I did a write up on the spider, double check it for me?

[OhhWatALoser]

I made a write up for the homozygous spider for myself and while I was at it the wobble also, guess its kinda like a faq. Do you guys see anything untrue or some important info thats missing? Now I don't really want to start a debate, I feel as I would have address all issues so there really should be room for a debate, but there always seems to be anyways.....

The Spider Ball Python

There is a lot going on with this morph besides just the sweet pattern. There are 2 issues that are highly debated surrounding this morph. I will try to address both. First is homozygous spider and the apparent neurological issue known as "the wobble."

The Homozygous Spider

If the spider is a simple dominate gene and I bred a spider x spider, I should statistically get 25% Homozygous Spider, 50% Heterozygous Spider, 25% Normal. The homozygous spider should look exactly like a heterozygous spider. The only difference would be, the homozygous spider, when bred to any other ball python, the offspring would all be spiders, while the heterozygous spider, the offspring would only have a 50/50 chance.

Here's the problem, the spider was first established at NERD in 1999, and we still have yet to see a proven homozygous spider. Now before we get into all the theory, Kevin (the owner of NERD), they guy that imported the first and has dealt with more spiders than anyone else, has to say about the issue. Kevin said that he has not produced and does not believe that there is a homozygous spider nor that spider is homozygous lethal. From what I understand he is saying it just simply does not exist for an unknown reason and is not a simple dominate gene. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding him.

Another theory is that homozygous spider is lethal, which is based on the fact that we haven't seen one yet, which is a pretty weak theory in my opinion, but not totally dismissible. I do think this theory could be put to rest by some spider x spider pairing being done and keeping an eye on the follicles of the females, if somewhere around 25% of them die/reabsorb/not hatch, it may strengthen this theory, but I think people would want to see a lot of eggs before we call it "fact." Which would be a lot of resources to waste for a big breeder to try. so don't expect it any time soon. I think the only chance of proving this, is us small breeders trying it out and all of us putting our data together.

Another theory, there hasn't been enough spider x spider breedings to prove/disprove a homozygous spider. Well here's the deal with this, you first have a breed a spider x spider. every spider offspring only has a 33% chance to be homozygous. then you have to raise that snake up and do multiple breedings to prove it is in fact homozygous, opposed to you just getting really lucky on a clutch. So yes very difficult to prove.

Not many people have the resources to do this, NERD has tired to prove it but as far as I know, they don't have any public statement about what they did to try to prove the homozygous spider. So I guess it leaves this theory open ended. more info would sway my opinion one way or another. Tho if Kevin said he did enough breedings, he most likely did enough breedings.


Now the question, "If I bred a spider x spider, statistically what % of spider should I get?" Well If homozygous spider does exist and is dodging us all these years, 25% homozygous/50% heterozygous/25% normal, if its homozygous lethal then 66% heterozygous/33% normal. If it doesn't exist for some reason, depending on how you look at it, it could either be 66% heterozygous/33% normal or 75% heterozygous/25% normal. So go ahead pick one.

The Wobble

Anyone who owns a spider or seen on in person most likely already knows what I'm talking about here. The spider has an apparent neurological issue, which I think the best way to describe it, they lose their equilibrium. You may not even see it, it can be a subtle as them just tilting their head once in a while, shaking in their head or it can be as bad as them corkscrewing their body in the air almost uncontrollably. It could only happen during feedings or other exciting situations for the snake or it could just be a constant thing. could have no signs as a baby and show it as an adult or have it as a baby and grow out of it.

What I am getting at is, this is very variable, every spider is different.

Search "spider ball python wobble" on youtube and you can see some of the extreme cases of the spider wobble. Now I will say most spider are no where near as bad as the typical ones you see on the net. Don't let those select few deter you from this morph. Most are not bad at all.

The wobble is linked to the spider gene. The normals that come out of the same clutch as spiders don't have the wobble, just the spiders. Also adding morphs does not fix the spider wobble. Anything with spider in it, whether it be a bumblebee, spinner, or one of NERD's crazy creations, they have the wobble.

Breeding a low wobble spider can result in some offspring with a bad wobble, breeding a bad wobbling spider can result in low wobbling offspring. There appears to be no way to selectively breed it out also.

