Grouping morphs or providing an "OR" filter option [239]

I had a look to see if this has already been requested, but it was not immediately obvious - if there is one already apologies!

Basically I’m thinking that in the marketplace search filters and in the calculator it would be useful to have the ability to group morphs/genes together in some cases to be treated as [this OR that] - for example: [Lesser OR Butter] AND other genes; [Banana OR Coral Glow] AND other genes etc.

Another example where it might be of use would be for allelic groups eg. [Yellowbelly complex] AND other genes; [BEL complex] AND other genes etc.

I guess the most flexible option would be to allow the user to define their own group(s) which interests them for a given search rather than to be constrained by pre-set lists.


Just to put this in context I just had a clutch including Lesser and Coral Glow which I am trying to ID - but having to run all combinations multiple times in order to include Lesser/Butter CG/Banana


I was actually thinking the same thing. I was actually thinking that you could have an “add filter” button that gave you every parmeter (morph, weight, sex, breeder).

1 Like

I rather like this idea. I have often found myself checking both Butter and Lesser versions of the same basic combo. It would be cool to be able to run a “Butter OR Lesser” search that captured them all

Tagging @eaglereptiles and @john in on this


I’ve wanted this for a while.


So, at the moment we don’t have this in place but it is something we have discussed a few times.

I even made a poll to see which names are preferred…

The main issue i can think of here is that although 90% of the hobby agree on most of these, 10% still think they are completely separate genes.

With that said, it is a great idea that I am a big fan of!
I’ll add some votes to our spreadsheet.

This is another great idea but would be a separate filter.

And another… keep them coming!!

This one would be much harder to put together but I like it all the same.

I’d like to hear John’s thoughts here as well :blush:



Just to be clear I’m not suggesting combining them into one gene, as I agree there will be those who are bitterly opposed to that, but perhaps providing certain preset groups in the filter lists IN ADDITION to the separate genes might be a simple initial solution to the “OR” problem?


I think it is rather being able to search two genes rather than two genes with the same name. An example of how this could work is if someone wanted a pied albino snake with a dominant morph but they weren’t sure which one. They would put albino, pied, and then banana or pastel (even better if there can be more than two). It could also be used for identifying a morph. If you know it has pastel but you’re not sure what specifically you could put pastel, mojave or leopard and then keep switching out more morphs (again it would be useful to be able to add more than two).


I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve went to search bp morphs (mostly for fun) and what I really want is to see all “cinnamons” and “cypress” and “mahoganies” and not a “cinnamon cypress mahogany” (as an example). An or filter or function would be really useful.


Having the OR option, rather than enforcing AND logic for all searches would be really helpful, 100% agree. The slated “Alerts” feature will also help solve this problem for many, but not all, use cases.

1 Like

Is there a way to directly change the url to change the functions?
https://www.morphmarket .com/us/search?q=&q=&cat=2&sex=&maturity=0&min_weight=0&max_weight=1000000&prey_state=0&prey_food=0&min_genes=0&max_genes=9&traits=Albino%2CButter%2CLesser&neg_traits=&min_price=0&max_price=1000000&cur=USD&epoch=0&store=&nearby_location=&lat=&lng=&radius=&country=&export=&sort=nfs&layout=grid

For example is there another symbol that will represent OR logic that can be used to separate the Butter and Lesser instead of the %?

1 Like

The & symbol in query parameters is not exactly the same as AND, in terms of logic, but you’re on the right track here and I’m interested to know the answer from MM staff.

There may be some existing undocumented query params that might facilitate this, for all I know about the API.

1 Like

I knew that & is used to separate the commands and I think the % is used similarly to separate commands into individual “subcommands”.

1 Like

While writing my response I forgot you mentioned %. In the case of URL encoding it has different meanings depending on the two character hexadecimal (0-9+a-f) value that follows the % symbol…as in this table:

%2c means ,, in URL encoding, so in the case of MM query params like Albino%2CButter%2CLesser it sort of does perform logic as you described. But the backend parsing is not necessarily universal, so again, there’s not a 1:1 case there for all systems. Nonetheless, it pretty much applies to your intended question, as far as I understand it.

  • Question: Only you and DEAD people understand hexadecimal. How many people understand hexadecimal?
  • Answer: 57006


  • There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don’t
  • There are only two types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don’t, and those who understand ternary.
1 Like

Another use of “or” (or maybe something similar) I would like to see is for different levels of the same gene. Say I’m looking for a triple het that I’m not very likely to find. If I could specify say (het albino or albino) for one of the genes my search wouldn’t exclude the better animal which might just happen to show up first. Similarly, for a less likely gene I might want to go down to possibly het like (possible het tristripe or het tristripe).

Alternatively, for different levels of a given gene maybe an “at least” option would be easier than “or”. If say behind the scenes the database defines 50% possible het as 1 and 66% het as 2 and 100% het as 3 and homozygous as 4 it could translate the user’s request to search for “at least 66% het” for a given gene into “>= 2”.

1 Like

I think part of the problem with searching is that the search just works on traits, which is kind of like a tag the animal either has, or it doesn’t, whereas the animals themselves have two slots for any given allelic group. With the tags it’s hard to specify whether you are looking for a “butter” or a “lesser” or a BEL that has both. If we could search based on alleles it would be easy to say ( (“butter” or “lesser”), (“normal”) ). We cold also do something like ( (“yellow belly”), (“gravel”) ) to find actual highways and ((“yellow belly” or “gravel”), (“normal”)) if we’re looking to gamble on getting that gravel, or just trying to id a combo.

1 Like

Just wondering if this ever got any traction behind the scenes?
What made me think of this thread again today was what MM does when you click on a recessive gene name from the browse list, it directs you to a page /gene/clown (for example)

This then shows you visual, het and pos het adverts for that gene…i.e. some sort of OR functionality or grouping going on here.

Could this not be expanded on to combine at least the common pairs of similar/identical genes, and/or allelic genes?

1 Like

With the release of a bunch of new projects and features we have not had much chance to come back to this for a few weeks.

I’ve just added your comment and bumped it up our list though.


Generally the search lets you choose combos. Which is great, what if you want to see every version of a trait, for example… show any of the following Axanthic (Jolliff, MJ, TSK, VPI, GCR, Black Ax, Red Ax, etc…) Because you want to see options. Not just one line of Ax.

Or I want to see TSK Axanthic, and I want to see any of the following combos. Ax Fire, Ax Vanilla, or Ax OD, etc…


There’s a similar request here: