Posted by:
indictment
at Tue Apr 14 12:29:16 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by indictment ]
Rainer, you are one of the people on here that I make a point to pay attention to every post they make.....but this last bit doesn't make any sense to me:
It is a name that was just applied without much forethought on the originators of this morph.
I simply don't get it....either way you slice it, it will still be a "buzz word"....and "attention-grabber". I was under the impression that "GHOST" had no bearing on actual genetic(maybe I'm wrong)..............therefore, how can the originators have been wrong? Can't they call it whatever they want to? Why not simply come up with a new name for the "TRUE GHOST" (I like "Spectre" ? Unless you are just saying the "old ghost" is not consistent with what we consider "true ghost" to be in other species?
Maybe someone just needs to smack me in the head and lay it out straight for me?
-----
1.0.0 Lampropeltis getula holbrooki
0.1.0 Lampropeltis getula californae
0.0.1 Lampropeltis getula nigra
1.0.0 Lampropeltis mexicana thayeri
2.3.0 Eublapharis macularius macularius
0.0.2 Rhacodactylus ciliatus
0.1.0 Gerrhosaurus major major
[ Hide Replies ]
- Need help. - DillanSimpson, Mon Apr 13 20:51:54 2009
- RE: Need help. - Bluerosy, Tue Apr 14 10:24:04 2009
 RE: Need help. - indictment, Tue Apr 14 12:29:16 2009
|
