Naming conventions

Fish · #1 03-05-2006, 04:53 AM

I agree that there isn't a wrong way or a right way, it is just a matter of preference. I personally prefer the (colour) with (colour) skirt descriptions much more than some silly name. As a scientist Bob, I'm surprised you don't prefer it as well - just seems more logical and informative. The goofy names, they're for entrepreneurs not scientists. Someone once figured out that you can sell "crap center zoanthids with crap skirts" for a LOT more money on ebay if you just called them "Purple People Eaters" instead. Appreciating the value of hype, others have followed suite with the "metallic acids", "mean greens" and "safecrackers" etc.
JMO

- Chad

SeaHorse_Fanatic · #2 03-05-2006, 07:05 AM

Fish,

I think Bob does use the colour of skirt, mouth, etc. method rather than the "marketing" names that sound cool but may mean different things to different people. In the future, if some written convention or methodology is used to classify zoo varieties that most people can agree on, then those fancy names will be useful. From his post, his point seems to be that there is not enough of a consensus to definitively state that a green and yellow zoo is a "Green Bay Packer" vs an "Edmonton Eskimo" zoo because there's no science behind the name, just regional preference.

At this point, I would just like to know if the descriptions used to name/identify a particular type of zoo as a "fire" or some other marketing name is done under what type of lighting because many of my zoos & palys change colour depending on whether its pure 10000k or with actinic or just actinic or under moonlights, etc. I'm assuming the colour descriptions are under 10000k but does anyone know for sure?

Anthony