# Ball Pythons > BP Morphs & Genetics >  spider x spider

## marct

While reading the "lesserbee x bumblebee" thread, the topic of crossing a spider to a spider gained my interest.  In the past, I have always been told that crossing this morph to itself would be deadly.  Has anyone attempted this project?  Please share your knowledge and/or experience.

----------


## joepythons

> While reading the "lesserbee x bumblebee" thread, the topic of crossing a spider to a spider gained my interest.  In the past, I have always been told that crossing this morph to itself would be deadly.  Has anyone attempted this project?  Please share your knowledge and/or experience.


Did you read the info stating its more then likely lethal? No 100% proof has been wrote anywhere though.Its not true about all morphs though.

----------


## marct

I don't understand why we hear of all kinds of projects, but no one talks about the spider x spider project.  What if there is a super spider?  There has to be someone out there trying.

----------


## joepythons

> I don't understand why we hear of all kinds of projects, but no one talks about the spider x spider project.  What if there is a super spider?  There has to be someone out there trying.


Well that should tell you something went wrong with it then  :Wink: .Its kinda like the kinking in caramels its sad it happens so people really dont discuss it much.

----------


## marct

I'm thinking the same as you.. I hope someone chimes in and maybe shares some knowledge..

----------


## AaronP

> Well that should tell you something went wrong with it then .Its kinda like the kinking in caramels its sad it happens so people really dont discuss it much.


Are you kidding?  I can't recall any Caramel thread where kinking or so called infertile females comes up (the later being completely false).

Truth of the matter is no one who has posted here has shown conclusive evidence to support either of the claims that #1.  They don't exist and #2. It's a lethal gene.  Everything that's been posted has been hear-say, and I'm tired of seeing people spread it like it's the law.

When Kevin McCurley, Brian Barcyzk, or someone with comprehensive evidence can formally say that Homozygous Spiders are a "Lethal Gene" then it will be the truth, until then or when someone proves a Homozygous Spider,  Spiders will remain under the "Dominate" genetics category.

----------

_771subliminal_ (10-28-2009),Cin (10-04-2016),_Eventide_ (10-28-2009),_luna13_ (10-28-2009),_Wh00h0069_ (10-28-2009)

----------


## joepythons

> Are you kidding?  I can't recall any Caramel thread where kinking or so called infertile females comes up (the later being completely false).
> 
> Truth of the matter is no one who has posted here has shown conclusive evidence to support either of the claims that #1.  They don't exist and #2. It's a lethal gene.  Everything that's been posted has been hear-say, and I'm tired of seeing people spread it like it's the law.
> 
> When Kevin McCurley, Brian Barcyzk, or someone with comprehensive evidence can formally say that Homozygous Spiders are a "Lethal Gene" then it will be the truth, until then or when someone proves a Homozygous Spider,  Spiders will remain under the "Dominate" genetics category.


How long have spiders been around? If there were something good to share you would think it would have been somewhere by now dont you think? It only takes 3yrs to get a female spider up to breed.As far as the carmel kinking its known so why talk about it over and over  :Confused:

----------


## WingedWolfPsion

The search for a homozygous spider is ongoing.  NERD tried, and failed, to produce one.  

Since a homozygous spider hasn't been produced, and the morph is quite old now (and it's been tried many times), it's a pretty safe conclusion that one will NOT be produced.  No one has mentioned any tendency of spiders from spiderXspider clutches dying young, so it can be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg.  Since so many eggs are lost for various reasons, it doesn't stand out, so wasn't noticed immediately.

Conclusion--the lack of super-spiders means that spiders are probably co-dominant, and homozygous lethal.  This means that in a spider X spider pairing, 25% of fertile eggs will not hatch.  It doesn't seem worth it.

On the other hand, I understand that super Pinstripes HAVE been produced.  This verifies that Pinstripe is dominant, and not co-dominant.

But hey, if you want to try and do the spider X spider crosses again, go right ahead.  It's a huge project, and it will probably be fruitless, because it's been done before.

----------

Cin (10-04-2016),nahual (10-28-2009)

----------


## AaronP

> How long have spiders been around? If there were something good to share you would think it would have been somewhere by now dont you think? It only takes 3yrs to get a female spider up to breed.As far as the carmel kinking its known so why talk about it over and over


I've yet to hear anyone conclusively say that the Spider is Homozygous lethal Gene, not even NERD.  I don't think that Spiders are Co-Dominate, I think they are simply dominate.




> The search for a homozygous spider is ongoing.  NERD tried, and failed, to produce one.  
> 
> Since a homozygous spider hasn't been produced, and the morph is quite old now (and it's been tried many times), it's a pretty safe conclusion that one will NOT be produced.  No one has mentioned any tendency of spiders from spiderXspider clutches dying young, so it can be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg.  Since so many eggs are lost for various reasons, it doesn't stand out, so wasn't noticed immediately.
> 
> Conclusion--the lack of super-spiders means that spiders are probably co-dominant, and homozygous lethal.  This means that in a spider X spider pairing, 25% of fertile eggs will not hatch.  It doesn't seem worth it.
> 
> On the other hand, I understand that super Pinstripes HAVE been produced.  This verifies that Pinstripe is dominant, and not co-dominant.
> 
> But hey, if you want to try and do the spider X spider crosses again, go right ahead.  It's a huge project, and it will probably be fruitless, because it's been done before.


Your conclusions are flawed.  You can't assume that Homozygous spiders die in the egg, that would mean that you would first have to prove the Spider to be an Co-Dominate gene, which so far we have yet to do.

Just because your female lays a couple of duds in a Spider x Spider breeding doesn't necessarily mean those Duds/Infertile Eggs were Homozygous spiders. 

I also don't recall anyone having ever pointed me to where NERD has officially said that the Homozygous spider is a lethal gene, I do however recall that their website labels the Spider as a "Dominate" gene.

