To Jump or Not To Jump

Tom, you're making my point for me!

Take axanthic for example. If your snake lacks yellow pigment it is an Axanthic period.

It doesn't have to be proven, it shows the trait. The word pastel is an adjective. It goes both ways, if one chooses to market an animal with an adjective then they can't cry foul when others choose the same adjective to describe thiers. I'm sorry that whoever produced these snakes chose that word to market them. But, just because they did so, does not mean that the word can never be used again by someone else to describe another snake. Mojave is probably a better choice. It's not an adjective. So in that case they get to create thier own definition. But, they don't get a trademark on the word or snakes which exhibit those traits. Anyone who has a snake that fits the definition could then call thiers Mojave.

As for the "$100 pastel" I own as of now. The snake I am speaking of will be sold for much more than $100. And I'll put a picture of it up against your pic anytime. Frankily, I think mine blows yours away. Problem is I don't know how to post pics. I will work on that this weekend. I do have a digital camera and can email out some pics (I'll have to take some first). So, stay tuned. I'll try to be ready with pics tonight.

Mojave is probably a better choice. It's not an adjective. So in that case they get to create thier own definition.

My point exaclty. Now with regards to pastels. In the painters lingo a pastel color is a color that is subdued, not as intense. From that perspective "pastel" boas are more adjusted to the term than pastel ball pythons. A high contrast animal is not a pastel, pastel is the fading-away color in the pattern, something like with the blushing. Again in art, pastel colors are those that, although retaining the original base, they are not as intense. In MHO the term pastels was not very well applied to the ball pythons that are termed as such.

Regards.

There are different terms that can be used and have different origins...

As I said earlier, terms related directly to pigment production are not identical to terms used solely as a selling point...

Axanthic literally means "Devoid of Yellow Pigment"

Pastel by dictionary definitions is a much more subjective term...

HOWEVER...

In the industry, it is reccognized as being applicable to certain patterns, to a certain appearance. Once that happens, especially once it is applied widely to a genetically proven morph, it becomes off limits for animals that aren't displaying identical traits.

You can't say there is no industry standard for Pastel ball pythons because there IS... If you showed individuals specializing in regius morphs your kinda light colored not exactly normal imports, how many of them would, without prompting, label them pastel?

Once a term becomes reccognized as being associated with a specific phenotype or, even more importantly, genotype... Using it to describe animals that do not qualify becomes misrepresentative.

Could I sell reddish dragons as Sandfires if they couldn't be traced back to Sandfire Dragon Ranch without being deceptive?

Could I sell normal ball pythons as piebalds without it being deceptive? I mean, my dictionary here defines it as "1 : of different colors; especially : spotted or blotched with black and white 2 : composed of incongruous parts " normal ball pythons are of different colors...

If the above are unacceptable, how is selling lightish balls as pastels any different?

Pastel is applied to a particular genetically proven morph. As such, it loses it's status as "just an adjective" when it's used specifically to describe ball pythons.

Going back to the original question on this thread, "to jump or not to jump"? What should we do with an ad like the following

I was told this snake was hatched out of a clutch containing piebalds...I am no authority on ball python morphs, but this snake does have a cluster of snow white scales, about the size of a dime, on her. She is approximately 5 years old, and has never been bred. She is feeding on frozen thawed rats and she is a large, healthy animal, approx 3 1/2 - 4 ft long. I do not have much information on this snake, got her as a trade in at a show...I will accept any reasonable offers!!! Let me know what you think! Thank you.

I always thought piebald could be as small as a few scales, and that the amount of white wasn't directly inheiritable. I could be wrong, though. He never says in the ad how much he's charging, but I hope the buyer would understand the risk that whatever that spot is might not be genetic.

Erin B.

Erin,

Look a the black surrounding the white scales. That is clearly an old scar, no doubt about it. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he doesn't know. But any ways, should one let something like this go and allow a buyer to pay $2,000 for that snake when it's clearly worth the price of an adult normal ball python female ($200). Decisions, decisions...

OK guys, here goes nothing. It worked in the test area so I'll try it here.

The one in the foreground is what I would call a pastel. It has the extremely light (blushing) head. A soft hew to the gold and huge gold eyelines which seem to lighten the eye itself. The one in back is close but I would probably just call it extra nice. The one on the left is what I call a normal.

Brian...

Why not just write your own BOI post explaining that you misrepresent your animals and add ludicrous markups past what would be considered a reasonable profit and sell normal animals as posessing a trait that inexperienced keepers would see as desireable and not have the knowledge to know is not the case?

Ball pythons are a species that exhibits a great deal of variety in the "normal" phenotype, what you are doing is misrepresenting normal deviations by applying a term commonly accepted as being specific to a genetic morph.

This is almost as bad as the ad I saw selling half changed GTPs as "Christmas Morphs" because they were red and green.

Simply a lack of ethics.

Once a term becomes reccognized as being associated with a specific phenotype or, even more importantly, genotype... Using it to describe animals that do not qualify becomes misrepresentative.

Seamus, where do I sign up a term so that it can be "recognized?" And man, I bet the guy who registered the term "okeetee" and "creamsicle" is really pissed. I would like to claim "tangerine boa." That way when my screaming orange boa downstairs drops her first litter everyone will have to follow my definition of just exactly what a tangerine boa is or is not.

I understand the reason everyone tries so hard to defend these terms. It's real easy, ($$$$$$$$$$). After you spend 10k on a snake you want to think you're one of very few people with that snake. I have no problem with someone using a line like "John Smith line pastel," but you cannot trademark the adjective "pastel." That ball I just posted has "a soft hew" to it's color. Therefor, it fits the definition of pastel. Frankly, I think it fits your definition too.

Based on your logic if I hatched a bright green corn snake tomorrow and decided to call it the "Flouresent corn," no one else could ever use that name unless they used my bloodline to create their offspring. Even if they produced hundreds of these bright green corn snakes, they wouldn't really be "flouresent corns" because they didn't come with/from my genotype.

OK Seamus, so you're saying that because Tom payed thousands of dollars for his snake and has a piece of paper from some breeder it has more inherant value than mine. Tom's snake has a very light colored head.....so does mine. Tom's has stunning yellow color that is different than the "industry standard"........so does mine. Tom's has bright wide gold lines down the side of it's face......so does mine. Tom's has light colored irises....so does mine.

I think I have the right to sell that snake as a farm raised "pastel." I make absolutely no claims as to it's genetics, none. The snake is "pastel" as described by it's phenotype. When the first person tried to cross Sharp and Kahl strain albino boas, and all the babies came out normal phenotypically did that then mean that the second strain to hit the market was no longer albino? I mean after all, (for the sake of arguement lets say Kahl was first), Peter Kahl had already claimed the term "albino boa." And if the Sharp strain didn't have the same genotype then, we can't really call it albino anymore now can we?

If you put out a definition of pastel and then someone else's snake lives up to the phenotype, you have to accept them. They may not be "Snakekeeper line pastels" but they are still pastels. Just the same as both Kahl and Sharp strains are albino.