I want to add that there is quite a bit of inconsistency in the current naming convention already. Ball Pythons for example, have Het Red Axanthic (not recessive). A lot of people are calling Het Monsoon “Fractal”. Depending on who you talk to, some people refer to Paint as Het Paint/Paint or Paint/Super Paint. There’s Lace/White Lace. Mahogany/Suma (Even thou Suma is SUperMAhogany). And Copper/Suco for the same reason.
This is basically the same reason why people wanted Palmetto/Super Palmetto changed back to Het Palmetto/Palmetto. It was reclassified as inc-dom, but the naming convention for it as been Het Palmetto/Palmetto for so long. Switching it to the convention would be too confusing and frustrating for breeders who work with the morph. We shouldn’t change established, existing names just to fit with the convention
Was going to bring this up. When that change happened it caused a lot of confusion and the searches for Palmetto still don’t work right, because if you search for a Het Palmetto, it still shows all the visual animals as well.
On top of that, I’m kind of confused as to why this is being rediscussed, anyways, as @eaglereptiles had already agreed to make this change last year. The issue was that Green Blotch was only added as an alias for Super Halo and not the primary name for the super form. This is just checking in to see when the change that was promised will happen.
As much as I would appreciate constancy and consistency of naming conventions across the hobby, this is just not the case. Scientifically accurate in terms of heritability? Nope. It’s all very confusing for people new to the hobby or to any new segment of the hobby. But.
The corn snake community writ large has recognized the phenotype of Green Blotch and of Halo for many years. @snakesmiths is correct about the fact that snakes were being identified as Green Blotch long before anybody realized that Green Blotch was the homozygous form of Halo. The only place I’ve seen the term “Super Halo” is here. I have supported the idea of changing “Super Halo” to “Green Blotch.” I actually thought we’d already planned to do this. We should. Please.
I don’t care what it’s called whether it be green blotched or halo, but I don’t see any value in having the heterozygous version be called green botched and the homozygous version being called halo In the system.
What other mutant genes across the entire system on MorphMarket are labeled two different completely unrelated names for heterozygous and homozygous? In this case, I would use the example of yellow belly Ball Pythons. The colloquial name for a super yellow belly is ivory. It’s still listed in the system is super yellow belly even though it’s been ivory in the hobby for a couple of decades. If you search ivory Ball Pythons, you still get the result you’re looking for but at least it’s correctly labeled (somewhat, Don’t get me started on the term super) as Super yellow belly.
Well… This is from MorphMarket’s article on halo.
So technically wouldn’t this make it het green blotch (aka: halo) and green blotch? Since it was found later to actually be the single gene of what was thought to be a totally different morph… Not super halo.
I’m not speaking as a decision maker on this subject.
It looks like the corn snake community can’t even speak with certainty on this gene based on all the maybes in that excerpt.
My comments are directed entirely at the marketplace tag, not the ‘name’. I seriously could not care less what a gene is a called by the hobby. Super Mahogany is tagged as Super mahogany, not suma. Same goes for all the other colloquial names that were listed in that comment.
Here are my thoughts and my personal feelings on potential solutions (bear in mind I am not involved in policy-making and so cannot claim that my suggestions for a solution will be implemented)
Using bally pythons, because that seems to be the fallback happening here, I see Halo/GreenBlotch as being no different than Yellowbelly/Ivory or Butter/BluEL - the heterozygous and homozygous have two completely different and unrelated namings
With corns, if you search “GreenBlotched” you do not get anything. If you search “Halo” you get ads for animals that are heterozygous and homozygous. If you search “het Halo” you get ads for animals that are heterozygous. And if you search “SuperHalo” you get ads for homozygous
Is this correct?
But with balls, you can search “Ivory” (the normal name everyone knows) or “Super Yellowbelly” (factually accurate thought never used), and you get ads for homozygous animals either way. And if you search “Yellowbelly” you get ads for both heterozygous and homozygous animals
So…
It seems to me that the most obvious solution is to basically ‘rewrite’ the Halo/GreenBlotch code such that it follows the same rules as Yellowbelly/Ivory
We kind of already have this setup with Palmetto in corns, too, so it wouldn’t be new. If you search Palmetto you get shown only supers, if you search het you get all animals with the gene. I hadn’t realized it was supposed to work this way and had been annoyed that when I searched for single gene animals it showed me both het and homo. Now that you explain how it works on the BP side it makes more sense.
IMPO, the most important issue at hand is that MorphMarket should not be introducing new, inaccurate names that the hobby has not embraced. As @Caryl pointed out, “Super Halo” is not a term being used anywhere but on MM, and using it IS creating confusion among those who might not understand the history of Halo and Green Blotch.
Yes, this is correct. And this is the problem. It’s really not about simply trying to match our terms to community usage. It’s also because the current MM tags result in people being unable to find animals.
