Morph Timeline

[ConcinusMan]

Jason, do you have a date, place, name, or photo to go with that Aztec occurrence? I think I've only seen one Aztec photo.

Why don't you just ask Scott. He seems to have all the answers you seek. Or you could just have faith in what is written in some book by one author, that says garters eat insects. Same difference.

Thanks Jason. I think we will end up with a striped Aztec lineage soon, we know that it is there as a possibility, and we know animals who are likely to carry the gene. I think it's just a question of time.

Well now I've just made a mistake then. I actually took what was written on some website Scott Felzer's Garter Snakes, specializing in aberrant garters as fact because it was repeated by so many people. Well sheeat. See how that works? It's the same "social engineering" phenomenon that cause so many people to think that garter snakes eat insects.

"Unfortunately the lone Aztec female in the collection passed away in brumation in the winter of 2010/2011"

So many people, including myself, (hear a "fable" or "urban legend" often enough, from enough people and you start to believe it) took this to mean that there was only one, now it's dead, and the trait was never produced or seen again. I know that's not what he said, but it's worded in such a way that most people would get that impression.

But anywho, the site also says: "The Aztec was first produced from a seemingly normal Illinois plains garter in 2009 and acquired by Joe Peck"

You know, it's kind of ironic. Joe and I just talked on the phone recently and conversation centered mainly on this "Mohr Anery" and the "Aztec". He never once, in private or even in public, tried to "claim" this as a morph or take credit. Some people do that consistently even though there is nothing to be claimed yet. Theres even a price on them, before they exist. You know, to get it pounded into peoples subconcious early on, as to what they should be valued at.

I know it seems to the simple minded that I have a problem with Scott, or anything personal against him. I assure you, I have not even interacted with him enough for that to happen. Pay attention to the issues I am trying to bring focus on. It's not about Scott. It's about the rest of it. It's about the morphs, marketing, and who the "collective" goes to for their "facts" and information. Too much speculation and reliance on sources that I believe are not necessarily accurate.

I would not rely on a really talented professional clown for information regarding the entertainment and overall happiness of child upbringing. Would you? The clown may know how to make your children smile and like him, and laugh for a moment, but in the end he's just a clown. Your kids would soon get bored or even annoyed by his antics and not longer find him so funny or entertaining. His show would get old and it wouldn't be entertaining any longer.