This is my pet peeve
I can only tell you my opinion. There is no "Committee of Acceptable Corn snake Trade Names" except in the minds of a couple of people.....lol. I don't accept "diffuse" period. With 90% of cornsnake people, they KNOW what I mean when I say Lavender bloodred, but they have no clue what a "lavender diffuse" would be. Less than 10% of corn keepers, in all actually, have any real clue what diffuse means, but almost all of them have at least heard the term blood or bloodred.
Bloodred is the name of the mutation in my book - and not a color. The term diffuse makes people thinking we have a NEW morph; hence, that leads to more confusion - not less. If it would have been called diffuse from the start, then that would be different. Heck, it is a better description, but it a a more confusing description in TODAY'S setting. (We can't even get people to switch to m,etric here, and metrci concersion makes SENSE!) I've even seen people asking how to produce a cornsnake het for bloodred and diffuse.....lol.
"Diffuse," as far as I am personally concerned, is a term started by people that had nothing to do with the morph, but wanted to have something to point to as a "legacy." Instead of DOING something, they change a name and pretend they benefited (instead of harmed) the hobby. KJ's opinion only. :bowdown:
That's my personal opinions and a typical rant for me. I don't pretend to believe my opinion should count for anything other than, well, my opinion. I just don't like being told by one clique that THEY decide the names, OTHER names are wrong, and THEY even decide WHICH names they allow people to pick from. It chaps my behind that they feel, for some unknown reason, that they have more of a right to name a morph than the originator.
If you created a cornsnake - new morph from a WC mutation - that you called a maugarita cornsnake. How would you feel if they called your name "stupid" (actual scenario that happened with a different morph name), then tried to insist the hobby calls it something else (which happened with lots of other morphs), or stole a name from your morph that you used first because you weren't part of their specific clique (again, it happened)? You wouldn't feel happy, I bet. That's why I don't accept diffuse - it isn't the name for the mutation the hobby accepted from the first guys that named the morph.
By the way, none of the above examples involve me, so it isn't a personal vendetta on my part. If they tried to change a name of a morph I created, I'd just ignore them and not get bothered. It is the principle of the thing.
Oh, yeah...and they delete posts that ask why they even NEED to change the name of a new morph......lol.
KJ
If you would just state your opinion it would be fine, but you are very skilled at negatively slanting your “opinions” to slander Chuck and Connie.
I checked out your site, and you are 100% up to date on current Corn Snake Jargon. I could not find many areas where you and I would disagree on much, and a great deal of Jargon on your site, is not complexly accepted and very new.
I have learned more from Chuck and Connie about the genetics of our Corns in the last three years, than I learned the previous 25. They have brought Corn Snake genetics into a new age. All of the discussions they have been involved in, about potential new trade names, gene names, and especially discussions about alleles, is at least in part due to their original thought and discussions. I did not see any Corn Snake Jargon on your site, that was a result of your original thought, which has been accepted by the majority.
I actually agree with you, that replacing Bloodred with Diffused Corn is not acceptable, but I have a much easier time discussing, the pattern trait of the Bloodred gene, if I describe the pattern as being diffused. I personally do not believe we have the Bloodred gene completely figured out, but we do know now, thanks to Chuck and Connie, that there is a pattern trait involved. This went undiscovered for most of the Bloodreds history.
Eddie Leach is credited with discovering Bloods, but he did not name Bloodreds. I have spoke to him on the phone recently, and he actually called them “Golden” Corns. I don’t know what he was thinking, but he had reached his goal, or something. I would credit, Bill and Kathy with naming the morph. Eddie, had no knowledge of the diffused pattern on Bloods cause by a mutant gene. He thought selective breeding was the only factor. Thanks to Chuck and Connie, we know a great deal more today.
Is the red color in Bloods linked to the pattern trait, or is it just selective breeding, or perhaps a separate, yet undiscovered mutant cause of excessive red pigment. If the causes are linked, can they be separated out. If a minor red causing gene is in the Bloodred mix, that is not caused by the Blood gene, can it be separated out? I personally have never seen a Diffused Corn that was worth saving back as a breeder, but Bloodreds with extreme diffused patterns are my favorite morph.
Chuck and Connie have helped us move into a new age of Corn Snake Genetics. In the last few years, they have been very involved in projects with others that have proved much of the Jargon and Corn Snake genetics that you currently have knowledge of, and I applauded their work. I checked your site with the CSM, and it could easily be argued that you used it to create your site. It is not possible, that you would have the knowledge you have today about Corn Snakes without their involvement in our hobby.
I don’t know exactly how this Civil War was started in our community, but I believe it would be best for all, if we just stated our opinions about topics and let usage and acceptance shape our Corn Snake Jargon dictionary as it always has in the past.
I misread your reply & thought you meant I was being too harsh with my ending statements in my original post..:shrugs:
