Proven: To what degree it is proven out to not just be polygenic?
Multiple lines of the animal, ocelot/ arcoiris.
Unique: Why do you believe this is a new morph and not an existing one?
Only ocelot is listed. Ocelot is only a line bred from an already existing animal called rainbow. Arcoiris is another line, not at all ocelot.
Problems: Any problems? No
History: The history behind its discovery? Over 10 years ago het rainbows were imported into the USA from Erik Keyster and micheal cole. These animals were bred and the offspring were then called ocelot and arcoiris (name of the lines created, original animal is and was rainbow reticulated python) Disagreement or Controversy: multiple names/ lines from this original animal. Ocelot is listed as a catagory in reticulated python but if your animal is from arcoiris line of rainbow you cannot properly list it because it isn’t an ocelot reticulated python or from those lines.
References here on the community:
On categories go to reticulated python. click ocelot. (Multiple rainbow reticulated pythons, from the arcoiris line are listed under ocelot category but they are in no way ocelot. Either all listed are rainbow reticulated python and not have ocelot as a catagory or we need ocelot and arcoiris listed so we can properly list our animals.
At least one link to community discussion (ie forums) to demonstrate community acceptance
Link to WOBP if one exists.
Links to the wider web. Please attach at least 3 photos you have rights to which you are granting to be used on MorphMarket, Including 1 image next to a Normal/WT animal
I have no first hand knowledge of the origin of this morph, but if you do then I would have to agree with your statement:
I would suggest not having ocelot as a catagory, just having rainbow and then leave it up to the sellers to put in the description what line they are representing with the animal(ocelot, arcoiris) if they wish. I suggest this on the validity of the statement:
Unless this is not valid and there were/are other linages produced by different people, then they are all from the same (het.) rainbow heritage, correct? @eaglereptiles and a lot others have been working hard on the improvement of the reticulated Python calculator & the way the morphs are represented. Does anyone else have any experience/knowledge on this subject? @lumpy@amretics@jk-reptiles
In the US, they all came from an f1 import. All from the same clutch. Multiple names for the same gene. Since A&B won the race hitting the market with them (or at least made the biggest wave) and is calling them Ocelot, just leave it Ocelot. Dont over complicate things. There arent any different lines. The morph has wide variations in clutches.
The f1 hets were off a rainbow.
Paying thousands for an animal and you don’t even have a category on here to properly post it isn’t right. If anyone calls there Arcoiris an ocelot everyone throws a fit. Needs to be either one rainbow catagory for everyone to list ocelot and arcoiris under rainbow or both an ocelot and arcoiris catagory.
I think he wants the rainbow to be the only category if that was the original name for the morph? If the morph already existed as rainbow, then was imported here and the same morph is made then why change the name? I mean I guess bp breeders do it all the time, but usually they are imported or made by multiple people at or around the same time. Coral glow/ banana, mystic/phantom ect.
It’s exactly like the whole banana and coral glow thing in bp.
But there’s only one catagory with these snakes… then if you say the wrong name everyone throws a fit.
Imagine people being mad because you called a coral glow a banana or improperly listed your banana under coral glow…. It’s dumb but that’s what’s going on…
Only difference is it was originally called rainbow. The other two names either need to be separate or just one original rainbow named category.
I think it would be unnecessary and overkill to add 3 categories for the same gene obviously. I think it should be the original name, but if the breeders or community can’t agree on which name maybe it could be all of them:
Thats valid. Bounced this off someone else and they brought up supporting the breeder you got it from. That way everyone knows if the line came from PP, Slither, or A&B. I agree with that completely. Unfortunately people will pick up an Arcoiris and post up pictures calling it an Ocelot. Maybe changing the gene selection on MM would help clarify
Hi Aubrey here. Owner of A&BEXOTICS. Specializing in Ocelots as a gene. The nameing thing is a interesting story but very easy to clear up. The Original wc male was found in Central Java and bought by the Prestasi farm in Indo. US based owner of Ballroom Python South (Micheal Cole) is the US importer and partial.owner in the Indo Farm. He gave the original animal the name Rainbow and imported the f1 offspring into the States. Micheal gave me full permission to rename the project what I felt best suited the gene. Ocelot is a much more characteristic terminology than rainbow. Happy to Bring this to Mikes attention if need be to further clear up why the gene is now called Ocelot. If the admin choose to recognize the other names wonderful. But the gene founders permission was granted and fully accepting of the term Ocelot as the project name
The other breeder (Sam Pruitt/Slither) kept the name Rainbow for this project after isolating a separate (what seems to be Anerythristic) trait, which was then named Arcoiris… which produces Snows (ArcoirisAlbino)?
I think this is mostly a redundant conversation in that they are all the same mutation from the same source.
Aubrey has the most right, I think, to straighten this out as he has made the most impact with this gene and is the first name most retic folk think of when discussing the Rainbow/Ocelot mutation.
We make lineage distinctions in BPs but don’t require MM to split Black Pastel lineage’s or any other mutation that has distinct lines. They are all Black Pastel and the lineage distinction is made in the description or the sales title.
If both Michael and Aubrey agree on Ocelot than that is the base line and the lineage should be annotated separately. Simple is better and the fewer tags for the same mutation the better.