Chrisplosion;5006860; said:
I am not entirely sure what is a question and statement with what you are saying.....
lol. I just thought it was funny that you were saying that if a blood parrot dosen't look like a blood parrot than its a low quality blood parrot.
But if youre looking at a king kong parrot in this way that would make a king kong parrot a "low quality blood parrot".
and each of these "low quality mammon"
Or are you differentiating the breeds?
Obvioulsy kkp are more related to the mammon and blood parrot to the ingot.
so is this the scale you're working on?
The point im making is this...
because we've put so much thought into determining what is and what is not "quality" in a parrot, the whole point becomes moot
You can't say something is a low quality blood parrot if you have these intersecting sliding scales of quality.
There is no more a scale that includes all derivitive fish that can be graded on terms of "quality" because "quality"
only means posessing the specific traits you're looking for, and
if two different people are looking for different traits
"quality" to them is different.
what I'm saying is that yes, to the owners of a tropical fish farm trying to make generic blood parrots for mass sale, this would be regarded as a "low quality blood parrot". To someone who is trying to re-breed the mammon, this could be a "high quality" "king kong parrot".
To someone trying to breed red devils, this would be a "deformed red devil"
So it dosen't matter what it is, how rare it is is based on what genetically it is, so ,
unless we want to get into genetic testing to determine the parentage of the specific fish
let us suffice to say that it is an
"oddity"
There's no use in calling someone's fish "low quality"
when quality to you means something different than it does to me.
it just makes them think the fish isn't as good.
lol... I'm having flashbacks to the "SUPER" red texas debate.