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ner...ns/spider.html

Yes Pinstripes were recently proven to be a Co-Dominate animal by Barcyzk, but Pins have been around just as long as Spiders, in fact Pinstripes are newer.  But it took Barcyzk a long time to be able to show evidence of that, and even then he's not conclusively saying it, he says he feels confident that it is but still needs to play with it just a little more.

This isn't like the Woma Gene, where the animal occasionally hatches and later dies, or is dead in the egg but you can definitely tell it was a Pearl, the Spider "Lethal" gene is more or less hear say.

I welcome you to point me to articles/posts from people with evidence to prove me otherwise but until then, I will conclude that the Spider gene is simply Incomplete-Dominate.

----------

Cin (10-04-2016),matt71915 (10-28-2009),_Wh00h0069_ (10-28-2009)

----------


## Elise.m

Can anyone link to this super pinstripe, or where they heard about it?

My BF and I were just discussing a super pin, and super spider a few weeks back. This topic is very interesting, I look forward to reading the responses!

----------


## Caz

I wonder if it's a similar gene to the Jag gene in carpets.. 
Both are said to have head 'wobble' or twisting issues in some snakes, 'Super' jags (leucistics) either die in the egg or shortly after hatching.

Has anyone here seen a 'super' spider dead in the egg? Was it leucistic?

----------


## rabernet

> The search for a homozygous spider is ongoing.  NERD tried, and failed, to produce one.  
> 
> Since a homozygous spider hasn't been produced, and the morph is quite old now (and it's been tried many times), it's a pretty safe conclusion that one will NOT be produced.  No one has mentioned any tendency of spiders from spiderXspider clutches dying young,* so it can be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg.*  Since so many eggs are lost for various reasons, it doesn't stand out, so wasn't noticed immediately.
> 
> Conclusion--the lack of super-spiders means that spiders are probably co-dominant, and homozygous lethal.  This means that in a spider X spider pairing, 25% of fertile eggs will not hatch.  It doesn't seem worth it.
> 
> On the other hand, I understand that super Pinstripes HAVE been produced.  This verifies that Pinstripe is dominant, and not co-dominant.
> 
> But hey, if you want to try and do the spider X spider crosses again, go right ahead.  It's a huge project, and it will probably be fruitless, because it's been done before.


How can it be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg? Why can't it be safely assumed that there just isn't a homozygous spider? Why is the conclusion that they die in the egg? Why isn't the conclusion that they just don't exist and that there aren't any that die in eggs?

----------

_771subliminal_ (10-28-2009),_Wh00h0069_ (10-28-2009)

----------


## WingedWolfPsion

Ok, refresher on what the terms mean:

Dominant:  Heterozygous and Homozygous animals look/are morphologically identical.

Co-Dominant:  Heterozygous animals do not look normal.  Homozygous animals look different from Heterozygous animals.

What exactly do you think happens to the super-spiders?  Genetics dictates that some animals will carry both genes.  So where are they?  If we don't have them, then they MUST be dead.  This is logic.  "They don't exist" is not genetically possible.  They don't mysteriously vanish before eggs are laid, that isn't the way things happen inside a snake.

Why are Spiders therefore co-dominant?  Because the super form is not the same as the heterozygous form.  If it were, then we would have super-spiders that look just like spiders.  But we don't.  So, the super-spiders express differently--they don't hatch.  What they look like is irrelevent, we know they ARE different.

----------

_Egapal_ (10-28-2009)

----------


## Egapal

> Are you kidding?  I can't recall any Caramel thread where kinking or so called infertile females comes up (the later being completely false).
> 
> Truth of the matter is no one who has posted here has shown conclusive evidence to support either of the claims that #1.  They don't exist and #2. It's a lethal gene.  Everything that's been posted has been hear-say, and I'm tired of seeing people spread it like it's the law.
> 
> When Kevin McCurley, Brian Barcyzk, or someone with comprehensive evidence can formally say that Homozygous Spiders are a "Lethal Gene" then it will be the truth, until then or when someone proves a Homozygous Spider,  Spiders will remain under the "Dominate" genetics category.


Not kidding.  There are tons and tons of Caramel kinking threads.  Do a search for Caramel kinking on this forum and you will find a bunch.

There can be no conclusive testing short of DNA testing all eggs after fertilization from multiple spider to spider crosses.  In the mean time consider this.  NERD had tried and failed to create a super spider.  There is no evidence that they die after hatching.  There are many examples of gene combinations being lethal in many species at various stages of development.  All of this leads the community to believe that a super spider is lethal.  Its an educated conclusion that has yet to be proved or disproved.  It fits the evidence so I would call it a solid hypothesis

----------


## Caz

> I wonder if it's a similar gene to the Jag gene in carpets.. 
> Both are said to have head 'wobble' or twisting issues in some snakes, 'Super' jags (leucistics) either die in the egg or shortly after hatching.
> 
> *Has anyone here seen a 'super' spider dead in the egg? Was it leucistic*?


Anyone?

----------


## ladywhipple02

> Ok, refresher on what the terms mean:
> 
> Dominant:  Heterozygous and Homozygous animals look/are morphologically identical.
> 
> Co-Dominant:  Heterozygous animals do not look normal.  Homozygous animals look different from Heterozygous animals.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Spiders therefore co-dominant?  Because the super form is not the same as the heterozygous form.  If it were, then we would have super-spiders that look just like spiders.  But we don't.  So, the super-spiders express differently--they don't hatch.  What they look like is irrelevent, we know they ARE different.



But we don't KNOW that the super spider even exists. No one has ever seen one that I'm aware of (answer to your question Caz). From what I've read and seen, any babies that were born (or died) looked just like normal Spiders. So, I repeat what Robin said: what if "Super Spiders" simply do not exist? That would make the Spider trait Dominant, not Co-dominant.

Have you ever seen a super spider?

----------


## Egapal

> But we don't KNOW that the super spider even exists. No one has ever seen one that I'm aware of (answer to your question Caz). From what I've read and seen, any babies that were born (or died) looked just like normal Spiders. So, I repeat what Robin said: what if "Super Spiders" simply do not exist? That would make the Spider trait Dominant, not Co-dominant.
> 
> Have you ever seen a super spider?


You are missing the point.  What makes a super a super is not necessarily how it looks.  Its when having two genes is expressed differently than having one.  If a het and homozygous looked the same but the homozyguous could breath fire then it would be a super and therefor the trait would be co-dominant.  The point is that dieing is what makes them different and therefore its a co-dominant morph.  

Homozygous spiders would make up 25% of all spider to spider crosses.  The fact that we don't see them means that its most likely lethal.  You can't just say they don't exist.  The genetics makes them relatively easy to make.  The fact that they are not here is the proof.

Thats like saying that the Amazon women of legend didn't have male children.

----------


## JayCee

My guess is that someday, with the right combo, a homozygous spider will be created.  There might be something in another morph that will counteract the lethality of a homozygous spider.

That being said, it is a substantial risk to take.  If you have a bunch of Spider females, are you going to risk wasting 1/4 of your offspring by breeding them to a male containing the spider gene ??

----------


## AaronP

> Homozygous spiders would make up 25% of all spider to spider crosses.  The fact that we don't see them means that its most likely lethal.  You can't just say they don't exist.  The genetics makes them relatively easy to make.  The fact that they are not here is the proof.
> 
> Thats like saying that the Amazon women of legend didn't have male children.


See the problem is we're Assuming, with no real proof.  Chances are there are Homozygous spiders but they were sold as regular spiders and they either are in the hands of people who don't intend to breed them, have had relatively small clutches so the person thinks they're doing good on the odds, or are keeping their mouths shut because they don't want anyone else to know.

And if you don't think that's the case, then why would you assume they just die?

That said I don't think it's impossible.  But seeing as how the only other proven lethal gene is the Homozygous Woma, and it acts completely different, I just find it hard to believe the hear say.

----------


## JayCee

> See the problem is we're Assuming, with no real proof.


Just because you don't have the actual proof in front of you doesn't mean it isn't true.

Let's say you are an established breeder that was in early on the Spider.  You breed your first male spider to a ton of normals and produce a bunch of spiders.  You keep most of your females.  As soon as they are ready, you breed them back to your original male spider.

The vast majority of those spiders produced from the Spider X Spider breeding will have been bred again in various projects.   If there were a homozygous spider (odds say 25% of the Spider X Spider would have been homozygous) out there, it would have been found out some time ago.  Not to hard to figure out that every clutch produced all had the spider gene.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> I wonder if it's a similar gene to the Jag gene in carpets.. 
> Both are said to have head 'wobble' or twisting issues in some snakes, 'Super' jags (leucistics) either die in the egg or shortly after hatching.
> 
> Has anyone here seen a 'super' spider dead in the egg? Was it leucistic?


No one has seen a super spider, or atleast admitting it, and it safe to say that a super spider if it exists, just looks like a normal spider.

and just so everyone knows all these are guesses... there is no public proof of any of this.
1. they die in the egg
2. they get reabsorbed
3. they just simply don't exist
4. they do exist

i did put sex linked down but, now i just thought about it, and yea sex linked doesn't work, because a male spider would make all its female offspring spiders... so i think we would notice that trend.

Aaron i would highly doubt they are out there in secret, people do bubblebee to bubblebee breedings in hopes of killer bees, plus im sure when spider gene came out 10 years ago people were doing spider x spider alot, and i think by now someone would of noticed something.

its not crazy to think there are other genes that don't happen, i mean jags in carpets, dwarfism in humans, it happens.

truth is there no real proof of any of it tho, I try to think in terms of statistics. and even that, I have no real numbers, so i guess its just thinking in terms of trends.

----------


## AaronP

> Just because you don't have the actual proof in front of you doesn't mean it isn't true.


You're kidding, right?  The proof is what makes it true.  We're not talking about Big Foot here.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 




> Let's say you are an established breeder that was in early on the Spider.  You breed your first male spider to a ton of normals and produce a bunch of spiders.  You keep most of your females.  As soon as they are ready, you breed them back to your original male spider.
> 
> The vast majority of those spiders produced from the Spider X Spider breeding will have been bred again in various projects.   If there were a homozygous spider (odds say 25% of the Spider X Spider would have been homozygous) out there, it would have been found out some time ago.  Not to hard to figure out that every clutch produced all had the spider gene.


That's assuming you hit on those odds though, which you can very well miss.  

Prime example: Albino x Het. Albino.  I am friends with a popular breeder in this industry, one year he bred 4 Het. Albino females (Proven Het Albino females) to an Albino male (Whom is also Proven).  Between the 4 girls he gets roughly 28 eggs, come hatching time all 28 are Het Albinos, not a single Albino out of 28 eggs.  Now "Odds" dictate that he could have had 14 Albinos yet he missed on the odds 28 times in a row.  

He actually inspired me to attempt again to prove my P. Het Albino girl to be Het. Albino, when she didn't prove out last year with a perfect 6 Egg clutch with an awesome sex ratio (2.4).  Does that mean she isn't Het. Albino? No, I'm trying again this year, and hopefully I'll get another clutch of 6, maybe more and if I get lucky maybe I'll hatch an albino, but if I don't I'll write her off as a normal.  

But again that's 1:2 Odds, not 1:4.  That may not seem like a big difference but when our average clutch size is 5-6 Eggs, that's a lot of room to miss out on the odds.

Now none of that takes into play the fact that "Stuff Happens" meaning, animals die, don't breed, get injured and can't be bred. 

But this is all hear say, I want to see the facts or at least someone reputable to come forth and say it, until then I'll consider the Spider to be a dominate morph.




> Aaron i would highly doubt they are out there in secret, people do bubblebee to bubblebee breedings in hopes of killer bees, plus im sure when spider gene came out 10 years ago people were doing spider x spider alot, and i think by now someone would of noticed something


I highly doubt there is a Homozygous spider, but I also doubt that the Homozygous Spider is "Lethal".  I'm open to both ideas though, I just want to see the evidence that backs that which no one has brought forth.

