>>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



This is one of many problems with this hobby/business, there is no standardized naming schemes. And as you point out they are named as attention grabbers, this is very confusing to the customer whom just wants a cool colored snake. I mean we have patternless hognose that are called supercondas why not Vanishing Pattern? I understand people want to name something they found and have every right to but when is enough enough? I am not sure when enough will be enough but when you look at all the morphs for just a single species like Ball Pythons with its what 80 plus morphs, its very confusing indeed.



Anery - lack of red

Hypo - reduction of black



I guess Anerythristic-Hypomelanistic would be just as confusing unless..
-----
Jason A.

"Long time Herper, first year Breeder `07."

[ Show Entire Thread ]