There is probably an answer already here somewhere, but I cannot find it.
Two questions:
What is the proper, preferred way to write a pairing?
Sire x Dam?
or
Dam x Sire?
What is the preferred way to write a pairing that involved two males? (example: a normal offspring from a pairing that involved two males that could both make a normal. The father cannot be visually determined in the offspring, so both sires should be included.)
Sire 1 x Sire 2 x Dam?
or
Dam x Sire 1 x Sire 2?
or
Sire 1 x Dam and Sire 2 x Dam?
or… ?
There is no real right answer because as @logar said, it’s basically just personal preference. While I don’t breed BPs, I usually list individual pairings as dam x sire. As far as pairing with multiple males, something like dam x sire 1 or sire 2 is how I do it to prevent confusion.
Personal preference is a huge factor as mentioned.
I like to list mine as m x f since the order for listing sexes goes male/female/unsexed
However I do typically denote which animal is which sex with (m) or (f).
In the case of 2 sires… I personally try to avoid it so I haven’t needed to list it. But f x m1 or m2 would be my preferred writing.
So I hatched my first snakes 31 years ago and the herp industry was already well established with believe it or not snail mail price lists long before that. The idea that males breed females may sound dated and sexist now. For whatever reason the male.female.unknown format has a long history going back to those old price lists. For example 5.10.1 would indicate 5 males, 10 females, and one unknown available.
Likewise, pairings have historically been listed male X female. I don’t recall a notation to account for multiple possible males but I would vote for (male1 : male2) X female if a new standard is needed.
I do see a lot of what I eventually figure out is female X male notation nowadays and find it annoying. Usually I can find clues in a picture or post text to sort out which is which. For issues like possible parthenogenesis and sex linked genes it actually matters. Stepping off soap box now.
@ [rlremington]
This is the answer I was looking for, thank you.
I get that there is a tendency towards personal preference in today’s market, but as you alluded to, there is also an actual standard out there. Thx.
The “(male1 : male2) x female” format looks appealing. Appreciate your input.
Perry
I too find the lack of standard usage annoying. The whole reason for this post is because I keep getting confused. Every other listing or post seems to put the opposite sex first and I find myself getting turned around.
To play devils advocate here…. Why does it matter? Only case that it truly could be of any importance would be banana combos, since it’s sex linked. Any other instance there is absolutely no impact on listing male or female first.
My OCD perhaps?
I do hobby crossing in chickens (standard is male first) and pepper plants (standard is female first) so it just drives me bonkers that it flip-flops so freely in the ball python world.
I’m also into genealogy in my own family. The standard is patriarch first.
As with so many things in the ball python world, we are pretty much the only arena that does not follow a set standard for breeding syntax.
In the practical day-to-day sense, no, it doesn’t really matter for getting the job done. For interpersonal record keeping, it’s annoying AF to have to stop and check which way it was done.
I just want my notes a little more standardized for the greater world outside our BP bubble.
It matters quite a bit in terms of IDs. For instance, if a clutch is weird/suspect, you can figure out if retained sperm is possible if babies have genes that are not in dad and also not in mom. Or for determining parthenogenesis when it happens. There are enough pairings where it matters that I do get annoyed when people mix it up and do female first.
Personally, I don’t think that would have any impact at all.
if i listed mom x dad, or dad x mom, you can figure this out regardless. If pastel is clearly present in the baby but I’ve got it listed out as “spider x clown” or “clown x spider” then you can discerne that one of these clearly wasn’t the parent. Having a specific listing order of male vs female doesn’t change that, it just leads to questions like “okay did you pair a different male?” which will give you an answer.
I think this is personally entirely just personal opinion, and there clearly isn’t a standard in the hobby that is utilized fully across the board.
Maybe i’m more lax about it than others, and I’ll accept that if it is the case, but I just can’t see any reason why it matters.
It does matter though, because things are also mis-IDed. For retained sperm, it could be either retained sperm or a hidden gene in mom and you won’t know which without knowing which parent is which. For partho as well, if the female is a black pastel and she’s listed first and you get a super black pastel, many people would conclude that bp must have been hidden in dad rather than partho. Conversations stay much, much clearer and there is much less confusion when people keep to the standard.
To everyone debating that it should be the old way/there is a standard, idk how to break this to you all but it absolutely does not matter and you should label things the way it makes sense to you, because that’s the way most people do it. It doesn’t matter so long as you’re willing to do the absolute bare minimum and clarify the data on the animals you buy. Seriously, just ask someone which is which, problem solved. If you can’t do that, idk what to tell you.
You can’t force people to follow a standard, and once something leaves your control, you can’t ensure it remains labeled the same way, anyways. Ask questions, be thorough, provide your own documentation on animals you sell, and there’s no issue.
Parthenogenesis is surprisingly common. For figuring out if a weird result could be explained by parthenogenesis it would be important to know which is the female.
And of course there is the above made retained sperm argument. The mom should be known so good to know which side could be the wrong male.
Point to the original question; there was a long established standard that gave quick shorthand clarity. Newer breeders have stopped following that old standard causing some mild confusion. It’s probably too late to convince everyone to go back to the old standard. But I can still choose to be grumpy about it.
After too much time spent searching Google with no authoritative, definitive statement about a standardized nomenclature for ball pythons specifically, there were enough indications of a greater kingdom standard.
Animal Kingdom: sperm donor (male) first
Plant Kingdom: ova donor (female) first
Livestock standards, AKC and dog hobbyists, zoos talking about interspecific hybrids like Zonkeys, Ligers, Mules, etc, and some scientific papers talking about invitro embryo salvage all indicate males first in the nomenclature.
Orchid registrars, hosta registrars, and the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature all call for the female to be listed first.
Bottom line, regardless if there is acceptance of a standard in the pet reptile industry, the standard does seem to exist in the greater realm. Just because we are not a scientific population or an industry governed by any particular registration authority doesn’t mean that things couldn’t benefit from being more unified and less confusing. The genie is out though.
Thank you for chiming in, everybody. I’ve enjoyed the conversation and mental stimulation.
I don’t quite think this fits this discussion…yes the nomenclature changes depending on the sire for lion/tiger hybrids… But the names are silly for the other 2
Zonkey is when the sire is a Zebra
Zedonk is when the sire is a donkey
Liger is a lion sire
Tigon is the Tiger sire version
Ok dumb question here:
What about naming convention for morph descriptions? For example, Pastel Leopard Pied or Leopard Pastel Pied, etc.? Is that a matter of personal preference? I see patterns like putting Pied or Clown last (or hets), but I can’t tell if there is a standard of putting the male’s genes first when labeling a baby’s morphs. Heck, I don’t know if maybe I’m misunderstanding the original post and my question has already been discussed in the posts above. I just took it as a question about how to refer to a specific pairing, not how to name offspring morphs. Thanks in advance
