Seamus Haley
Big Game Hunter
It seems like a pretty small factor when deciding on a purchase, but those adjectives that get applied to animals can impact how likely a buyer is to send money in exchange for the animal...
Not every term is really something that means anything substantial though, it can be applied to different traits by different people, we've had a few issues brought up in some of the forums lately that triggered some of these debates.
Some things are obvious... like species when there isn't any serious debate about nomenclature or gender. An animal either is what it was sold as or it isn't... Some genetic traits are the same way, something either is or is not albino for instance.
But what about terms that are used to compare... when nothing is given as a real standard for the industry.
"Rare" is one that bugs me a lot, all it means is that there is something more common, which isn't saying much. House geckos are "Rare" if you compare them to green anoles, so where should the line be drawn? CITES appendix one animals? Animals that aren't openly imported? Or just something that isn't seen every day? There was a thread awhile back where someone was asking what to price red back sallies at, they called them rare... because they aren't seen for sale that often, but I can go to virtually any plot of ground larger than around 8' x 8' with some leaf litter or a decaying log and find a half dozen...
"Healthy" is another one that really shouldn't be questionable but sometimes is... An animal can be alive but have scars or missing limbs/tail tip... It can be eating but still have a non-lethal parasite load... it can be active but covered in ticks. Everyone has a different personal standard for when an animal is 100% and some people see anything that can survive a trip as being "healthy" there are less severe examples too of course... a male boa that was used as a breeder and is underweight... is that "Healthy" since it's normal for a male of the species to be a bit lighter than normal this time of year or is it unacceptable because it represents a potential health problem... or at the very least an issue that needs a bit more attention.
"Feeding" comes up sometimes... it's a harder one to pin down because an animal freshly shipped isn't always as eager to start chowing as it might have been two days before... but what constitutes "feeding"? It would vary with species obviously, since they have different metabolisms but... say a medium sized boid for example... once a week? Once every two weeks? Every three? What if it refuses meals in between?
"Long Term Captive" how long term is long term? There was that issue where someone bought a black throat monitor loaded with parasites and had a reasonable issue because it was sold as CB... but then tried to sell it themselves as LTC... yet not a month before hand, it was loaded with african ticks. What other factors come into play here? Does it have to be dewormed? Feeding? Feeding for how long? Shed while in captivity? Been captive a full year so it's seasonal patterns are know?
"CB vs. CBB vs. CH" Captive bred, captive born, captive bred and born, captive hatched... The confusion exists mostly around the first term used as it could mean wild collected adult females that lay eggs/drop babies or wild collected eggs... or it could mean that the entire process took place in captivity... there is no industry standard, which can cause confusiuon with neophyte keepers who haven't learned to ask yet.
"Docile or Tame" two of the most rediculous terms that can be used to describe a reptile in my personal opinion, because the behavior is a result of instincts tempered by environment, stimulus and general health... but for those who choose to use these terms in their ads, what consitutes "Tame", especially for species that have a reputation for being deffensive... Take an emmie for example, the behavior during the day approaching from below is going to be a lot different from the behavior at night approaching from above... so what conditions are used to judge docility and "tameness."
Some colors and patterns are an issue too... or the words used to describe them anyway.
A reccent example being the debate about Okeetee corn snakes... is it a pattern? A locale? A pattern from a locale?
Or the term "red tail boa" it's the industry standard for virtually all Boa constrictors seen for sale that can't be called something even more impressive, but there exists debate about which subspecies it can be applied to correctly.
How about "Hypo"? It just means "less than normal" with no specific designation for the trait needing to be genetic or to what degree it would have to be displayed... It also doesn't, by itself, denote exactly which trait is lacking, but is generally applied to hypomelanism. So if I see something slightly lighter than normal, that's a hypo... if I see something a single dark scale away from being an albino... that's a hypo too. Where do we draw the line for what can be advertised as having a trait before it becomes misrepresentation? The same applies to "Hyper" or subjective uses of "really red" "bright green" etc.
"Around X feet" Around a certain measurement implies within a few inches in either direction to me... but others might see it as... six inches, or eight or... in one reccent case, twelve. How specific should measurements be... and how much does the margin of acceptable error increase as the size of the animal sold increases? Three inches short of ten feet is one thing... three inches short of six inches is another matter entirely.
"Screamer" "Blazing" "Perfect" or any other term which is difficult to even pin down as having a meaning...
It seems like it might not be that much of an issue... and in most cases it won't be, people tend to reccognize a sales pitch and not set their expectations *too* high for the animal(s) they reccieve. But when there is an industry wide consensus about accurate representation... and use of those terms, especially when there is disagreement about their application... could (and has) lead to big problems for people entering into a transaction.
Setting aside the fact that it's smartest to ask for pictures first... if I order an animal represented as a "Rare Screamer Hypo Healthy Feeding Perfect Leopard gecko around eight inches long and fat" and get in a normal looking five and a half inch, slightly light colored young adult animal with normal yellow that refuses to take any food except wax worms if they are held with tweezers... What sort of argument can I form to show misrepresentation? It's rarer than a green anole, it's brighter than some other geckos, it's lighter than some other geckos, it's not dead, it does eat, it is within a few inches of the advertised size... But i think most of us would agree that it was misrepresented.
What about say... a Boa sold as being "Hypo, feeding and healthy" that is homozygous for hypomelanism but the individual animal doesn't display the trait to the degree I thought it would, because I had seen pictures of super light animals online? What if it only eats when I physically place a prey item in it's mouth to get it started? If it's underweight because it has been breeding, but should quickly gain the weight back? None of the description was really a lie... but the customer didn't get what they thought they would.
Basically I'm asking for the opinions of others about where the line is drawn between "different opinions of (trait)" and outright misrepresentation. I have my own opinions and, of course, every situation will be different, but I was wondering about the opinions the rest of you might have.
