i have a predisposition to never want any spiders or morphs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntTheDestroyer

This is not entirely correct. First complete dominant is to incomplete dominant as poisonous is to venomous.

Dominance is not only that the heterozygous from looks just like a homozygous form, but more importantly you will have a homozygous which is phenotypicaly identical to a heterozygous that will produce 100 percent heterozygous animals when bred to an animal not carrying that gene. In this case if spider is a dominant morph you should be able to produce an animal that appears to be a spider but will produce no non spider offspring. Following if the homozygous is in fact lethal there is no way to prove Dominance short of finding and preforming genetic testing on a dead homozygous embryo.

---

I know the terminology of co-dominance and incomplete dominance is wrong but the way it is used in the reptile hobby they are used interchangeably. You also basically reiterated what I just said with different terminology. i.e. super spider that looks the same as a normal spider aka same phenotypes. I was just assuming that people asking the question about super spiders know what super means so I didn't bother explaining it. My bad. XD

If the homozygous is lethal it is automatically not a dominant trait. Every homozygous lethal is technically a co-dominant/incomplete dominant due to the different phenotype. i.e. death. For example, munchkin cats have a homozygous lethal. Homozygous munchkin cats fail to even gestate so performing genetic testing on that is out of the question but it is known that it is a homozygous lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

So if you produce a 'super spider' will that result in a slug, an infertile egg that looks good, or does it develop into a white snake and just perish before it hatches?

---

In theory yes. Any of those outcomes would happen to be the case except the infertile egg part. What seems to usually happen is that the egg will be good but will die before hitting even the embryo stage. It's rare to get the white snake in general in that pairing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cchardwick

So if you produce a 'super spider' will that result in a slug, an infertile egg that looks good, or does it develop into a white snake and just perish before it hatches?

---

There was an all white snake that was produced from a spider to spider breeding. I do not think that one instance is enough to say that this was a homozygous spider, because this could have easily been due to birth defects. For example the animal could have had many aspects that did not develop including the ability to produce color pigment. The reason the animal did not survive could have been caused by this as well. I have read accounts of low egg production to undeveloped fetuses for this combination. It is nearly impossible to say what the actual cause is from anecdotal evidence. There are many things that can lead to the same outcomes.

lol I asked and I got what you meant thank you to all the whole spider thought process is making a lot more sense jow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seven-Thirty

I know the terminology of co-dominance and incomplete dominance is wrong but the way it is used in the reptile hobby they are used interchangeably. You also basically reiterated what I just said with different terminology. i.e. super spider that looks the same as a normal spider aka same phenotypes. I was just assuming that people asking the question about super spiders know what super means so I didn't bother explaining it. My bad. XD

If the homozygous is lethal it is automatically not a dominant trait. Every homozygous lethal is technically a co-dominant/incomplete dominant due to the different phenotype. i.e. death. For example, munchkin cats have a homozygous lethal. Homozygous munchkin cats fail to even gestate so performing genetic testing on that is out of the question but it is known that it is a homozygous lethal.



In theory yes. Any of those outcomes would happen to be the case except the infertile egg part. What seems to usually happen is that the egg will be good but will die before hitting even the embryo stage. It's rare to get the white snake in general in that pairing.

---

The hobby using a term a certain way does not make it correct. My point was exactly that if it is lethal you can not prove which forms of dominant it is. There are still well known people working with the gene saying that it is not lethal, so I am not convinced it has been proven to be lethal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntTheDestroyer

The hobby using a term a certain way does not make it correct. My point was exactly that if it is lethal you can not prove which forms of dominant it is. There are still well known people working with the gene saying that it is not lethal, so I am not convinced it has been proven to be lethal.

---

The fact that it is lethal means that you can prove that it is at least not dominant. Dominance means that the phenotype, as you previously mentioned, is the same whether in heterozygous or homozygous forms. We know that spider is not some weird anomaly that can't have a super due to the fact that black head spider is a super and logically a homozygous form does exist of the spider mutation. Unless there has been some weird backwards bad luck in the past 20 years of who knows how many breedings that the super spider has not been found, logically it would mean that the super spider is a lethal super/homozygous lethal.

