Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just answered a question over on the Color, Location, and Genetics sub-forum about bloodreds being crossed with other mutations, and it hit me that I was once again needing to explain the intricacies invloved with the genetic pattern found in bloodreds, as opposed to the linebred coloration they show.

Well...I'm done.

I am no longer going to refer to any animal as a "bloodred" unless it is actually "red" in coloration (Oh, the shock of it all!).

I am not going to refer to the "bloodred pattern" as if a color name could ever actually described a pattern mutation (what WERE we thinking?!?!?).

I am not even going to allow myself to get swept up in the currently used "anery bloodred" (which, literally meaning "a bloodRED, lacking red, may be the DUMBEST name we've ever used for a snake!!!).

Nope, from now on, I am calling them by the term I came up with a long time ago. I am calling them "episkiastic corns."

The name "episkiastic" (epih-skee-AS-tick) comes from a Greek word meaning "to overshadow, to obscure," which is what the ground color does to the pattern of the animals which have this gene in their make up. Think about a Bloodred (which is an episkiastic animal that has also been linebred for red coloration) as it ages...its ground color overshadows the saddles over time, making the best examples of the morph that deep, dark blood RED we all seek so strongly in our breeding efforts. That same effect is found in all episkastic animals, regardless of their coloration, because it is part of the PATTERN MUTATION, not the color of the individual snake.

So, I am going to use the term that I believe best suits the actuality of what is going on in those animals. Everyone else will have to decide for themselves what they will do, but I am tired of having to explain away the use of a color name for a pattern mutation, and I am just not going to do it this year, or the next, or any year to come.

We have a whole new crop of newbies about to descend on us in a few months, and when they ask their annual bloodred questions, I am going to make this distinction in my responses. All animals displaying the pattern mutation alone, I am calling episkiastic ("epi" for short), and ONLY those episkiastics that are actually RED in coloration will I describe as bloodreds.

Sorry if this offends anyone, or if this gets someone's knickers in a twist, but I am no longer going to be part of the problem while whining about how the name doesn't suit the animal. I'll still be whining, but I'm now offering an alternative as well. Whether it catches on or not depends on everyone else and is out of my hands. Even so, I am using what I think is the most accurate and honest terminology to describe my animals, and the most clearly defined term to help others understand theirs as well.

I've had my say...let the ranting begin!

-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

n/p

No offense intended to Chuck or to you, Kathy, but I just don't think that term is adequate in describing what is actually taking place. I also know some people have trouble distinguishing between "diffuse" (that which is spread outward, becoming diluted as it goes) and "difuse" (as in: dismantling a bomb!). LOL

So, I just decided to go my own way on this, and folks will have to decide for themselves what they are going to call the pattern mutation. Bloodreds will always be bloodreds, but it's the rest of the pattern mutants that aren't red that I would like to see being called "episkiastic."

Time will tell whether anyone at all agrees with me...or if everyone just thinks I'm a crack pot spending too much time in these Ozark hills! LOL
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

.or if everyone just thinks I'm a crack pot spending too much time in these Ozark hills! LOL
>>-----

We already know THAT, Darin.
We just try to over look it...LOL
just kidding....well....yeah, ok just kidding....lol
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"resistance is futile"
Jimmy (draybar)

Draybars Snakes

Darin, here are some things you said in the past in these discussions:

"It has also been suggested that whomever it was that originated the bloodred morph should have the privilege of changing the name. Fine, but I don't even know who that was. So, maybe we could compile a list of suggestions, and the originator could choose one of those, or come up with an original one of his/her own."

You then asked one of the leaders of the community, and incidentally it was the same person who brought the morph to the market and coined the name bloodred, to choose a name, any name. Asking someone to take the lead carries with it an obvious implication that you will then follow if they do.

Well, Darin, she did, and you immediately turned your back. You were shortly thereafter posting on the forums saying:

"Call the pattern mutation by a name ... chose one, I don't care what it is, but just make it a pattern name instead one referring to COLOR!!!"

(...even though someone did choose one, and others were supporting it.)

"I know that I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness on this, but I really have a problem with a color name being referred to an animal that everyone identifies by its pattern (or lack thereof) of its belly!"

