FAQ

Disputed Claims

The catalog covers what the breeder community broadly agrees on. It deliberately stays silent — or stays explicit about a separation — where the evidence is contested.

The rule of thumb: disputed claims stay separate. If two morphs are sometimes argued to be the same locus and sometimes argued to be distinct, the catalog keeps them as two separate traits, with a curator note explaining the dispute. Promoting them to synonyms would change calculator predictions, so the burden of proof is high — and most claims don't clear it.

This page lists every documented case where the catalog made an explicit "do not collapse" or "do not enumerate" decision.

Synonym dispute (3)

Champagne ≡ Puma
Ball Python
Some breeders argue Champagne and Puma are the same allele under different names. The catalog seeds them as two distinct codominant traits pending consensus. Re-evaluate if breeder agreement solidifies.
Granite ≡ Specter
Ball Python
Some breeders argue Granite and Specter are the same locus + allele under different names. Seeded separately pending consensus.
Bloodred ≡ Diffused
Corn Snake
Sometimes claimed as same-locus pairs in the corn-snake hobby, but the dispute is unsettled. Each carries a curator note explaining the dispute; aliases are not seeded.

Distinct loci (3)

Sharp T+ Albino ≠ VPI T+ Albino
Boa Constrictor
Distinct recessive lines that are NOT compatible — Sharp × VPI offspring are all double-het, not visual. Treat them as separate traits, not synonyms.
Anerythristic ≠ Charcoal
Corn Snake
Anerythristic is Anery A; Charcoal is Anery B at a separate locus. They are NOT the same gene; Anerythristic × Charcoal offspring are double-het, not visual.
Type II Anery distinct from Anery (Type I)
Boa Constrictor
Type I × Type II offspring are all double-het, not visual — distinct recessive locus from regular Anery.

Standalone classification (1)

Mahogany not in Cinnamon Complex
Ball Python
Mixed pairing reports — seeded as a standalone codominant rather than added to the Cinnamon Complex locus. Promote later if evidence clarifies.

Polygenic line variants (1)

Polygenic line variants are not enumerated
Leopard Gecko
Polygenic outcomes vary by line (Tangerine line A vs B, individual breeder lines). The catalog seeds the umbrella polygenic trait and lets keepers describe their line in notes; it does not enumerate every named line.

Multi-locus visual compound (3)

Sunglow as a single codominant trait
Boa Constrictor
Sunglow is the visual compound of Albino (recessive) + Hypo (codominant) — multi-locus, not a single locus. Ships as a combo trait via traitComponents linked to Albino + Hypo, with `unknown` inheritance so the calculator emits 'outcomes vary' rather than fake single-locus predictions.
Snow as a single recessive trait
Corn Snake
Snow is the visual compound of Amelanistic + Anerythristic — multi-locus. Same handling as Sunglow: ships as a combo trait via traitComponents with `unknown` inheritance.
RAPTOR and Blizzard as single recessive traits
Leopard Gecko
RAPTOR = Tremper Albino + Eclipse visual; Blizzard = Murphy Patternless + Tremper Albino visual. Both are multi-locus — ship as combo traits via traitComponents, not as single-locus traits.

Why these specifically — and not others

These are the cases where the breeder community has a public, named disagreement. The catalog policy:

  1. Synonym disputes (Champagne ≡ Puma, Granite ≡ Specter, Bloodred ≡ Diffused): kept as two separate traits with a note linking the dispute. Each carries its own probability in the calculator. If the synonym claim is correct, predictions are slightly conservative — never wrong in a way that surprises a breeder.
  2. Distinct-loci facts (Sharp T+ ≢ VPI T+, Anerythristic ≢ Charcoal, Type II Anery distinct): kept as separate traits with explicit "NOT compatible" notes. Crossing two of these gives all double-hets, not visual offspring — the catalog reflects that.
  3. Standalone classifications (Mahogany not in Cinnamon Complex): kept as standalone codominant rather than added to a complex. Promote later if evidence clarifies.
  4. Polygenic line variants (Tangerine line A vs B, Mack Snow lines, Pastel base lines): the umbrella polygenic trait is in the catalog. The catalog doesn't enumerate every breeder's named line — let keepers describe their line in the animal's notes.
  5. Multi-locus visual compounds (Sunglow, Snow, RAPTOR, Blizzard): kept as combo entries pointing at the components, with unknown inheritance — see Multi-locus compounds.

How a dispute gets resolved

When the breeder community converges, the catalog converges. The path forward for, say, Champagne ≡ Puma:

  • Strong evidence: a published genetics study or replicated breeding evidence from independent sources confirming the same allele at the same locus.
  • Action: collapse to one allele shared between the two trait names. Both names remain (search-aware aliasing keeps both findable), but the calculator now sees them as the same allele — and a Champagne × Puma cross stops giving "double-het" predictions and starts giving correct compound-homozygote outcomes.

For now, the catalog keeps disputed pairs separate. Wrong-but-conservative predictions (slightly higher het percentages, no collapsed compound name) are better than wrong-but-confident predictions (assuming a synonym that might not exist).

How to suggest a change

If you have evidence that should resolve a dispute, flag it. Catalog updates need to cite the evidence — published study, breeder reports, anything specific. Vague justification is worse than no change.

The conservative bias is intentional. A catalog that's wrong-but-confident makes the calculator wrong-but-confident, and that erodes trust. A catalog that's right-and-cautious is the better default.