Well known people working with the gene include Kevin McCurley who I idolize but does tend to say some things that make no sense at all such as the hidden gene woma granite thing. Kevin believes that the super spider doesn't exist at all and that it isn't lethal either. It just simply does not exist which makes no sense biologically speaking. The best way to prove this once and for all is to do a blackhead spider to blackhead spider pairing and record what comes out. There would only be three possibilities from such a pairing. Super black head, black head spider, and super spider. If you never hatch a spider or something that isn't a super black head or black head spider, then it is 100% confirmed that the super spider is a homozygous lethal. Just because well known breeders say it's not lethal doesn't mean it actually is so given the evidence that has surfaced in the past 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seven-Thirty

The fact that it is lethal means that you can prove that it is at least not dominant. Dominance means that the phenotype, as you previously mentioned, is the same whether in heterozygous or homozygous forms. We know that spider is not some weird anomaly that can't have a super due to the fact that black head spider is a super and logically a homozygous form does exist of the spider mutation. Unless there has been some weird backwards bad luck in the past 20 years of who knows how many breedings that the super spider has not been found, logically it would mean that the super spider is a lethal super/homozygous lethal.

Well known people working with the gene include Kevin McCurley who I idolize but does tend to say some things that make no sense at all such as the hidden gene woma granite thing. Kevin believes that the super spider doesn't exist at all and that it isn't lethal either. It just simply does not exist which makes no sense biologically speaking. The best way to prove this once and for all is to do a blackhead spider to blackhead spider pairing and record what comes out. There would only be three possibilities from such a pairing. Super black head, black head spider, and super spider. If you never hatch a spider or something that isn't a super black head or black head spider, then it is 100% confirmed that the super spider is a homozygous lethal. Just because well known breeders say it's not lethal doesn't mean it actually is so given the evidence that has surfaced in the past 20 years.

---

I mean there have been reports of Bigfoot for more than twenty years but that doesn't make him real. I am just kidding as that is definitely not a good comparison. My point is that it all anecdotal evidence describing a pretty complex genetic situation, so it doesn't seem pertinent to draw definite conclusions on. I definitely never said it was recessive. The spider blackhead project is an interesting idea academically, but from a breeding perspective it is a bit of a waste genetically. Seems like a lot of work to end up with normal looking animals, a few super black heads, and possibly a spider looking animal.

Maybe somebody will come out with results for such projects. Only time will tell


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntTheDestroyer

I mean there have been reports of Bigfoot for more than twenty years but that doesn't make him real. I am just kidding as that is definitely not a good comparison. My point is that it all anecdotal evidence describing a pretty complex genetic situation, so it doesn't seem pertinent to draw definite conclusions on. I definitely never said it was recessive. The spider blackhead project is an interesting idea academically, but from a breeding perspective it is a bit of a waste genetically. Seems like a lot of work to end up with normal looking animals, a few super black heads, and possibly a spider looking animal.

---

It's not a complex genetic situation at all. Homozygous lethals are everywhere, even in mice. You can't disregard how genetics works, it's set in stone. I also don't understand where your point about recessive came from but that's a moot point.


The blackhead spider project isn't a waste genetically at all. It's not a waste to make super black heads nor is it a waste to make normal looking supers. The genes that make that normal looking snake, spider and black head, are still nice genes to have around and it's a super. Supers are always a welcome addition to my collection. It would also put to rest the super spider debate once and for all.


Also, technically everything in this hobby is anecdotal evidence but we've been able to accurately predict to a T what will happen when you put X and Y together and if XY is allelic or not based on, again, breedings. Imagine how amazed everyone was when the first allelic combo was made, which if I recall was the super stripe. No one would have known what was going on. It's through breeding and taking note of what comes out and using that information to predict what will happen with breedings, do we start to understand what is going on just as Gregor Mendel did many years ago.