(... and then you say)

"There is just no reason for all of this confusion, in my opinion, but it will take some leadership from one of the "big breeders" to get things changed. Kathy Love said that she would try to address some these issues in her new book"

You obviously knew Kathy was addressing the issue. She put the term on her price list. I put it in a book. But you still act as if there is NO alternative. Instead, you have turned your back on the person whom you specifically asked to take the lead. That's just low.

And now you are trying to push a name that, regardless of how inaccurate it is, is the name YOU invented. Yet, oddly, Jimmy complains that other people are pushing a name "just because they thought of it first." That's not even true, but it's obvious that Jimmy's problem is sour grapes anyway. I find your and Jimmy's hypocrisy interesting, to say the least.

Given your past and present actions, the fact that you now will sink so low as to make vague accusations about me (so that they cannot be defended or argued with) should come as no surprise. However, I am curious as to what "secret relationship" I had with which "other poster" two years ago who apparently was not coming to their own independent conclusions about anything.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but let me try to approach some of these issues in the order you listed them.

1. Yes, I did speak to Kathy about the issue, and I was under the impression she was to be addressing it in her next book. However, I did not speak to her about any specific name as though it were the final decision, and I did not expect her to solely come up with whatever name was decided upon. The fact that she decided (at whatever level) to support the name you created is completely within her perrogative, as it is within mine to disagree and choose not to use it. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I told you before that I believe your name is inadequate, confusing, and not at all "marketable" in my opinion.

2. You write, "But you still act as if there is NO alternative." That is not true. I addressed the fact that I consider "diffuse" to be an alternative, but it is an inferior one, in my opinion. Rejecting an alternative is not ignoring its existence.

3. I have absolutely not turned my back on Kathy in any way! Though we are not "friends" (because we don't know each other except by email, the phone, and to say hello at the shows -- and even then I'm sure I'd have to re-introduce myself to her, because I am not someone she ought to have to remember by any means), I have a great deal of respect for her on many, many levels. If I have offended Kathy, I'll humbly ask her forgiveness immediately. That was never my intent.

4. I am absolutely NOT "pushing" a name here. I am telling you and everyone else what I am calling them from now on. It will either be accepted or not, and I have thrown the issue to the court of popular opinion in regard to my own actions. You wrote your book, Chuck. Were you "pushing" a name, or merely offering a possiblity to catch on or not on its own? Why are your actions in that regard more noble than mine, because yours came between two covers?

5. I won't address your reasons for publishing the name "diffused" even though there was not a great cry of approval for that name over any of the other possibilities offered. You need no reason to place your suggestion into the arena of ideas any more than do I. Let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, I say.

6. My "past and present actions?" Just what are these? That I have considered and rejected your naming idea? That I asked Kathy to consider the issue, and when she did I dared to disagree with her (only because she thought your name was OK, and, as I stated above, I think it is an inferior one, but if you notice in this thread, even she isn't satisfied with it, is she?)? Come on, Chuck. I may not be an expert about anything at all, and I completely bow to your honestly superior knowlege (I really do mean that!) in all sorts of things, but I am known for one thing, if no other. I am honest and trustworthy...ask anyone, if I have ever treated them in a wrongful manner in the pursuits of this hobby; you won't find a soul who will say I have. You're mad at me for not agreeing with you? OK. I can sadly accept that, but don't make it sound as though I have done you wrong here, or that your perceptions of such are somehow proof of a long chain of abuses made by me. That dog won't hunt!

7. You and Hurley are involved with one another personally, but you two post as though you were two separate entitites, who just "happen" to agree with one anothers' writings on this subject. You would write a post, someone (not me necessarily...others, I mean) would be critical or question something about it, and Hurley would write a responding post that often times looked like the typical "I agree and here's why" contribution. You, conversely, would often make reply posts in relation to her's in the same vein. The reason those posts are made, as we all know, is that independent agreement often adds weight to an argument. However, those posts are not completely independent, because of the relationship you two share. I do NOT think either of you did, or said, anything wrong, but the concept of being above board in all things would require one to disclose the information, in my opinion.

Consider it this way: I know you've seen the other site owned by the same person that owns the board from which you got my old quotes. Think about the portion of that site, which deals specifically with issues of good and bad businesses. If someone's actions are questioned there, and another person were to post in favor of the person being questioned, then it later came to light that the supporter was actually the business partner of the person he supported...what would be the response of the people reading such a thread? I think you know that such posting would be very dimly looked upon indeed.