They keep comparing it to Carpet Jags and Womas but both of those can be spotted in the egg, how many people have come forth sand said "I bred spider x spider _"X"_ amount of times and _"Y"_ amount of times I have had _"Z"_ number of dead in the egg offspring that I believe to be homozygous spiders".

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> Can anyone link to this super pinstripe, or where they heard about it?
> 
> My BF and I were just discussing a super pin, and super spider a few weeks back. This topic is very interesting, I look forward to reading the responses!


there no link, and it just looks like a normal pinstripe, email brian yourself, he'll tell you "we're pretty confident we have proven the pinstripe gene co-dominate" mayb if enough people bug him he'll finally post something public, but then again i don't remember if it was a forum or what but i remember reading about it over 2 years ago.

----------


## AaronP

> there no link


Right no link, but I believe he said it in a Reptile Radio show, I'll make a clip later tonight if I have time and put it up.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> I highly doubt there is a Homozygous spider, but I also doubt that the Homozygous Spider is "Lethal".  I'm open to both ideas though, I just want to see the evidence that backs that which no one has brought forth.
> 
> They keep comparing it to Carpet Jags and Womas but both of those can be spotted in the egg, how many people have come forth sand said "I bred spider x spider _"X"_ amount of times and _"Y"_ amount of times I have had _"Z"_ number of dead in the egg offspring that I believe to be homozygous spiders".


"super dwarf" humans don't make it out of the womb alive. tho yes there is a fetus. but i think it aborts itself... point is deadly genes are weird, super jags crawl right out of the egg and die, i've herd of one report where a super jag was spotted alive over night but was dead in the morning. sadly he took no pics... but pearls, people have had those live up to a month. so the cause of death has got to be entirly different. whos to say the spider doesn't act different.

but like you said there no proof of eigher. and i was kinda playing the devil's advocate personally, i just think its a dominate gene also. but if other evidence comes forth, mayb i'l change my mind.

mayb see take a big group of spider x spider breedings at see what % of spider we hit on, is it closer to 75% or 66%? but getting enough pairings to make a reasonable guess would be the impossible part to me.

----------


## AaronP

> but like you said there no proof of eigher. and i was kinda playing the devil's advocate personally, i just think its a dominate gene also. but if other evidence comes forth, mayb i'l change my mind.
> 
> mayb see take a big group of spider x spider breedings at see what % of spider we hit on, is it closer to 75% or 66%? but getting enough pairings to make a reasonable guess would be the impossible part to me.


Right, again I'm not saying it's impossible I just find it unlikely, but I am open to whatever the evidence points to.

----------


## irishanaconda

honestly i also think that there is no super sipder... fatal or not, but rumors are well known to spread with no direct facts. im sure the breeding has been done from a spider and spider to see if there was a super.... and have had no luck or there would be alot more posts in threads about it (IMO). like alot of people on here i have been cruisin bp.net for a couple of years and never came acrossed anyone stating there is a "super" form. i guess ill try to call bhb and ask if they have a super spider for sale lol... i have bought stuff from bryan before and man that guy is one busy person but lets see if his staff knows ne thing about it... brb

----------


## irishanaconda

ok i just called and brian was the one just to answer right away. we talked for a little bit but he just said that honestly it just hasnt been proved yet. his pinstripe that was proven almost 100% that it was super, was from multiple females that he bred his male pin to out of somthing like 28 eggs all came out pins. he stated that he believed that there could possibly be a "super" spider but the gene is a bit geneticly quirky, (in a weak sort of way) that might be a cause for some people that have tried it and have deaths in the egg or have not hatched any out.... so pretty much were still in the same place where its not been proven or disproven. lol

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> ok i just called and brian was the one just to answer right away. we talked for a little bit but he just said that honestly it just hasnt been proved yet. his pinstripe that was proven almost 100% that it was super, was from multiple females that he bred his male pin to out of somthing like 28 eggs all came out pins. he stated that he believed that there could possibly be a "super" spider but the gene is a bit geneticly quirky, (in a weak sort of way) that might be a cause for some people that have tried it and have deaths in the egg or have not hatched any out.... so pretty much were still in the same place where its not been proven or disproven. lol


your mixing up 2 things. spiders and pinstripes

----------


## stratus_020202

> Aaron i would highly doubt they are out there in secret, people do *bubblebee* to bubblebee breedings in hopes of killer bees, plus im sure when spider gene came out 10 years ago people were doing spider x spider alot, and i think by now someone would of noticed something.


What's a bubblebee? Lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Did you mean bumblebee? 
 :ROFL:

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> What's a bubblebee? Lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Did you mean bumblebee?


lmao guess i was typing too fast oops

----------


## irishanaconda

> your mixing up 2 things. spiders and pinstripes


no i know what both are, was just stating that as a simmilar morph to the spider, and if a pin can "in theory" have a super then the punnett square should still work for the spider. i am getting a female spider from chris gibson (aka gib) that he has had for some time that has yet to throw a spider with wobbles. i believe even his offspring that have been bought off of other members to this site have had babbies that havent thrown wobblers or corkscrewing ones so this might be a better specimen to use for a project... i dont know. but i figure this year there is enough female bees of breeding weights that hopefully a couple of people will try a bee to a bee.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

[QUOTE=irishanaconda;1192208]no i know what both are, was just stating that as a simmilar morph to the spider, and if a pin can "in theory" have a super then the punnett square should still work for the spider. QUOTE]

not that you trying wouldn't aid to this investigation, but that statement is comparing apples to oranges, each gene is different. if spider is dominate, like it is stated on NERDs website, then the punnett square does not work. pin and spider are not simmilar gentically. just so you know. mix the 2 and you get a spinner.

but we need people to try, lets us know your results.

----------


## irishanaconda

have u called nerd and asked? maybe call ralph davis too... ask some opinions and post them here.

----------


## Eventide

I have to agree that it probably just isn't proven yet.