Then you can spearhead this project but I don't see many jumping at the chance. Gregor Mendel was in fact a scientist and was incredibly detailed in his notes, not what you see in the hobby. In general genetic complexities are lost in the ball python hobby. For example when you say the cinnamon gene this is not accurate as it is actually the combination of a number of genes that code for color and pattern among other things. The lethal argument is absolutely complex. Some say the embryos never develop at all but I seen a counts, with pictures, of pretty well developed embryos that failed to survive out of the egg. Then there is the alleged all white snake that did not survive. What is due to normal birth defects and what is due to the spider gene is by no means straight forward. There is even a chance that a super spider embryo is just not able to survive the accepted hobby hatching techniques. Not entirely lethal just not likely to thrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntTheDestroyer

Then you can spearhead this project but I don't see many jumping at the chance. Gregor Mendel was in fact a scientist and was incredibly detailed in his notes, not what you see in the hobby. In general genetic complexities are lost in the ball python hobby. For example when you say the cinnamon gene this is not accurate as it is actually the combination of a number of genes that code for color and pattern among other things. The lethal argument is absolutely complex. Some say the embryos never develop at all but I seen a counts, with pictures, of pretty well developed embryos that failed to survive out of the egg. Then there is the alleged all white snake that did not survive. What is due to normal birth defects and what is due to the spider gene is by no means straight forward. There is even a chance that a super spider embryo is just not able to survive the accepted hobby hatching techniques. Not entirely lethal just not likely to thrive.

---

I'm sorry but seven thirty is right. I'm no geneticist but I do (pretty much) have a bsc in biology and I've taken my fair share of genetics courses. No if and no buts about it genetically the super spider has to exist. It must be possible that in some instances two alleles reside on the spider locus. This therefore means that either

A. In twenty years of breeding there has been no super spiders produced due to astronomically bad luck (highly unlikely)

B. Super spiders appear to be the same as spiders visually thus making spider a dominant trait and by chance no one has ever bred one of these animals or at least it has never been documented (this is possible but still highly unlikely)

C. Super spiders are lethal, it is possible that they fail very early on and the female simply reabsorbs the embryo, if that is the case you would never get to see these failed super spiders or high slug ratios, I suspect the clutch sizes would in general be smaller but I'm not sure if that's the case

Also I'm not sure who told you cinnamon was a combination of genes. I imagine you inferred this based on what it does in the animal but this is simply incorrect. It IS a single gene, the visual phenotypic expression of the gene is a result of the effect that gene has on the transcription of RNA, essentially proteins within the animal. These proteins CAN have multiple functions within the animal and that is POSSIBLY why you may see both a pattern and colour difference but this does not have to be the case.

Genes do not work in this manner, it is not as simple as saying gene A codes for pattern X and gene B codes for colour Y it is entirely possible that gene C codes for pattern X and colour Y.

Let me know if anything I said was confusing, I'll try to clarify


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kxr

I'm sorry but seven thirty is right. I'm no geneticist but I do (pretty much) have a bsc in biology and I've taken my fair share of genetics courses. No if and no buts about it genetically the super spider has to exist. It must be possible that in some instances two alleles reside on the spider locus. This therefore means that either

A. In twenty years of breeding there has been no super spiders produced due to astronomically bad luck (highly unlikely)

B. Super spiders appear to be the same as spiders visually thus making spider a dominant trait and by chance no one has ever bred one of these animals or at least it has never been documented (this is possible but still highly unlikely)

C. Super spiders are lethal, it is possible that they fail very early on and the female simply reabsorbs the embryo, if that is the case you would never get to see these failed super spiders or high slug ratios, I suspect the clutch sizes would in general be smaller but I'm not sure if that's the case

Also I'm not sure who told you cinnamon was a combination of genes. I imagine you inferred this based on what it does in the animal but this is simply incorrect. It IS a single gene, the visual phenotypic expression of the gene is a result of the effect that gene has on the transcription of RNA, essentially proteins within the animal. These proteins CAN have multiple functions within the animal and that is POSSIBLY why you may see both a pattern and colour difference but this does not have to be the case.