Not every term is really something that means anything substantial though, it can be applied to different traits by different people, we've had a few issues brought up in some of the forums lately that triggered some of these debates.
Some things are obvious... like species when there isn't any serious debate about nomenclature or gender. An animal either is what it was sold as or it isn't... Some genetic traits are the same way, something either is or is not albino for instance.
But what about terms that are used to compare... when nothing is given as a real standard for the industry.
"Rare" is one that bugs me a lot, all it means is that there is something more common, which isn't saying much. House geckos are "Rare" if you compare them to green anoles, so where should the line be drawn? CITES appendix one animals? Animals that aren't openly imported? Or just something that isn't seen every day? There was a thread awhile back where someone was asking what to price red back sallies at, they called them rare... because they aren't seen for sale that often, but I can go to virtually any plot of ground larger than around 8' x 8' with some leaf litter or a decaying log and find a half dozen...
"Healthy" is another one that really shouldn't be questionable but sometimes is... An animal can be alive but have scars or missing limbs/tail tip... It can be eating but still have a non-lethal parasite load... it can be active but covered in ticks. Everyone has a different personal standard for when an animal is 100% and some people see anything that can survive a trip as being "healthy" there are less severe examples too of course... a male boa that was used as a breeder and is underweight... is that "Healthy" since it's normal for a male of the species to be a bit lighter than normal this time of year or is it unacceptable because it represents a potential health problem... or at the very least an issue that needs a bit more attention.
"Feeding" comes up sometimes... it's a harder one to pin down because an animal freshly shipped isn't always as eager to start chowing as it might have been two days before... but what constitutes "feeding"? It would vary with species obviously, since they have different metabolisms but... say a medium sized boid for example... once a week? Once every two weeks? Every three? What if it refuses meals in between?
"Long Term Captive" how long term is long term? There was that issue where someone bought a black throat monitor loaded with parasites and had a reasonable issue because it was sold as CB... but then tried to sell it themselves as LTC... yet not a month before hand, it was loaded with african ticks. What other factors come into play here? Does it have to be dewormed? Feeding? Feeding for how long? Shed while in captivity? Been captive a full year so it's seasonal patterns are know?
"CB vs. CBB vs. CH" Captive bred, captive born, captive bred and born, captive hatched... The confusion exists mostly around the first term used as it could mean wild collected adult females that lay eggs/drop babies or wild collected eggs... or it could mean that the entire process took place in captivity... there is no industry standard, which can cause confusiuon with neophyte keepers who haven't learned to ask yet.
"Docile or Tame" two of the most rediculous terms that can be used to describe a reptile in my personal opinion, because the behavior is a result of instincts tempered by environment, stimulus and general health... but for those who choose to use these terms in their ads, what consitutes "Tame", especially for species that have a reputation for being deffensive... Take an emmie for example, the behavior during the day approaching from below is going to be a lot different from the behavior at night approaching from above... so what conditions are used to judge docility and "tameness."
Some colors and patterns are an issue too... or the words used to describe them anyway.
A reccent example being the debate about Okeetee corn snakes... is it a pattern? A locale? A pattern from a locale?
Or the term "red tail boa" it's the industry standard for virtually all Boa constrictors seen for sale that can't be called something even more impressive, but there exists debate about which subspecies it can be applied to correctly.
How about "Hypo"? It just means "less than normal" with no specific designation for the trait needing to be genetic or to what degree it would have to be displayed... It also doesn't, by itself, denote exactly which trait is lacking, but is generally applied to hypomelanism. So if I see something slightly lighter than normal, that's a hypo... if I see something a single dark scale away from being an albino... that's a hypo too. Where do we draw the line for what can be advertised as having a trait before it becomes misrepresentation? The same applies to "Hyper" or subjective uses of "really red" "bright green" etc.
"Around X feet" Around a certain measurement implies within a few inches in either direction to me... but others might see it as... six inches, or eight or... in one reccent case, twelve. How specific should measurements be... and how much does the margin of acceptable error increase as the size of the animal sold increases? Three inches short of ten feet is one thing... three inches short of six inches is another matter entirely.
"Screamer" "Blazing" "Perfect" or any other term which is difficult to even pin down as having a meaning...
It seems like it might not be that much of an issue... and in most cases it won't be, people tend to reccognize a sales pitch and not set their expectations *too* high for the animal(s) they reccieve. But when there is an industry wide consensus about accurate representation... and use of those terms, especially when there is disagreement about their application... could (and has) lead to big problems for people entering into a transaction.
Setting aside the fact that it's smartest to ask for pictures first... if I order an animal represented as a "Rare Screamer Hypo Healthy Feeding Perfect Leopard gecko around eight inches long and fat" and get in a normal looking five and a half inch, slightly light colored young adult animal with normal yellow that refuses to take any food except wax worms if they are held with tweezers... What sort of argument can I form to show misrepresentation? It's rarer than a green anole, it's brighter than some other geckos, it's lighter than some other geckos, it's not dead, it does eat, it is within a few inches of the advertised size... But i think most of us would agree that it was misrepresented.
What about say... a Boa sold as being "Hypo, feeding and healthy" that is homozygous for hypomelanism but the individual animal doesn't display the trait to the degree I thought it would, because I had seen pictures of super light animals online? What if it only eats when I physically place a prey item in it's mouth to get it started? If it's underweight because it has been breeding, but should quickly gain the weight back? None of the description was really a lie... but the customer didn't get what they thought they would.
Basically I'm asking for the opinions of others about where the line is drawn between "different opinions of (trait)" and outright misrepresentation. I have my own opinions and, of course, every situation will be different, but I was wondering about the opinions the rest of you might have.