1.  If there is a Super Spider that looks like a regular Spider, you would have to breed all Spiders from many clutches to normals several times to see if all the offspring of a particular Spider are Spiders.  Even doing this several times would not prove there isn't a Super due to those annoying probabilities.  You'd be able to say, "Well, it's highly unlikely there's a Super," but that's about it.

2.  If Super Spiders die in the egg, then why aren't there pictures of those?  I would think if a breeder were trying to produce a Super Spider, he would be checking those eggs that die during incubation to see if they look any different or not.  Even if the Super dies before the pattern appears, we could still do some statistics of the number of dead eggs in Spider x Spider clutches and see if we get ~25% egg mortality rate.  Again, it wouldn't be certain proof, but it would be good enough to come to a conclusion, at any rate.  Again, if I were a breeder, I would want to be keeping track of this so I know when to stop wasting time on it.

3.  If Super Spiders don't exist at all for some reason (or if the eggs get reabsorbed, etc.), there would be no way of proving that, either, unless we had some way of showing that every, single Spider offspring only has one Spider gene.




> You're kidding, right? The proof is what makes it true.


Um, wow.  o.O  So...someone who is on trial for murder didn't actually kill the person until the jury reads the verdict?  Who killed the person before it is "proven" that the murderer did it?  No, that's not what proof is.  Proof is showing evidence that something is true; the proof in and of itself does not make something true.

Well, except for quantum mechanics, but that's something completely different.

----------

_Egapal_ (10-30-2009)

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> I have to agree that it probably just isn't proven yet.
> 
> 1.  If there is a Super Spider that looks like a regular Spider, you would have to breed all Spiders from many clutches to normals several times to see if all the offspring of a particular Spider are Spiders.  Even doing this several times would not prove there isn't a Super due to those annoying probabilities.  You'd be able to say, "Well, it's highly unlikely there's a Super," but that's about it.


tho there are no numbers, this has already happened, between when spiders first hit the sceen and combo morphs dealing with spiders like bubble i mean bumblebees, we are at the "well, its highly unlikely" point.




> 2.  If Super Spiders die in the egg, then why aren't there pictures of those?  I would think if a breeder were trying to produce a Super Spider, he would be checking those eggs that die during incubation to see if they look any different or not.  Even if the Super dies before the pattern appears, we could still do some statistics of the number of dead eggs in Spider x Spider clutches and see if we get ~25% egg mortality rate.  Again, it wouldn't be certain proof, but it would be good enough to come to a conclusion, at any rate.  Again, if I were a breeder, I would want to be keeping track of this so I know when to stop wasting time on it.


how many people do you know take pictures of dead things in eggs? and it would look just like a normal spider, so whats that prove anyways?




> 3.  If Super Spiders don't exist at all for some reason (or if the eggs get reabsorbed, etc.), there would be no way of proving that, either, unless we had some way of showing that every, single Spider offspring only has one Spider gene.


it being dominate (which seems to be the most likly case at this point) is the reason they wouldn't exist. and your right there is no way of 100% proving it unless we dig into decoding snake DNA and testing unborn spiders and seeing what happens to them.

----------


## Eventide

> how many people do you know take pictures of dead things in eggs? and it would look just like a normal spider, so whats that prove anyways?


Well, if I were trying to prove/disprove something like this, I would definitely be taking pictures!  Or, at the very least, keeping track.  I've had some leopard and fat-tail gecko eggs die during incubation, and I wanted to see why they died.  Also, if you're trying to prove out a het and some eggs in the clutch die during incubation, I'd want to check them to see if the het proved or not.

If the Super Spider does not look like a normal Spider (and always dies in the egg), we might be able to see the difference in pattern between the Super and the Spider.  But if no one is checking the dead eggs just in case, how would we know the Super form does or does not look different?

----------


## AaronP

> Proof is showing evidence that something is true; the proof in and of itself does not make something true.


That...is a contradiction.




> 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact 
> b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning


We're not doing a Trial by Jury, juries can be wrong, we're talking cold hard facts.

----------


## irishanaconda

here is a pretty good lonk i found if anyone wants to check it out
http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics_101.html
from randy remington.

----------


## JayCee

> Well, if I were trying to prove/disprove something like this, I would definitely be taking pictures!  Or, at the very least, keeping track.


Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ??  Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ??  Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??


Now, to try and step into the shoes of a "big breeder".  I'd get a chuckle out of all the newcomers trying to reinvent the wheel.  At best, it even helps sales of Spiders.  Every 2-3 months there is a new thread on "super spider" and a handful that refuse to believe it until they do 100 Spider X Spider pairings themselves.  I'll happily sell them as many Spiders as they want.

----------


## irishanaconda

i just told u i got off of the phone with one of the biggest reptile breeders in the us, and even he said he doesnt even know.



> Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ??  Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ??  Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??
> 
> 
> Now, to try and step into the shoes of a "big breeder".  I'd get a chuckle out of all the newcomers trying to reinvent the wheel.  At best, it even helps sales of Spiders.  Every 2-3 months there is a new thread on "super spider" and a handful that refuse to believe it until they do 100 Spider X Spider pairings themselves.  I'll happily sell them as many Spiders as they want.

----------


## HeartAche

I'll just add my .02 and a question. The question is: Have there been any wild caught spiders since the first ones? I hear of every other morph coming in WC occasionally but never spiders. 

I think if spiders are co-dom then the reason we can't get supers from them could have something to do with whatever genes make them spin. I haven't heard anyone bring that up but it seems plausible to me. Once I get to the point where I can spare the space I definitely want to try my hand at a super spider unless its proven to not exist by that time

----------


## Eventide

> That...is a contradiction.
> 
> We're not doing a Trial by Jury, juries can be wrong, we're talking cold hard facts.


No, it isn't.  I used "make" in that sentence as "turn from falsity into truth."  Your definition from MW is basically what I'm trying to get across.  I used the jury example because of the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty."  I admit, it is a loose definition of "proven," and it's a rather poor example.

Here's a better one:  I wore a coat today.  Now, I have no proof that I wore a coat today, but just because I don't have proof doesn't mean I didn't wear a coat today.