Finally, if you are personally offended by my writings here, I am sorry that you are. I wrote what I did in response to Jimmy's post, and, upon further reflection, thought I came off too harshly. Words "think" better than they "read" sometimes, and I tried to clarify my position. I would not have specified the relationship to which I had earlier only alluded, but you asked. If all of this is so offensive to you that you and I cannot any longer be cordial in our writings to one another, I guess that is the burden I'll have to suffer, but that will come about based on your determination, not mine.
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

"You and Hurley are involved with one another personally, but you two post as though you were two separate entitites, who just "happen" to agree with one anothers' writings on this subject."

Hurley and I barely knew each other 2 years ago. I guess I'm supposed to apologize for not having looked into my crystal ball and announced to the world that Hurley and I would later end up becoming good friends.

We did get to know each other specifically BECAUSE we happen to agree with one another on quite a few things. Because of the understanding of basic biology that we had in common, being applied to the same body of evidence (including that both of us were "introduced" to the "bloodred" morph by snakes that are mother and son and look alike) it was not any surprise to me at all that we had similar opinions on that particular subject. We became friends as a result of our similar thoughts and writings, not the other way around.

As far as Hurley not having her own opinion, or that her opinion was not formed independently of mine, that is the most laughable thing I've heard in a long time. Hurley happens to be the single most intelligent person I've ever known, and has forgotten more about biology than I've ever learned about it. You are welcome to believe what you want, though.

As far as "episkiastic" being applicable to a pattern trait, it simply isn't. The problem continues to be that people (including many if not most of the old timers in our hobby) approach the problem from a perspective of "what is the difference between a completely normal corn and a classic bloodred?" They then assume ALL of those things are caused by ONE gene. That is not true. There are TWO main things that make the difference between a normal corn and a classic bloodred: 1- a single-locus pattern mutation which has been called "diffused" for the time being, at least until a marketable name catches on, and 2- a selectively bred influence causing an infusion of red that ends up obscuring the pattern.

The term "overshadowing" (episkiastic) does not desribe the pattern. What it does describe is the infusion of color, which has nothing to do with the pattern. I have/had "blood red" corns expressing the pattern which have none of the "red" on them. None of those corns are "episkiastic" or have pattern being overshadowed by pigment. You can also see this in pewters, diffused anerys, diffused snows, etc. If they were episkiastic, the best pewters would all have solid black sides. They don't. The difference between a snow with and without the pattern is not "an overshadowing of the pattern by pigment." NO snow corn will ever be episkiastic. That makes as much sense as the "anerythristic blood red" we both gripe about.

You are welcome to use your own term, but don't be surprised when the people who are taught that way are later confused when they try to apply it in the real world. They will end up thinking that a mendelian heritable color trait is at work, and you will have taught them that it's the same thing other people are calling "diffused" when it isn't.

I did not question Hurley's intelligence. I have found her to be extremely articulate and intelligent in everything I've read of hers. That was never the issue. Likewise, I didn't say she was unable to independently come up with her own opinion on the matter. What I did say was that you two were posting in support of one another's opinions without putting forth any commonality you shared outside of the forum.

That brings me to the other portion of your last post. I will say that, if I am mistaken, I am truly sorry, Chuck. However, I was told, at the time that thread was ongoing, that you and Hurley were living together. The person who told me that is someone I find VERY credible, and has never lied to me in any way that I know. I'll leave it there, though, because you have denied that being true, and it is not my place to do otherwise.

As to the differences between episkiastic versus diffuse...well, I simply disagree with you. And that was all this thread was intended for in the beginning: to express my opinion about the lack of a really good name for the pattern mutation thus far.
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

Either you are misunderstanding your source, or they are lying to you. The fact is that Hurley and I became roommates less than 18 months ago. We were not hiding this fact from anyone. We posted several things in several threads mentioning that we were roommates. We were not announcing it in every possible thread because it is not relevant to the discussion. This is not the BOI and we were not vouching for each others' credibility or anything of the sort. We were not talking about business or each other.

