Mostly, yes. But, as I noted in the other thread that this convo got split to, I have seen cases where you would be hard pressed to ID some single gene YB animals. Specter is apparently more common for this as well, reflecting on it
.
.
.
This is the standard convention. The issue is that the herp hobby tends to just use a single clutch and look at only the animals within that clutch as their barometer. As opposed to the more accurate/scientific method of large diverse sample sizes and statistical significance
.
.
.
I noted this in the split too. If there is a way the clickity-clacks can solve the issue without a full on change to the classification then I have no issues, I just do not know enough about the clickity-clacks.
100% concur with t_h_wyman here… The listings (and associated tags denoting the type of mutations; e.g., recessive, dominant), the calculator, and MorphMedia listings need to be factually correct. Treating Halo/Green Blotch as recessive would be a step backwards IMO.
Also, personally, I am definitely NOT in favor of introducing what would be a new term, “Super Halo”, as Green Blotched is already established in the hobby.
I wonder if just adding “pos x” for all Inc-dom traits across all species would be the better route to go.
This could especially help in ball pythons, where it’s not entirely clear if the animal has x morph(s) but might be due to the pairing (such as with BELs, high white pieds, etc.)
To add to this, would it be possible, perhaps, to treat a “pos x” as an “other” trait to remove it from calculations? That way it doesn’t change the inheritance or the calculator, it’s just a marker? I.e. we’d have a gray “pos x” and then the blue & purple for the het & homo.
Adding a pos tag for inc dom genes would be a big can of worms. Everyone who is either a new breeder, or not very good at identifying geness, will label everything as pos pastel pos enchi pos OD pos YB etc. It would eliminate the need for the breeder to strive to be accurate in their IDs.
I 100% agree. I think in instances like this gene for corns that they’ve explained, can make sense. But I’d hate to see poss on every ball python listing lol
I really do appreciate all of the contributions to this discussion. I didn’t mean to disappear; there has been a family crisis which is thankfully improved but still has a ways to go. And now my physical issues are flaring
Anyhow, I’ll try and do a more thoughtful read and reply tomorrow.
Shorthand summary of my thoughts now, I still see where what I originally requested could be helpful and makes sense. I also see how it could be problematic from a usage standpoint, especially for species with many traits which are inherited in an incomplete dominant manner. (Corns have comparatively few.) No responsible person wants to see a "Possible " tag slapped willy-nilly on every other animal because people don’t know how to ID what can actually be seen. I was, am, will remain of the opinion that we shouldn’t list traits incorrectly. I still don’t know how technically feasible it is; way outside my knowledge area.
Again, thanks for the good discussions so far. I know it’s not “my” thread just because I opened this particular can of worms. No hubris meant. Just want to convey appreciation for this community.
This is not really directly related to the “possible het tag” discussion above but seemed like a semi-related issue. Apologies if someone already suggested this (I admit I did not re-read the entire discussion above :), but would it be possible, and wouldn’t it make sense, to change the name of this mutation/category to " Halo / Green Blotch " ? Green Blotch has a much longer history of usage in the hobby and I have never heard anyone refer to a Halo as “Het Green Blotch”, even if that is genetically correct. There will certainly be folks listing Green Blotch Snows that would likely appreciate this small tweak. thanks in advance for input
Just wondering… hopefully this is a simpler matter to correct than initially adding a trait. Do we have a time frame for getting the “Super Halo” trait tag corrected to “Green Blotch?”
Can we please get the term “Super Halo” removed absolutely everywhere before it starts to catch on? Green Blotched has a 20+ year history of use in the hobby and Halo was only formally recognized a couple years ago. Green Blotched has precedence as the preferred term for the homozygous form of this mutation. Halo is only the name for the heterozygous condition. The list of mutations and the tags that are assigned to corn snakes should read “Halo/GreenBlotched”. I know I am not the only one who would be grateful if this error could be corrected. Thanks
It’s not quite that easy. I’ll tag in some other staff members.
It is my personal opinion that There needs to be a consistent naming convention, or it creates more confusion. Having the heterozygous animals called one thing and the homozygous animals called another thing creates the possibility to make it a barrier for entry for new keepers or breeders.
In most cases I’d agree with you that to avoid confusion, one name is best. However, in this case the Corn Snake breeding community has been using the term Green Blotch for 20+ years, and only recently adopted the term Halo when it was discovered that they are the het and homo forms of an actual mutation, and not just unrelated line bred traits. Personally, I don’t think the small amount of potential confusion caused by calling the mutation Halo/Green Blotch is an issue, but if we have to settle on a single name, then Green Blotch has precedence.