I figure I should also mention that I am a scientist, so for me, "facts" are merely tautologies.




> Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ??  Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ??  Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??


No, I don't.  However, I find it odd that no one seems willing to come forward with any hard evidence of what the Spider gene really is.  All we hear about is "so-and-so said this" or "I heard that...."  I have yet to see a breeder who has tried the Spider x Spider thing for several years come forward with _quantitative_ results.

----------


## AaronP

> I'll just add my .02 and a question. The question is: Have there been any wild caught spiders since the first ones? I hear of every other morph coming in WC occasionally but never spiders. 
> 
> I think if spiders are co-dom then the reason we can't get supers from them could have something to do with whatever genes make them spin. I haven't heard anyone bring that up but it seems plausible to me. Once I get to the point where I can spare the space I definitely want to try my hand at a super spider unless its proven to not exist by that time


Actually a lot of morphs haven't been brought in again. We haven't seen another Pinstripe, we haven't seen another Desert, we haven't seen more Black Axanthics, or Leopards.  But time will tell.

----------


## Eventide

Hmm, I've never considered that before....

The only morph I know of right off the top of my head that has several variants is Axanthic, and those aren't even compatible with each other...so...they can be even be considered the same morph?

Does anyone know if there has been more than one of a certain type of [compatible] morph found in the wild?

----------


## AaronP

> Hmm, I've never considered that before....
> 
> The only morph I know of right off the top of my head that has several variants is Axanthic, and those aren't even compatible with each other...so...they can be even be considered the same morph?
> 
> Does anyone know if there has been more than one of a certain type of [compatible] morph found in the wild?


Actually the VPI and the NERD Line of Axanthics are compatible and I believe there are others.

Morphs with multiple Lines:
Piebald
Albino
Axanthic
Cinnamon
Black Pastel
Woma
Clown
Lavender Albino
Pastel
Hypo (There are TONS of linese of these)
Yellow Belly
Lesser/Butter (I know there are multiple lines of Lesser, I think there are Butter)
I think Mojave
Phantom/Mystic
Fire

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

----------


## WildCreations

> Actually a lot of morphs haven't been brought in again. We haven't seen another Pinstripe, we haven't seen another Desert, we haven't seen more Black Axanthics, or Leopards.  But time will tell.



Outside of this conversation, who is breeding the leopards?  I saw JK just got one but haven't seen them for sale anywhere?

----------


## AaronP

> Outside of this conversation, who is breeding the leopards?  I saw JK just got one but haven't seen them for sale anywhere?


Greg Graziani

----------


## RyanF

i dont think it would be leathal at all, just think about it the only difference between one ball python to the next is there skin, other than that there completly the same. so yes a spider has different genetics compared to a normal, but they are still the same. 

And would a spider and a spider be a pin? not sure just wondering, dont know that much about the ball pythons

----------


## CritterVet

Skin color is the only difference we can see, but the genetics in the different morphs no doubt produce other differences. In development, melanocytes -- cells that produce melanin -- are derived from a special group of cells that also contribute to the nervous system, intestinal and facial development. If we mess around with the genes responsible for those cells, we are messing around with more than skin color, even if we don't know it.

For example, in horses there is something called "lethal white foal syndrome." These are foals that are all white, because they don't have melanocytes. However, they don't live very long because in addition to lacking melanocytes, they are missing cells essential to normal intestinal function.

----------


## Eventide

> Actually the VPI and the NERD Line of Axanthics are compatible and I believe there are others.
> 
> Morphs with multiple Lines:
> Piebald
> Albino
> Axanthic
> Cinnamon
> Black Pastel
> Woma
> ...


Ack, I completely forgot about the NERD/VPI lines being compatible.  And Albinos would obviously be compatible.  But wow, I didn't realize there were so many that had been found in the wild multiple times and are compatible with others!  Neat!  Though, I don't think the Mystic has been proven to be a Phantom yet (correct me if I'm wrong), and I didn't think the different types of Hypos were compatible (i.e. if you cross a Het Green Ghost with a Het Butterscotch Ghost they can produce a homozygous Ghost).

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> i dont think it would be leathal at all, just think about it the only difference between one ball python to the next is there skin, other than that there completly the same. so yes a spider has different genetics compared to a normal, but they are still the same. 
> 
> And would a spider and a spider be a pin? not sure just wondering, dont know that much about the ball pythons


no a pin is a different morph

----------


## marct

> i dont think it would be leathal at all, just think about it the only difference between one ball python to the next is there skin, other than that there completly the same.


I disagree with this statement.  I have been informed that a few combinations don't survive because of genetic reasons.  Also, doesn't the super chinny have a duck beak effect going on?  If my facts are correct, then the whole paint job talk isn't completely true.  Right?

----------


## AaronP

> Though, I don't think the Mystic has been proven to be a Phantom yet (correct me if I'm wrong)


They haven't bred Mystic to Phantom but the Super Mystic is identical to the Super Phantom, I'm sure there will be a Mystic to Phantom Breeding in the next year or so that'll prove them compatible.\





> and I didn't think the different types of Hypos were compatible (i.e. if you cross a Het Green Ghost with a Het Butterscotch Ghost they can produce a homozygous Ghost).


This is true but most Hypo lines are compatible, only a handful are not.

Also another morph I forgot about that has multiple lines: Caramel Albino

----------


## CritterVet

> I disagree with this statement.  I have been informed that a few combinations don't survive because of genetic reasons.  Also, doesn't the super chinny have a duck beak effect going on?  If my facts are correct, then the whole paint job talk isn't completely true.  Right?


Correct.

----------


## Egapal

> That...is a contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> We're not doing a Trial by Jury, juries can be wrong, we're talking cold hard facts.


AaronP now you are just being rediculious, thats not a contradiction at all.  Eventide is 100% correct.  I have a ball python at my house.  That is either true or not true.  Proof does not make it so, it is or it isn't.  When I take you to my house and show you my BP then you have proof.  You know whether its true or not.   Truth exists regardless of proof.  Proof is what reveals the truth.  