Genes do not work in this manner, it is not as simple as saying gene A codes for pattern X and gene B codes for colour Y it is entirely possible that gene C codes for pattern X and colour Y.

Let me know if anything I said was confusing, I'll try to clarify


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Perfectly said from all I've learned just said in way better terms lol almost textbook material right there :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now this brings me to the question...how are our base morphs created?... like where did the pastel come from? Etc? I get some are natural occurances in the wild but what about the others?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBotteron

Now this brings me to the question...how are our base morphs created?... like where did the pastel come from? Etc? I get some are natural occurances in the wild but what about the others?

---

They are either found in the wild or they pop up randomly in people's collections. They are not "created" by people - they are discovered and then proven.

The Pastel story (from Kevin McCurley's book, The Complete Ball Python: A Comprehensive Guide to Care, Breeding, and Genetic Mutations):

Quote:

---

The original Pastel was an imported male that I bred to a normal female, and hatched normal-appearing babies as a result. At the time, ball python breeders had little experience with co-dominant traits and it was assumed that these normal offspring were heterozygous for a simple-recessive gene. I raised the offspring and bred a female back to the adult male, subsequently hatching out three visible Pastel Jungles. During that time, another breeder (Greg Graziani) also hatched out Pastels to confirm that it was in fact a first generation morph.

---

Ok so how do these different morphs "pop up randomly"? Do they all come from the wild or is it just some random unexplained base morph that pops out of an egg bc of some random genetic mutation?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry for all the questions and curiosity. The genetics of bps have really spiked my interest recently there's just so much info and mystery surrounding everything. It's just fascinating


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kxr

I'm sorry but seven thirty is right. I'm no geneticist but I do (pretty much) have a bsc in biology and I've taken my fair share of genetics courses. No if and no buts about it genetically the super spider has to exist. It must be possible that in some instances two alleles reside on the spider locus. This therefore means that either

A. In twenty years of breeding there has been no super spiders produced due to astronomically bad luck (highly unlikely)

B. Super spiders appear to be the same as spiders visually thus making spider a dominant trait and by chance no one has ever bred one of these animals or at least it has never been documented (this is possible but still highly unlikely)

C. Super spiders are lethal, it is possible that they fail very early on and the female simply reabsorbs the embryo, if that is the case you would never get to see these failed super spiders or high slug ratios, I suspect the clutch sizes would in general be smaller but I'm not sure if that's the case

Also I'm not sure who told you cinnamon was a combination of genes. I imagine you inferred this based on what it does in the animal but this is simply incorrect. It IS a single gene, the visual phenotypic expression of the gene is a result of the effect that gene has on the transcription of RNA, essentially proteins within the animal. These proteins CAN have multiple functions within the animal and that is POSSIBLY why you may see both a pattern and colour difference but this does not have to be the case.

Genes do not work in this manner, it is not as simple as saying gene A codes for pattern X and gene B codes for colour Y it is entirely possible that gene C codes for pattern X and colour Y.

Let me know if anything I said was confusing, I'll try to clarify


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I would suggest you take more classes. You, again are using an oversimplification of genetics. A "super spider" does not have to exist. You are assuming that genes can only exist in pairs which is simply not true. The spider gene when combined could have a deleterious effect leaving only a single copy of the gene. The animal would pass on its genes as a homozygote but would not be one. Genes, while usually found in pairs, can also exist as singles and even triples. I am not even saying that the spider gene is not lethal just that I am not sure it has been proven to be. The term lethal gene is a bit ambiguous in itself because at what point of development do they die? There seems to be a lot of different information on this. Sure we can speculate, but we have to realize it is nothing more than speculation.

The human genome consists of around 20000 genes, as a benchmark, and you think it is possible that there is a single gene that codes for color pattern and what ever other unseen affect the cinnamon phenotype presents? