Youre absolutely right about the flower and vegetable breeding world.This naming business isn't unique to corals or zoanthids. In the flower & vegetable world, new varieties, slightly modified varieties or genetic hybrids are often given names. This has been going on for over a century. It's often a derivative of a name of the breeder's relative, but usually it's a descriptive name like "moon beam" or "firecracker" or whatever.
The important difference is that if you buy an Ile de France tulip, it actually is an Ile de France tulip. Buy two of these from two different sellers and you have two of the same thing. Plant breeders take this stuff seriously.
In the coral world its all bullshit. Two different green zoas are both called Dragon Eyes. No one actually maintains records or pedigrees. Its all nonsense, smoke and mirrors, snake oil.
The only exception would be if you buy it from a large aquaculture facility e.g. ORA they are likely maintaining records within the company. But you can be damn sure their version of Dragon Eyes is completely different from your LFS Dragon eyes.
Which leads to
No, no, no. Thats precisely the point. These names imply its a frag of the "original" purple monster or whatever -- and there is no evidence whatsoever to back it up.Servillius said:The next type of names are the ones that convey provenance. This is a frag of the "original" purple monster or whatever.
It is literally exactly like my black lab example. People are grabbing random black dogs, calling them pedigreed Black Labradors, and you people are defending this practice.
Its false advertising and we the consumers should not stand for it. When a seller claims this is a frag of the original purple monster we should demand evidence or call it for what it is -- BS.
Not sure why you bring politics into it. I like free markets too, and $15 minimum wage is obviously silly.Servillius said:Here's the part where I think folks keep losing the plot. There's a bunch of people running around the country insisting social justice requires that when I hire someone to dig a hole I have to pay them $15 an hour for doing something any able bodied human could probably do. I'm not going to argue the point. Who knows, perhaps they're right.
I'm fairly sure it's the same folks however who, when faced with a dude investing his own money in a business then working for years to develop the skills to deliver a product to market that the market actually wants, insist he make no more than $3 an hour doing it.
Call me crazy but shouldn't we want people to create value and derive a benefit from doing so?
None of that has anything to do with false advertising.
If the sellers' business plan requires false advertising to avoid working for 3$ an hour, they need a better business plan. Its not an excuse deliberately engage in false advertising.