that has a name to it, and you produce something that has never been seen and is inherently genetic, then you can call it a new name.

I hope my disagreeance with Bill on this issue does NOT in anyway show any disrespect for him, as I have a ton of respect for Bill, and almost always see eye to eye with him. Just not on this one. lol

Jeremy Stone

Ok after reading all of today' s posts regarding the Hypo Snow or Moonglow or whatever people want to name it or at least feel it should be called I came to 1 conclusion. And thinking it threw this is what I wonder people can answer better from a neutral stand point.

1. Does someone name a new morph the day it arrives in this world?

2. Does someone name a new morph even if the boa does not survive?

3. Does someone name a new morph if its currently alive?

4. Does the name stick if the animal for some reason does not survive to reproduce its gene pool?

These to me are 4 questions that no matter how you wish to see it still goes back to first of creation. Justin had bad luck but was still the first to produce this wonder I call Hypo Snow. You all may disagree and call it Moonglow, Snowglow or Whatchamacallitglow, but like many said before making a new name for something that was techically called and labeled years before a Snowglow is just more ego than anything else. Most agree with Hypo Snow or Snowglow, so why is there so much "hype" to the fancy name of Moonglow?

Well that is easy it does not really fit the animal and the direction it took on marketing the name is just a sign of ego going beyond a realistic naming of this animal. I guess in the long run will we just call it that to keep the confusion down or will the name be as rare as this boa at the time. My opinion is the Moonglow name is just a fancy way to build a name, since we can' t travel into the future and the tables were turned would people be jumping on Snowglow or Hypo Snow...who knows.

But Hypo Snow just doesn' t stroke an ego like a fancy name would. But like I posted before both Justin and Mark should come up with a respectful conclusion to this. Sure we can all put our input in but really only 2 people here can actually say anything about it. If 1 day I should be so lucky to produce this gene pool, its a Hypo Snow no matter what.

In the little poll I ran on our little site, Mark is leading 8 votes to Justins 1.The poll was set up as an unbiased poll to see what people thought about who should name the snake, not about which name people like.
-----
Davey Giltner