my morph

Geofft · 03-25-04, 11:10 PM

Hi

my guys picture is in the galary, so check it out and maybe try to tell me what morph he is. At night, his sides have orange streaks on them, and so do his feet. hope that helps

thanks

Geoff

(Doug, ill post a newpicture soon)

CDN-Cresties · 03-25-04, 11:15 PM

He looks like a beautiful fire morph to me

AgaR · 03-25-04, 11:28 PM

I'm pretty sure it's an harlequin, but it could be a really nice fire!
Nice little crested

Ciao
Alex

CDN-Cresties · 03-25-04, 11:37 PM

Yea maybe it is a Harlequin, its kinda hard to tell with those pics.

AnthonyC · 03-26-04, 03:14 AM

Guys, just fyi, a gecko can be both a flame and a harlequin, by definition.

The Rhac book defines a harlequin as simply a flame (or fire...whatever you call it) morph Crested Gecko with prominent patterning on it's limbs.

The pattern on that gecko's limbs is not really prominent enough to call it a harlequin. However, it is a good looking flame.

Personally, I think the "morph" stuff gets taken too seriously. For example, who cares if it's a "plain" or "normal" Crested if it's fire engine red? If the animal has terribly drab coloration, who cares that it is technically a harlequin because it has patterned limbs?

The names mean nothing to me because I've seen exceptional flames and dalmatians (red ones) that blow most harlequins away. Having said that, a high quality harlequin is still very tough to beat.

dj_honeycuts · 03-26-04, 01:06 PM

Hey everyone!
I mostly just seem to lurk on here, but I've read a few threads floating around on this topic and I thought I might throw in my two cents on this one.

Geoff- it is a beautiful crested you have there! Kinda looks like one of my boys. I'd say it is a fire.

I'd agree with Anthony about morphs being taken too seriously. There are so many color variations that are amazing in their own rights that it tends to be subjective from person to person as to what is amazing and what isn't. That being said, I do think that there needs to be a standardized color scheme that we should all follow as breeders when we sell. I haven't bought the new Rhac book yet (spent a lot on books for school this year), but I do have the 3 part article that Vosjoli and Fast wrote for Vivarium back in 1999. The only defining difference between the fire and the harlequin is the belly coloration. In the fire it is said to be a unicolor of brown, and in the harlequin it is said to be prominently bicolor. I've always used this as a definition for the differences between my fires and the harlequin that I have. I was lucky enough to meet someone who was breeding an F1 harlequin he got from Vosjoli, a direct decsendent from the one used as the example in the article. I managed to get my harlequin from him. A funny, but horrible example of her coloration is in my gallery. You can see some of her belly coloration there.

Any other thoughts?

Take care everyone
James

AnthonyC · 03-26-04, 07:43 PM

James,

If you look at a Tiger, Brindle or just about 90% of the flame/fires out there, they have patterned bellies as well.

There have been too many times that the "morph rules" have been changed, and now everyone is confused as to what to call what. Personally, I think it's only going to get worse as more morphs are developed, so I think this is all nonsense. But, considering the public's desperate need to attach a name to everything, there does apparently need to be a standard set and I think that's what they were trying to accomplish when they wrote the new book in 2003. It has a very in depth section on morphs and how to identify them. It also has a photo diagram and outlines that define each morph.

This is not at all a dig on you, so please don't take any offense to this, but going back and citing info from a publication that was written five years ago (when not nearly as many Crested Geckos even existed) is only going to complicate things.

The new book, written by Philippe and Fast (and Repashy) clearly states that the definition of a harlequin is a flame/fire Crested Gecko with a heavy pattern on its limbs. It makes no mention of the belly coloration. What's funny is that the definition of "heavy" when it comes to the patterning on their limbs is still left up to the individual to decide...which explains why I think it's silly to try lumping something as unique as a snowflake into 6 categories.

I think going by that book until something newer is published, is going to be the only way to keep everyone on the same page as far as morphs are concerned.