i just said obx to raise some eyebrows...that's an amel whatever-you-want-it-to-be,lol;most likely got it's amel trait originally from a cal. king,via floridana.......but it was sold to me as a 'goini',for quite cheap.....whatever,it's an amel getula.but i doubt i'll end up breeding it to my goinis;as far as i know that trait has not been revealed in goini/(meansi?) kings.....i'm not even sure it has been found in the nominate(i know some have been represented as such;not saying they are'nt,i just don't know the history on an amel. getula getula).....actually i prefer the nice patternless goinis i have,they don't have to be all morphed/tricked out to suit my liking.call it a classic case of sitting on the fence-i believe in keeping(breeding) as true to natural/likely gene flow as possible;yet also feel stuff is getting way too picky(limiting diversity and healthy geneflow)for no reason-ultimately doing much more harm than good to our hobby-too much locale specificity crap for no reason....there is surely a middle ground/happy medium.example(just for my own brain's model)-
-hybrids(species to other species)= don't like
-unlikely intergrades(e.g. cal. king x eastern,niger,etc.)= don't like,primarily because eventually it leads to muddied up/misrepresented/undocumented breedings/backcrossings
-'natural'(likely/naturally occurring) integrades(e.g. most anything you see in the wild but i'll say holbrooki x niger for consistencie's sake)= cool of course
-locale specific to the extent of county,etc.= cool if it's an isolated pop....silly if it's not,esp. when you also can't visually tell them from said surrounding population.just my 'rules',the way i see this.
-----
"with head raised regally,and gazing at me with lidless eyes,he seemed to question with flicks of his long forked tongue my right to trespass on his territory" Carl Kauffeld