And again short of genetic testing we are in fact doing a trial by jury.  BHB, NERD or any of the other breeders telling us one way or the other is trial by jury.  We decide the truth based on a consensus.  So no, you are not talking cold hard facts at all.

----------


## AaronP

> AaronP now you are just being rediculious, thats not a contradiction at all.  Eventide is 100% correct.  I have a ball python at my house.  That is either true or not true.  Proof does not make it so, it is or it isn't.  When I take you to my house and show you my BP then you have proof.  You know whether its true or not.   Truth exists regardless of proof.  Proof is what reveals the truth.  
> 
> And again short of genetic testing we are in fact doing a trial by jury.  BHB, NERD or any of the other breeders telling us one way or the other is trial by jury.  We decide the truth based on a consensus.  So no, you are not talking cold hard facts at all.


If you say so, but you may want to remember that "ridiculous" is the word... And why are you quoting a post that's 2 days old?

----------


## Egapal

> If you say so, but you may want to remember that "ridiculous" is the word... And why are you quoting a post that's 2 days old?


That's all you have for a come back.  I spelled ridiculous wrong.  You got me there.  I quoted a 2 day old post because I felt it was worth replying too.  I wasn't aware there was a time limit.  I will work on the spelling for you though.

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> That's all you have for a come back.  I spelled ridiculous wrong.  You got me there.  I quoted a 2 day old post because I felt it was worth replying too.  I wasn't aware there was a time limit.  I will work on the spelling for you though.


could you guys talk over PMs or something, theres no reaosn to bump this thread so you can argue over....well just seems like the sake of arguing now. this post was just kinda immature.

----------

HeartAche (11-02-2009)

----------


## Ssthisto

> Yes Pinstripes were recently proven to be a Co-Dominate animal by Barcyzk





> there no link, and it just looks like a normal pinstripe,


If the "super Pinstripe" looks exactly like and is visually indistinguishable from a Pinstripe, then that proves that Pinstripe (the gene) is *dominant* to the wildtype "not pinstripe" gene on that pair. 

Dominant genes look the same when heterozygous as homozygous. 
Recessive genes only have a visual presentation when homozygous, and heterozygotes look the same as non-carriers.
Co-dominant genes have three distinct appearances - non-carriers look different to heterozygous animals, and both look different to a homozygous animal.

If it acts like albino - a het looks like a normal and only homozygous is different, it's recessive.
If it acts like lesser - a het looks different to a normal, and a "super" homozygous form looks different to either of the other two, it's co-dominant.
If it acts like pinstripe - a carrier looks different to a normal and only breeding trials can prove an animal is homozygous or heterozygous, it's dominant.

----------


## bunnykit

I know this thread is several years old, and shame on me for bringing it up again ^^" But I was just wondering about some things in this thread that really, really gets under my skin and makes me think.

I have not once, never, seen a conclusive thread with pictures showing deformed or kinked spiders from a spider x spider cross. I haven't heard of a dramatic loss of eggs, such as a spider carrying female normally laying around 6-10 eggs, but suddenly drop down to 4 when mated with a spider, every time, over and over again. 

Now, this thread was created several years ago, we have come a long way since then in understanding morphs and how they work. IF there was a lethal part of spider x spider crossings, surely there would be plentiful of evidence by now, yes? So...show me. Anything? O_o

Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all. 

I know there have been talk about how the spider gene restricts a certain protein in the animal during development, and this causes not only the coloration but also the wobble since that protein have to do with the neurological functions as well. Double set of this gene sounds likely to be lethal, so I understand people's concern, but after this many years, where is the proof?

Also, if the babies do die before they even develop, then what's the harm in that, really? All that happens is that you get a few less eggs that start their development if that is true. 

I think cinny x cinny, or cinny x black pastel that created kinked babies are far worse...many of those babies are alive when hatching and then die from kinked bodies. 

IF a spider x spider creates 1-4 eggs less by the 25% less, then isn't that up to the breeder to choose to have more spider morphs born in the clutch, but less egg as a total? 

I have crossed my spinner blast with my spider male, since she would not accept my two other males. I don't see a risk with this, other than knowing I will get a lot more spiders and spider based morphs. I honestly don't think there will be kinked or dead born babies, because I have yet to see any proof of this happening to someone else. 

Also I've been told that the wobble might get worse, but once again this makes no sense for me. If a spider can only be viable with one spider gene, then biologically and genetically that animal is no different from the composition of the spider that produced it (it has it's own set of dna and is unique compared to it's parents, but I mean morph wise). You can't suddenly have a spider gene that behaves differently than the source, that doesn't sound right. In order to increase color, behavior or wobble, you would need 'more' and if two genes stops the development from the start then this can not happen. 

Sorry for bringing such an old thread back to life, but yeah....we have come a long way and it would be fun to see some fact laid down on the table instead of rumors and old thinking.

----------


## Slowcountry Balls

I'm only going to address the "Super" issue. Super is used to mean homozygous. When you ask about how many Supers of a morph look like the morph, you are really asking how many homozygous phenotypes of a morph look like the heterozygous phenotype of the morph, and that is the definition of a dominant gene, that the homozygous and heterozygous phenotypes are the same. The only way to differentiate between the homozygous and heterozygous phenotypes of a morph is by breeding them to an animal without that gene and looking at the babies over a large enough sample size (the heterozygous animal should visually reproduce that gene 50% of the time and the homozygous animal will visually reproduce that gene 100% of the time).

----------


## CryHavoc17

> Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all.


For a gene to be classified as dominant the homozygous form (or "super" ) must have an identical appearance to the heterozygous form. Thats literally the definition of a dominant gene. All genes have homozygous forms. We classify genes as dominant, co dominant, incomplete dominant, or recessive by looking at the appearance of the normal, heterozygous, and  homozygous forms.

Your thoughts about taking homozygous spiders as a sunk cost and doing the pairing anyway is 100% spot on.  If the homozygous form is lethal you will see fewer hatchlings total and a higher ratio of spiders to normals then expected. There are some breeders of the jag mutation in carpet pythons that do exactly this, because they feel normals are really undesirable, and homozygous jags are lethal.

