As long as it can be proved that the trait 1. It is genetic, & 2. The genes involved are the same & OR act the exact same then it doesn't matter what bloodline they are. For example, if an albino is found in the wild, it is still an albino even though it does not come from the same blood lines as either the sharp or kahl strains. Even if it is not compatable with either strain it would still be an albino. It is the end result of color or pattern that we usually label as a morph, not the bloodline or even the exact genetics (as long as the end result is the same). We might change part of the name to reflect the originator like Peter Kahl or Brian Sharp, but that is about it.
The main problem with the jungle morph is that it is so ambiguous. Tons of snakes have patterns similar to them without being genetic. That is what makes this topic so testy I think. If it was as clear cut as the albino trait then it would have been settled long ago. Personally, I don't like the jungle morph enough to invest a lot of time investigating it. Even though genetics is one of my favorite subjects 
. I think I'll spend my time trying to raise the money for a super motley...or whatever they are calling it. I might raise enough before I die of old age.
-----
Travis Rose
(859) 582-7310
0.2 Normal Columbian
1.1 100% DH for Snow Columbians
0.2 66% DH for Snow Columbians
2.7 Kenyans (1.3 Anerys, 0.1 het for anery, 0.3 Possible hets, 1.0 normal)
0.3 Ball Pythons
0.0.2 Blue Tounged Skinks
0.3 Dogs (1 Full Pitbull, 1 Pit/Husky, & 1 Bernese Mt. Dog cross)
0.3 Cats (1 fat, 1 old, and 1 insane)
1.0 Ferret
0.1 Very understanding wife
