There is a thread here-
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...ad.php?t=99385
where some discussion arose about the validity of some terms Ed was using to describe the animals he was selling. As the discussion there became a little more heated, a little more ongoing and remained unresolved, I sent a PM to a moderator asking about the line with regards to making posts about a BOI topic in a non-BOI forum; not wishing to break the rule but a little uncertain about where that point was as the responses directly on the ad evolved into a full blown conversation.
A short time after that, the thread was locked and Dennis indicated that further discussion about the possible misrepresentation would be better placed on the BOI.
Apparantly at some point after *that*, Ed (?) unlocked the thread and there were a number of additional responses. Ed also edited the text of his original ad, making much of the conversation it had prompted seem drastically out of context. Luckily I saved a series of screenshots, suspecting it might dissapear or change if it got too heated.
The point of contention basically boils down to using a term which has been coined in association with a phenotype that has an associated genotype when it does not directly serve as an adjective describing the animal's appearance and when it's applied to imported stock with an undetermined background.
There are some terms which directly indicatethe pattern or color that will be seen. Axanthic is an animal without yellow, a genetically unproven animal with no yellow is still an axanthic. Or animals with stripes or spots or unmarked ventral scales are all exactly what they are- there may be an established associated genotype to match the phenotype but the word applies when it applies regardless of the genetics involved.
Then there are terms which have been applied that directly indicate a specific genotype and do not directly describe the phenotype. This is where you find terms like "pastel" and "mojave" and "harlequinn" "motley" and "granite" and "bumblebee" and so on... Some of these are applied before a genotype is identified, however once a genetic cause is determined and the specifics of the dominance are understood, the term applies only to proven animals. It ceases to be an adjective (unless a snake is literally made of stone or formed of bees I suppose) and identifies some very speciifc genetic material that any animals so labeled need to be carrying.
If an animal is mislabeled, it becomes misrepresented. An intentionally misrepresented animal indicates an attempt to defraud a customer. It is a lie specifically set down to gain money through the deceit. Bad guy territory.
In that thread, Ed stated the following "Granites have been proven over and over to be geneticly reproducible." when questioned a little by several watchdog types (I personally came in late after the thread had generated several replies, I just have a longstanding interest in the underlying subject).
As will be plain in the screenshot from his original, unedited Ad he does not directly state that the animals are from unproven stock. He implies it indirectly by listing them as CH imports, but then proceeds to show a series of photos with the improperly applied names plastered all over them in all caps when the terms simply do not apply to the geneotypical unknowns he is offering for sale.
I'm also the last guy in the world who will complain about a seller selling their product for any cost they deem appropriate; high or low
if they are honest in their advertisement and practices. These animals Ed is advertising seem to have a
substantial markup over what could be considered a market average. When coupled with the misleading terms that indicate a genotype he can not possibly verify, it *seems* like an attempt to scam an unsuspecting or less than knowledgeable buyer out of some extra cash.
Ed basically ignored or dodged the questions he was asked, then edited away the evidence of potential wrongdoing after the thread had been locked by a supermod. During the course of the thread, I was suspicious of wrongdoing but attempted, at least initially, to request an alternative explaination. Since the response was to hide the act, I suppose I got a sort of sideways answer.
At any rate- this is being created more to continue the discussion than anything else. It is a more appropriate forum for it. I cannot honestly call it "bad guy" behavior outright, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there aren't a lot of non-duck options left.
Small pre-post edit: I had to substantially crop or shrink the screenshot in order to post it within the pixel limitations of the board. I went with cropping since shrinking made the text less legible. I have saved full sized screenshots of the thread up to my first post, I can email these upon request if anyone really needs the rest of the window.
Linear Mode
