 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Available Now at RodentPro.com! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by reuben on August 02, 2002 at 01:06:16:
In Reply to: The Official Standard of Corn Snake Morphology... posted by Serpwidgets on August 02, 2002 at 00:04:30:
I agree with Serpwidgets and would probably pay 5 bucks for such a guide once every two years if I came accross it. However I would like to point out that with snakes we have an interesting cross between science and market value. Webster's isn't the only linguistic authority and they wouldn't have any authority if they couldn't hold thier positions on given words up to the light of linguistics. Also while they do sell thier information, there is no market value for specific words so that they're decision on a given term is not guided (contaminated) by market forces. Comic books, baseball cards, and to some degree stamps, have value only in respect to thier market, that is, what actual price you could get for a specific copy in a specific atmousphere. The price guides for such items are not scholarship, but an attempt to profit secondarily in a given market by providing a service: namely, a reliable survey of available items and average cost. But they don't have to prove anything. With herpetoculture we're caught between taxonomic definitions and market based definitions. At present the market is interested more in phenotypes rather than genotypes. The Webster's equivilent would call most of what's for sale out there Elaphe guttata guttata, and move on. The book proposed by Serpwidgets might provide interesting insight into the herpetoculture hobby in the United States; and would be considered a success if it made him a profit. However, in order to be a reliable authority (and not just an accepted standard) one would have to develop a branch of taxonomy which could define the established genetically based phenotypes scientifically, with line heritages and clearly defined observable traits. How can you prevent someone from selling a caramel as a butter? Does a difference in value represent the Butter's lack of emori genes or simply ficle market fashions? Do you define heterozygous as a quality with genetic value or market value? That is, is an Oketee het for amelanism called something else than a non-het Oketee? Yet it brings in a different price. Females are worth more than males, but are taxonomically the same. Okay, I'm beginning to ramble. Just wanted to raise some questions. Like I say, I'd probably buy it, you'd probably make a profit, and market forces would determine which standard "wins" but none would be definitive.