We WERE discussing our positions on what is a matter of objective fact, that being the nature of the pattern trait in question. Each of our opinions on the subject over the last 3 years are a matter of public record, and each of us has been consistent throughout that period of time. There is no sudden change in either of our positions at the point where we became roommates. I'm sure that Hurley and I also have the same opinions about the sum of 3 and 4 but that also has nothing to do with the fact that we are roommates, friends, or in business together.

I find it entirely offensive that you think that our opinions about the nature of a genetic trait are "tainted" since we became roommates. That is truly demented.

You say that you've addressed why you want to use "overshadowed" but you still have not explained how one snow can have a much different pattern than another immediately upon hatching as a result of "an infusion of pigment" in one of them that "overshadows" the pattern. I'd really like to hear an explanation of how that works. I'm sure it'll be a doozie.

....
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

>>I don't know if you have seen the big discusion/argument over naming morphs such as the anery bloodred and others on THAT other forum. They are trying to come up with all these cutsie names and from what I can tell it doesn't matter if it fits as long as THEY get credit fo it.
"We should use THIS name because I am smarter then you so I should be the one to choose"...blah blah blah
Of course, I have never liked the name bloodred and can't for the life of me figure out why it stuck to describe the pattern (no mater what color) and not just the deep red snakes with the pattern.
I think before they waste any time worrying about names for snakes such as the anery bloodred they should come up with a name for the bloodred pattern and the others will simply fall into place.
I don't have a preference and episkiastic, by definition, fits so it works for me. Hard to say though, Epi for short works well.
It is simple for me...I don't care for the bloodreds (unless they are solid deep red) so I don't have them, breed them or worry to much about keeping up with them.
I usually just skip by any bloodred questions. Leave those for the more patient then me....lol

Jimmy

I just answered a question over on the Color, Location, and Genetics sub-forum about bloodreds being crossed with other mutations, and it hit me that I was once again needing to explain the intricacies invloved with the genetic pattern found in bloodreds, as opposed to the linebred coloration they show.
>>
>>Well...I'm done.
>>
>>I am no longer going to refer to any animal as a "bloodred" unless it is actually "red" in coloration (Oh, the shock of it all!).
>>
>>I am not going to refer to the "bloodred pattern" as if a color name could ever actually described a pattern mutation (what WERE we thinking?!?!?).
>>
>>I am not even going to allow myself to get swept up in the currently used "anery bloodred" (which, literally meaning "a bloodRED, lacking red, may be the DUMBEST name we've ever used for a snake!!!).
>>
>>Nope, from now on, I am calling them by the term I came up with a long time ago. I am calling them "episkiastic corns."
>>
>>The name "episkiastic" (epih-skee-AS-tick) comes from a Greek word meaning "to overshadow, to obscure," which is what the ground color does to the pattern of the animals which have this gene in their make up. Think about a Bloodred (which is an episkiastic animal that has also been linebred for red coloration) as it ages...its ground color overshadows the saddles over time, making the best examples of the morph that deep, dark blood RED we all seek so strongly in our breeding efforts. That same effect is found in all episkastic animals, regardless of their coloration, because it is part of the PATTERN MUTATION, not the color of the individual snake.
>>
>>So, I am going to use the term that I believe best suits the actuality of what is going on in those animals. Everyone else will have to decide for themselves what they will do, but I am tired of having to explain away the use of a color name for a pattern mutation, and I am just not going to do it this year, or the next, or any year to come.
>>
>>We have a whole new crop of newbies about to descend on us in a few months, and when they ask their annual bloodred questions, I am going to make this distinction in my responses. All animals displaying the pattern mutation alone, I am calling episkiastic ("epi" for short), and ONLY those episkiastics that are actually RED in coloration will I describe as bloodreds.
>>
>>Sorry if this offends anyone, or if this gets someone's knickers in a twist, but I am no longer going to be part of the problem while whining about how the name doesn't suit the animal. I'll still be whining, but I'm now offering an alternative as well. Whether it catches on or not depends on everyone else and is out of my hands. Even so, I am using what I think is the most accurate and honest terminology to describe my animals, and the most clearly defined term to help others understand theirs as well.
>>
>>I've had my say...let the ranting begin!
>>
>>
>>-----
>>Darin Chappell
>>Hillbilly Herps
>>PO Box 254
>>Rogersville, MO 65742

...
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

I have no problems with the vast maority of people over there, although I no longer post there and rarely visit the site any longer (mostly to find old posts that dealt with issues in which I am still interested). The reasons I am not participating in that site any longer are as varied as they are personal, so I won't belabor that point.

