Tony, I understand your t plus/minus arguement, but "lavender albino" exists as a commonly accepted morph name regardless of Bechtel and definition. Problems occur when we "mis name" morphs. We know the first "hypo" coastals were called "albinos", the name was changed to "hypo" but most will admit that it more closely resembles what we accept as "lavender albino".
I have argued that there are existing homologues between species and subspecies with morphs...that morphs(most of the time)fall within predictable parameters. NOTE-only recessive morphs.....
Common morph examples:
red albino
lav albino
anery
whiteside
hypomelanistic
Many of these have multiple genotypes.
Uncommon morph examples:
scaleless
"hypo" red milk
applegate pyro
piebald ball python
These uncommon morphs are again recessive, but for some reason dont fall in "predictable" lines from species to species. Could it be that the "common" morphs are "intentionally" generated and the "uncommon" morphs perhaps genetically damaged??