You know Brooksi in general make up a lot of the posts on this forum. There's some very smart people on here who share info and there's some very experienced people but regardless of all this we see some very different opinions and it leads to drama.
The thing is I only hear people picking on PBs and Jellies with comments like much more breeding trials need to be done. Well, in my opinion this can be said for a long list of morphs including Sulfur, BHB Anery, Bone White Hypos, and others.
I saw this drama coming from a mile away. I respect most people on here who discuss Brooksi but once efforts were made to spell it all out for those interested be they new or old I started getting the emails.
I think I have a type 2 Hypo. I think I have a PB or even a het PB due to some Ball Python theory markers on their snakes. Now there's all these suggested names for many snakes that already existed and some for ones that have not even been produced yet?
For $%^&* sake people, we can not even agree on what a BROOKSI is. Sure these morphs are similar but they're just not the same as Ball Pythons or Corns or Pits.
Info on here for the most part is coming from people who have ONE pair of snakes. ONE ONE ONE! Those results that come from that pair mean something but with all the VARIATION in Brooksi you can not expect clutches of carbon copied replicas of the adults. I myself have seen babies from the same exact pair of snakes differe from year to year.
This arguing is futile and stupid. Until someone has several pairs of everything and strictly breeds them for years on end and then shares their results with others who are doing the same thing this is all just BS talk. There are absolutley not enough of these snakes to go around never mind setting up groups for a serious study.
All this comparison stuff is interesting but for example, would you just say all Hypos are yellow? No they're not. Some are Gold, some straw yellow, some bright yellow, some sulfur yellow, some orange, some red etc. I see a mix of colors when I breed Hypo to Hypo, in other words all this nailing down morphs and naming them is being a bit rushed.
Now we have new people getting fed 10 different versions of fairly similar explanations. How can people justify this to the degree they say with confidence that they know what they're talking about? it's not even being said like " well we think" this n that...now it is..."no, that isnt true, this is" etc.
WHY????!
Why are certain combinations creating unexpected new morphs?
Why was one person the only one to produce White Sides from Axanthics
Why do some thing seem neither recessive or co dom?
Why is it one person gets lucky and produces something new and they're nailed to the cross as a hybridizer?
Face it, we only know so much and we have a long LONG way to go. The name game is going to hurt this snake, it already is. When the Hypo version of the Eastern X Brooksi appeared many complained as it half implied the Eastern King was Hypo. I began call them Eastern X Brooksi, normals and Hypos. Why must it have a name? That is what it truly is. For morphs like Hybinos and whatnot, name them what you want but for everyones sake why not just call them Lavender X Hypos, or T Negative Albino X Hypos, this is the best way to properly inform everyone what they're looking at. What this boils down too is the amount of morphs, and variations of these morphs are appearing faster than we can handle. Even in the simplest terms using Snow as an example we have BHB snows, Axanthic type Snows and Sulfur Snows. I see Bone White Hypos, Flame Hypos and generic original Hypos. BHB Anery, Lemke Axanthic and New England Axanthic. Just because we have a solid starting point on these very different morphs doesn't mean the double, triple, and quadruple morphs are going to be easily named.
I can tell you that certain times of the year my phone rings off the hook and explaining....or rather correcting people on what they were either told, or in most cases what they misinterpreted is becoming more and more difficult. Chances are very few people will even have an opportunity to BEGIN to work at deciphering all this in the next few years. I am planning on doing my tiny contribution and I know a few others are too, but in my opinion talking about things on here regardless of how crystal clear they may seem to some is just not right. Things are not always as they appear! Too often there is one, or a few babies in a multi het clutch that leave us asking ourselves what the heck is that?!
OK I am all posted out......no wonder I never talk on here anymore.
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com