Its funny because I have the exact opposite feeling about this based on similar reasoning. If the homozygous spider was a perfectly healthy, normal animal, then why hasnt one ever shown up after all this time? If its possible to produce as a viable healthy animal surely someone would have shown evidence that it exists.




Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk 2

----------


## OhhWatALoser

I see I have learned quite a bit since I participated in this thread. Sadly there not much new about this subject, not that anyone expects there to be.




> I have not once, never, seen a conclusive thread with pictures showing deformed or kinked spiders from a spider x spider cross. I haven't heard of a dramatic loss of eggs, such as a spider carrying female normally laying around 6-10 eggs, but suddenly drop down to 4 when mated with a spider, every time, over and over again.
> 
> Now, this thread was created several years ago, we have come a long way since then in understanding morphs and how they work. IF there was a lethal part of spider x spider crossings, surely there would be plentiful of evidence by now, yes? So...show me. Anything? O_o


post 13: http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...der+homozygous but the theory for most has been most don't make it full term. As for the dramatic drop in eggs scenario, your asking quite a bit out of someone to take a high egg producing female and hold back a years of progressing genetically, just to see what happens. Most people aren't going to do this, so why would there be something to be heard? especially over and over again.

I don't know why there would be plentiful of evidence, where are the spider x spider pairing people supposedly do all the time and where are the breeding results of the spider offspring the produce? It's just not worth people's time to try to prove failure.




> Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all.


BHB had a pin that produced 20 some eggs that were all pin, never produce a normal. The odds of it happening were like a hundred million to one, if the animal was heterozygous. As no other public breeding trails trying to prove out or disprove super pins has came forward, with he current evidence we can say pin is dominant. The original Congo was homozygous according to vin russo. Ralph has bred platty x platty a few times now, producing a animal that looks like a daddy gene, which knowing lesser and daddy gene to be allelic, it must be a super daddy gene. Greg also announced not to long ago that leopard is a dominant gene also, with a couple super leopards being produced. So to sum it up, pin, congo, daddy gene, and leopard with the current information can be called dominant. with the het and super forms both looking the same.




> I know there have been talk about how the spider gene restricts a certain protein in the animal during development, and this causes not only the coloration but also the wobble since that protein have to do with the neurological functions as well. Double set of this gene sounds likely to be lethal, so I understand people's concern, but after this many years, where is the proof?
> 
> IF a spider x spider creates 1-4 eggs less by the 25% less, then isn't that up to the breeder to choose to have more spider morphs born in the clutch, but less egg as a total? 
> 
> I have crossed my spinner blast with my spider male, since she would not accept my two other males. I don't see a risk with this, other than knowing I will get a lot more spiders and spider based morphs. I honestly don't think there will be kinked or dead born babies, because I have yet to see any proof of this happening to someone else. 
> 
> Also I've been told that the wobble might get worse, but once again this makes no sense for me. If a spider can only be viable with one spider gene, then biologically and genetically that animal is no different from the composition of the spider that produced it (it has it's own set of dna and is unique compared to it's parents, but I mean morph wise). You can't suddenly have a spider gene that behaves differently than the source, that doesn't sound right. In order to increase color, behavior or wobble, you would need 'more' and if two genes stops the development from the start then this can not happen. 
> 
> Sorry for bringing such an old thread back to life, but yeah....we have come a long way and it would be fun to see some fact laid down on the table instead of rumors and old thinking.


Truth is there isn't a whole lot of public information on spider x spider pairing. I am told people do it all the time, but I would love to see the mythical results. I have found scattered reports of smaller clutch sizes and more than usual slugs, but I'm not even sure I could find them again if I tired. I have only heard of 2 born dead babies,  only one having pictures (thread above). I would expect most don't make it that far though, if the homozygous spider is causing the condition. As you explained, the worse wobble is bullcrap. We are at the point now, it would be a cool project for someone to figure it all out (if possible), but it makes zero sense economically or if you want to progress farther genetically, which is almost all of us. I don't really like the idea of starting a project expecting to fail and having a hard time proving the fail.




> Its funny because I have the exact opposite feeling about this based on similar reasoning. If the homozygous spider was a perfectly healthy, normal animal, then why hasnt one ever shown up after all this time? If its possible to produce as a viable healthy animal surely someone would have shown evidence that it exists.


Riddle me this, were are the breeding results of spiders that came from spider x spider pairings, to prove the very thing you are asking? Has anyone attempted to prove them out? Of course everyone wants to jump in and say of course they did, why wouldn't they have of.... so where are the results? I mean I'm sure "they" did also, but what did they do, what are the numbers, there isn't anything public. Same with the pinstripe, we only have one account of a super pin, where is everyone else's breeding trails? Personally I did pin x pin last year and didn't get eggs, I'm doing the same pairing this year. Then I'll have to see what the babies produce. I'm honestly more surprised there isn't another account of a super pin, I mean there is zero reason to think it is a failure. People just don't seem to be interested in producing these animals.

----------


## bunnykit

Just to clear something up, when I say spider x spider I mean all spider combos crossed with eachother. 
This year I have a spinnerblast x spider cross, which can produce spinnerblasts. This is worth my time, a spider x spider wouldn't be. 

I never expected anyone to sit around and crossing a single gene spider with naother single gene spider, but rather combos with each other, which is much more likely to happen.

----------


## Pythonfriend

> Just to clear something up, when I say spider x spider I mean all spider combos crossed with eachother. 
> This year I have a spinnerblast x spider cross, which can produce spinnerblasts. This is worth my time, a spider x spider wouldn't be. 
> 
> I never expected anyone to sit around and crossing a single gene spider with naother single gene spider, but rather combos with each other, which is much more likely to happen.


this thread is indeed about breeding any morph combo containing the spider gene to any other morph combo containing the spider gene. or, in short, spider x spider.

----------


## bunnykit

Found this one;

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...06#post1847606

----------

