Pin, Spider questions

Ok, from what I had read, spiders and pins are both dominate but only contain one gene for their trait, so that they can pass on the normal gene, and make normal babies with normal partners. Is this true?

I was talking to a friend and he thought that all pins produce 100% pins when bred to normals.

This is what gets confusing to me.... if spiders and pins are both dominate forms, when you breed them to other spiders/pins and produce offspring, couldnt some of the babies look like spiders and pins, but have the genetics to produce 100% when bred to a normal?

I know it would be hard to prove without breeding a lot, but just curious.

Spiders and pins are thought of as Dominant traits. Remember that while a spider that is, well, visually a spider (no hets because its dominant) most likely is a heterozygous carrier of the gene/allele/whatever. That means that it carries a spider gene/allele paired with a wild-type gene/allele. When you cross that with a normal, that wild-type gene is what causes that theoretical 50/50 split of normals and spiders when a heterzygous spider is crosses with a normal.

Quote:

---

couldnt some of the babies look like spiders and pins, but have the genetics to produce 100% when bred to a normal?

---

From what I know, it's possible that a visual spider can in fact be a homozygous spider. These spiders are created from spider x spider pairings. And since there's no way to tell what a homozygous spider looks like because there's no super form know so far, the only way to tell is to breed that spider over and over and over to normals and generate nothing but spider offspring. I'm not sure if there's a benchmark as far as proving a homozygous spider, but I'd feel like a real tool if I proclaimed to have a homozygous spider due to good odds, then pop out a normal baby here and there.


ps. When one talks about the letters on punnent squares, ex. Nn aa, is the right term for each letter gene, allele, or what? I've got an elementary understanding of how it all works but forgive me if I butchered the right terminology.

http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics.html
and
http://www.newenglandreptile.com/genetics_codom.html

On another forum someone had said that the spider is a dominant gene and there is no super like pastels because there is no visual difference. Like theres a difference between pastel and a super pastel. That is what I heard so it may be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

Spiders and pins are thought of as Dominant traits. Remember that while a spider that is, well, visually a spider (no hets because its dominant) most likely is a heterozygous carrier of the gene/allele/whatever. That means that it carries a spider gene/allele paired with a wild-type gene/allele. When you cross that with a normal, that wild-type gene is what causes that theoretical 50/50 split of normals and spiders when a heterzygous spider is crosses with a normal.



From what I know, it's possible that a visual spider can in fact be a homozygous spider. These spiders are created from spider x spider pairings. And since there's no way to tell what a homozygous spider looks like because there's no super form know so far, the only way to tell is to breed that spider over and over and over to normals and generate nothing but spider offspring. I'm not sure if there's a benchmark as far as proving a homozygous spider, but I'd feel like a real tool if I proclaimed to have a homozygous spider due to good odds, then pop out a normal baby here and there.


ps. When one talks about the letters on punnent squares, ex. Nn aa, is the right term for each letter gene, allele, or what? I've got an elementary understanding of how it all works but forgive me if I butchered the right terminology.

---

That is the way i understood it as well, but a friend was fairly adament (sp?) about it, so I thought I would double check heh.


As far as punnet squares I would say a spider is Ss (lowercase s meaning normal gene on the spider allele?)

So a Bumblebee would be Ss Pp a super pastel woudl be PP a killerbee would be SsPP

At least that is how I do it.

Horizontal line is a visible spider, verticle line is a normal

S s
s Ss ss

s Ss ss

Ss x 2 = visible spiders
ss x 2 = normals

so 50% spiders, 50% normals


Bumblebee punnet square x normal


---sp---Sp---sP---SP
sp sspp Sspp ssPp SsPp
sp sspp Sspp ssPp SsPp
sp sspp Sspp ssPp SsPp
sp sspp Sspp ssPp SsPp


sspp = normal
Sspp = Spider
ssPp = Pastel
SsPp = Bumblebee

25% chance of each

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shhhli

http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics.html
and
http://www.newenglandreptile.com/genetics_codom.html

---

Yeah i understand genetics, just wanted clarification on the specifics of these two dominate traits.

No, you're right. A spider is thought of as Dominant, while pastels are thought of as co-dominant. A pastel is co-dominant because homozygous pastels show up as the "super" form of the morph. A spider is simply just called dominant because even if you create a homozygous spider and managed to prove it, it wouldn't look any different than heterozygous carriers of the gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeySnakeSnake

I was talking to a friend and he thought that all pins produce 100% pins when bred to normals.

---

100% not true ... I guarantee it. ;) :sweeet:

-adam

I am talking with a breeder on the internet right now and he said that kevin @ NERD proved there is no super 4 years ago.

EDIT: I am talking about the spider not the pin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regal Boids

I am talking with a breeder on the internet right now and he said that kevin @ NERD proved there is no super 4 years ago.

---

No "visuallly different" super.

-adam