However, I will say this: The original thread dealing with this issue, which was begun over two years ago now, was started, in my opinion, not to find a new term to be used for the pattern mutation, but more to offer the opportunity to introduce a name already chosen by a few.

If I am wrong about that, I'll apologize in advance, but I have to say that some of the conclusions drawn there were VERY quick in their formulation, and some of the people posting on that site had relationships unknown to others posting in the thread. It made it appear as if different people, with no particular bias toward one another, were in agreement, when, in fact, some of the people involved were actually working together behind the scenes.

I am not saying that anything improper or untoward was done here, because we were ALL merely speaking about ideas we had. However, I think full disclosure of all relationships was in order, and that did not happen.

Everyone can take that or leave it as they see fit...

-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

to get all of the undertones. I knew it got a little heated, but didn't realize it was bad enough to really make people feel badly about it.

But I didn't really hear any new name that I REALLY liked, although I agree about bloodred should be for red snakes. Seems like "blurry" is a good description, but I think it would sound horrible for a morph name.

As I re-read what I wrote in the post above, it occurred to me that I may not have been as clear as I would have liked. So, let me try to be:

I have nothing at all against ANY of the people involved in those threads concerning the bloodred morph or the name(s) suggested for the correlating pattern mutation. The one exception to that is the owner of that other site, and my problem with him is one of a personal nature that has nothing at all to do with his amazing snakes. i just don't participate on his site any longer...that's all.

As for one of the individuals who was primarily involved with that thread, I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge, but I believe he should have disclosed his relationship with another poster on that same thread, not because they (he and the other poster) did anything wrong in posting as they did, but simply to be above board on everything. The thread reads as though two people independently agree with one another, when, in point of fact, they have a personal connection unknown to many others who were also involved in the thread.

I hope that clears up what I meant to say earlier. I don't want to start a spitting match over words that probably could have been (and should have been) better written by myself!
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

>>I have no problems with the vast maority of people over there, although I no longer post there and rarely visit the site any longer (mostly to find old posts that dealt with issues in which I am still interested). The reasons I am not participating in that site any longer are as varied as they are personal, so I won't belabor that point.
>>
>>However, I will say this: The original thread dealing with this issue, which was begun over two years ago now, was started, in my opinion, not to find a new term to be used for the pattern mutation, but more to offer the opportunity to introduce a name already chosen by a few.
>>
>>If I am wrong about that, I'll apologize in advance, but I have to say that some of the conclusions drawn there were VERY quick in their formulation, and some of the people posting on that site had relationships unknown to others posting in the thread. It made it appear as if different people, with no particular bias toward one another, were in agreement, when, in fact, some of the people involved were actually working together behind the scenes.
>>
>>I am not saying that anything improper or untoward was done here, because we were ALL merely speaking about ideas we had. However, I think full disclosure of all relationships was in order, and that did not happen.
>>
>>Everyone can take that or leave it as they see fit...
>>
>>
>>-----

I jump back and forth. If I read something I feel I can respond to on either forum I jump right in.
Sometimes whether I should or not...lol
It is more or less still the same thing though.
A few people already had names in mind and didn't really want to listen to ideas and reasons for other names.
I stayed away from that whole thread.
I'm not one of THEM so my opinion means nothing....LOL
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"resistance is futile"
Jimmy (draybar)

Draybars Snakes

awww...you mean now there's gonna be ANOTHER word that I can't pronounce for the life of me ... it's bad enough with the amelanistic and anerythristic (I don't think I spelled that right either)...at least it has a shortened version...

~Katie
-----
2.1 Cornsnakes (Slink, Shadow, Suzie)
0.3 Leopard Geckos (Cutie, Lily, and Miss Piggy)
0.1 Savannah Monitor (Sam)
0.2 Pac Man Frogs (Gordito and Spud)
1.2 Suriname Toad (Squishy & the Squishettes)
0.0.2 Giant Millipede (Mega & Mila)
0.0.1 Green Iguana (Iggy)
lots of snails and fish...

np