Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look

Ok here are pics. First one is of mom and the other one is 3 of the babies. The babies are from left to right normal, bee, spider.


http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/v...normfemale.jpg

http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/v...001/babies.jpg

please forgive me if the pics don't post I suck at posting pics.

- - - Updated - - -

As you can see she is a little bright and reduced pattern but nothing special.

Thanks for the HUGE amount of work to raise up and breed that many animals.

The only explanation I can think of is that there is something we don't understand about ball python reproduction such that the homozygous spiders never get matched up with a follicle. Even that would require you had really good odds to get 78% spiders rather than 66%. I don't know...

Interesting. Did any of the spider X normal offspring produce clutches that were 100% spider? If not then there must be some prezygotic barrier between a spider sperm and egg, leaving the egg there waiting until a normal, or at least non-spider, sperm comes along and fertilizes it.

Ive been waiting for someone to put this much work into the Spider x Spider theories. Thanks for posting. Im not really great with genetics, so please be nice, but is it at all possible that the homozygous form of spider is simply not visual? or is that ridiculous?

-Riveran

The most puzzling aspect of this is the 78% spider result from spider X spider breedings. It suggests that the Homozygous spiders are there--you would expect, 50% spider, 25% homo spider, and 25% normal, right? You get 78% spider, and you figure 1/3 of those must surely be homozygous. But, they didn't prove to be homozygous in breedings.

How are what should be homozygous spiders winding up with a normal gene???

It's almost as though there's no pair there--just either the spider gene is present, or the normal gene is present, but there's no second gene to make a pair. Is that possible?

Is it possible mom is a spider. The way her pattern looks you can almost see spider in between the banding. You can see it in the middle baby as well. The blushing seems like it make wider spider markings then usual, apearing much more normal like?

My theory still stands that there is something going on with the spiders that only allows one spider gene to be present in one animal. There has to be some reason that no offspring from the spider x spider breedings produced 100% spiders. Maybe it is linked to the wobble... Think about it the wobble exists in every spider and that would have to be a genetic defect which is just on the surface. I am no genetics expert but maybe nothing can attach to the same locus as the spider gene leaving the gene incomplete. An example would be with the pastel, a pastel on the location in the DNA strand has one pastel gene and one normal gene, the spider may only have the one spider gene and no normal gene so in offspring it passes spider or nothing . It makes sense to me because of the wobble being present in all spiders which would indicate some sort of genetic fault that causes it. Just a thought I could be way off base and don't know if that is even possible. But one thing is for sure in my eyes there is no super spider at all and it is NOT lethal to do the breedings of spider x spider. Now can we put those 2 things to rest and cover possibilities of what could be going on with the spider gene that causes it to have the wobble and not have a super form? Also how do we classify this gene now? It can not be dominant, co-dominant, or recessive so what could it be now?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seth702

Is it possible mom is a spider. The way her pattern looks you can almost see spider in between the banding. You can see it in the middle baby as well. The blushing seems like it make wider spider markings then usual, apearing much more normal like?

---

The middle baby is a bee.................................. The mom is just a reduced pattern normal there are a ton of them all over this forum.............

If there is only one copy of the gene present in the snake's genome instead of 2, then the gene could still be called incomplete dominant, even though there's no way to create a super form, I would think.

I'm curious because I've always been told that spiderxspider breedings resulted in spiders that had severe head wobbles so my question to you is did you notice any offspring with really bad wobbles?

As for that "Normal" that is producing spiders, I can't wait to see you reproduce that pairing! That sounds really amazing and is definately something to explore some more. It kind of reminds me of the Hidden gene Womas and the Hidden Gene Lessers that NERD produced way back when. Do you think this girl could be doing a similar thing but she just throws spiders instead? Have any plans to test the offspring as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

Not possible. Spider is a dominant gene. A recessive gene can't dominate a dominant gene.

---

Dominate just means that when two genes are present on the same Loci the dominate one will show the phenotype. . . if a recessive gene was at a different loci it could conceal a dominate gene / be expressed think albino spider . . . So yes a recessive gene CAN dominate a dominant gene at a differnet loci for a different phenotypic (visual) result.