Naming morphs

Continuing the discussion from Ghosts mixed up?:

Do you think it would be possible to rename morphs or do you think we are too deep into it now to make any reasonable changes?

There are a lot of genes that either have similar names but are unrelated to each other (all the ‘Ghost’ morphs for example) or are related to each other and have completely different names (banana/coral glow… Butter/lesser)

Even if we can’t alter the names of already established morphs, how can we stop this confusion happening with more as the amount of available morphs grows?

There was a debate on here about the Tiger Combo vs Tiger Gene and which one was right to use the name ‘Tiger’… Could this be possible with others?

In the short term it would lead to more confusion than we already have but eventually it will make a lot more sense to newcomers and veterans alike.

Any thoughts?

Figuring out what a combo is or what the base morph is, is already hard enough with out everyone trying to rename things that have been out for years now. People name things without doing their due diligent first, which how we end up with combo with the same name as single gene animal.

Us old timers are already having a hard enough time with the “new correct” terminology, now to only add renaming established names genes to it.


Renaming at this point would only lead to more confusion IMO, not to mention that getting the person who named a line or combo on board might not as easy as you think.

1 Like

Het Red Axanthic is a better example, in my opinion. The biologist in me dies a little every time I use super to describe a homozygous dominant gene, however, for simplification the hobby I bite my tongue and go with it as it is at least consistent. Het is reserved to indicate a snake with only one copy of a recessive gene. If we are sticking to the current naming conventionsbthen it should be red axanthic and super red axanthic.

Back to the topic you posted I agree with both @hardwiredexotics and @stewart_reptiles. If Joliff named the gene first then that should take precedent, however if Joliff is amenable to have his name tagged to the gene then it is a reasonable compromise.

In all honesty we need to clean up some of the naming either way. At some point, for example, either coral glow or banana needs to be merged. To give an example black pastel, you have generic black pastels then you have Neilsen line, Barnhart line, and I believe a 3rd line that look different from the others. These are listed as black Pastel for the morph and then the title or description labels the different line.