Also, if I hear one more person make a claim that inbreeding may cause the wobble, I think im going to scream. I will be bold and say the spider is the most out-crossed morph in the ball python world. There is no proven homozygous spider, so spider x spider breeding are very rare. So no you are wrong, it is in no way related to inbreeding.

So then questions come up such as, "Why would you breed a snake with a defect?" and "What if my snake can't eat because of it?" We breed them because its a morph, every morph is a "defect," do you think a bright white ball python would fair to well in Africa? They are only going to remain in captivity and they eat, poop, breed, live healthy lives just like any other ball python in captivity. I don't see the problem. If you don't like them, no one is forcing you to own or like them, but don't you dare make a claim that there is something wrong with others owning them. It's extremely closed minded and Hypocritical.

In all of my research, I have only found 1 person that makes a claim that they had a baby with a wobble that was so bad, it could not eat. 1 person out of the multiple-thousands of snakes out there. Also I personally would of liked that snake to go under someone else's care to see if something could be done, but I don't know details of the situation. So I guess if you have one they cannot eat, by design it will not be around. But besides the one case, they all eat, poop, breed, and live healthy lives in captivity.

[sho220]

That's a great write-up...don't see anything there I would disagree with. Also agree that if there was a Homozygous Spider, NERD would have found out by now...and I imagine would have spilled the beans...I know there's a lot of secrecy in this hobby, but not sure why they'd keep that one a secret...

[sookieball]

I have heard of woma wobble. I dont remember when i read it or what thread. But im pretty sure it was something to do with the hiddengene womas. Someone correct me if im wrong, like i said, i dont remember the whole thing as i can barley remember yesterday. But good write up.

Sent from my HUAWEI-M860

[blackcrystal22]

The spider gene is something called recessive lethality. Now I know you're going to say "but it's dominant" but let me explain. Capitol X will represent the spider gene, and x will represent a normal gene.

Recessive lethality means that the trait (in this case, the spider gene) shows in a heterozygous animal (making the gene 'act' dominant in nature).
[Xx] - Living spider.

However, when the animal is homozygous for the spider gene [XX], the animal dies before it is born. Thus, the lethality is recessive because the gene needs both alleles in order for the lethality to take place (death of the animal). This makes the gene recessive for death, but dominant acting with a heterozygous individual [Xx] but it can still produce normals [xx]. Normals seem less common because of the lethality and the ratio favors the spider gene.

1:2:1 (XX:Xx:xx) And since [XX] dies, you only see the 2:1 ratio of spiders:normals.

Hope that can clear things up a little bit. This is something that I brought up under deep discussion in my genetics class.

[sho220]

The spider gene is something called recessive lethality. Now I know you're going to say "but it's dominant" but let me explain. Capitol X will represent the spider gene, and x will represent a normal gene.

Recessive lethality means that the trait (in this case, the spider gene) shows in a heterozygous animal (making the gene 'act' dominant in nature).
[Xx] - Living spider.

However, when the animal is homozygous for the spider gene [XX], the animal dies before it is born. Thus, the lethality is recessive because the gene needs both alleles in order for the lethality to take place (death of the animal). This makes the gene recessive for death, but dominant acting with a heterozygous individual [Xx] but it can still produce normals [xx]. Normals seem less common because of the lethality and the ratio favors the spider gene.

1:2:1 (XX:Xx:xx) And since [XX] dies, you only see the 2:1 ratio of spiders:normals.

Hope that can clear things up a little bit. This is something that I brought up under deep discussion in my genetics class.

I'm far too dumb to understand all that...

If I breed two spiders together, will half the babies (or eggs) be slugs, or will they not even be laid...i.e...be reabsorbed before being laid?

[OhhWatALoser]

The spider gene is something called recessive lethality. Now I know you're going to say "but it's dominant" but let me explain. Capitol X will represent the spider gene, and x will represent a normal gene.

Recessive lethality means that the trait (in this case, the spider gene) shows in a heterozygous animal (making the gene 'act' dominant in nature).
[Xx] - Living spider.

However, when the animal is homozygous for the spider gene [XX], the animal dies before it is born. Thus, the lethality is recessive because the gene needs both alleles in order for the lethality to take place (death of the animal). This makes the gene recessive for death, but dominant acting with a heterozygous individual [Xx] but it can still produce normals [xx]. Normals seem less common because of the lethality and the ratio favors the spider gene.

