The problem with your analogy is that there is no standard, there is no Ford Focus or Tesla. And there can be no standard because what a coral looks like is too variable, too dependent on uncontrollable factors. What even constitutes an ‘eagle eye’? I’m sure you’d say a purple mouth, orange base, and a green skirt, but the problem is that depending on the conditions and lighting (especially over time), an original ‘eagle eye’ might have a blue mouth, red base, and yellow skirt (and a zoanthid that isn’t an ‘eagle eye’ can have a purple mouth, orange base, and green skirt). So, when it comes to these names, a coral is whatever someone calls it.
I guess I just don’t have any interest in buying into some naming convention that is meaningless in terms of classification (ie scientific, locale, or even color - since we’ve already established that the color of a coral is irrelevant when it comes to these names). If you want to buy into what is essentially a marketing scheme, that’s your prerogative. Its bad for the hobby, fuels coral trends, and artificially inflates prices, but it’s your prerogative.
Also, I don’t have to cherry pick anything, I could Google any named coral that’s been propagated or been in captivity for at least a couple years and come up with similar photos (the ones I posted were all on the first page).
The reason that this analogy doesn’t work is because roses are intentionally bred to have certain colors and traits, there are actual standards and known dominant and recessive traits/genes, the same is not true for corals.
And the problem isn’t only that corals that are genetically identical can look wildly different, it’s that corals that are not genetically identical can look the same, and so no one knows what they actually have. This problem is compounded by people taking anything even remotely plausibly similar and calling it by and selling it as whatever name (or making up a new name, even if someone else already named it). If I’m paying some outrageous price for ‘Puckered Purple Bussy’s’ (or whatever the trendy name is this month), it better the genuine article, but due to this naming convention and the economics that drive it, it’s impossible to ever know or verify. The best you’ll ever get for the premium you pay is ‘I think it looks like ______’.
Look, I’m all for having an easy and meaningful way to classify color morphs for corals, I just don’t know that its possible to have one. The current naming convention is just too imperfect, too subjective, and too ripe for abuse to put any stock into it, and I think more and more people are starting to understand that.