1:2:1 (XX:Xx:xx) And since [XX] dies, you only see the 2:1 ratio of spiders:normals.

Hope that can clear things up a little bit. This is something that I brought up under deep discussion in my genetics class.

doesn't mean its recessive, in fact, if thats the case it would be co-dom. Recessive means the heterozygous form does not show, which it obviously does, the spider we all have in our collections.

co-dom means the heterozygous and homozygous form are different. which if it was lethal, het would be spider and homozygous would be dead. still homozygous lethal anyways. the "XX" means homozygous, has nothing to do with recessive, co-dom, or dom.

Way I see it, it doesn't change the odds, sure it changes the ratio of things that actually come out of eggs, but as far as follicles go you still have the 1:2:1 ratio.

That's assuming its even homozygous lethal which there is next to nothing that suggests this lol.

I'm far too dumb to understand all that...

If I breed two spiders together, will half the babies (or eggs) be slugs, or will they not even be laid...i.e...be reabsorbed before being laid?

There nothing that suggests that anything would happen to the eggs

[jjmitchell]

as far as no homozygous form existing.... It is a gene that affects an allele with locusts..... just like everything else.... To think that there is no way for an animal to inherit a gene from both parents is ridiculous...... I dont know if the homozygous form is lethal, I personally dont think any of us do... The woma gene is homozygous lethal we see the offspring fail to thrive.... There are a million threads on homozygous lethal spider and the only conclusion we ever seem to come up with is simply we dont know.... As far as recessive lethal we would not see the spider pattern show in a heterozygous animal if the gene was recessive.

[mainbutter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygosity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele

[TheSnakeEye]

THE guy that imported the first and has dealt with more spiders than anyone else, has to say about the issue.

I do think this theory could be put to rest by some spider x spider pairingS being done and keeping an eye on the follicles of the females, if somewhere around 25% of them die/reabsorb/not hatch, it may strengthen this theory, but I think people would want to see a lot of eggs before we call it "fact." Which would be a lot of resources to waste for a big breeder to try. So don't expect it any time soon. I think the only chance of proving this, is us small breeders trying it out and all of us putting our data together.

Another theory, there hasn't been enough spider x spider breedings to prove/disprove a homozygous spider. Well here's the deal with this, you first have a breed a spider x spider. Every spider offspring only has a 33% chance to be homozygous. Then you have to raise that snake up and do multiple breedings to prove it is in fact homozygous, opposed to you just getting really lucky on a clutch. So yes very difficult to prove.

More info would sway my opinion one way or another. Tho if Kevin said he did enough breedings, he most likely did enough breedings.



Anyone who owns a spider or seen onE in person most likely already knows what I'm talking about here. The spider has an apparent neurological issue, which I think the best way to describe it, they lose their equilibrium. You may not even see it, it can be aS subtle as them just tilting their head once in a while, shaking in their head or it can be as bad as them corkscrewing their body in the air almost uncontrollably.

Also, if I hear one more person make a claim that inbreeding may cause the wobble, I think I'm going to scream.

We breed them because its a morph, every morph is a "defect," do you think a bright white ball python would fair TOO well in Africa? If you don't like them, no one is forcing you to own or like them, but don't you dare make a claim that there is something wrong with others owning them. It's extremely closed minded and Hypocritical.

In all of my research, I have only found 1 person that makes a claim that they had a baby with a wobble that was so bad, it could not eat. 1 person out of the multiple-thousands of snakes out there. Also I personally would of liked that snake to go under someone else's care to see if something could be done, but I don't know details of the situation. So I guess if you have one they cannot eat, by design it will not be around. But besides the one case, they all eat, poop, breed, and live healthy lives in captivity.

Idk if when you posted this and asked for someone to double check, you meant double check for grammatical errors, but I went ahead and checked that. W.e I put in bold are words I found that could be fixed, I think in most of the boldings I put the already corrected word or what not. Sorry if this is nto what you were asking for, either way, great post.

[OhhWatALoser]

Idk if when you posted this and asked for someone to double check, you meant double check for grammatical errors, but I went ahead and checked that. W.e I put in bold are words I found that could be fixed, I think in most of the boldings I put the already corrected word or what not. Sorry if this is not what you were asking for, either way, great post.

I didn't exactly mean grammatical errors, but obviously I needed it lol thx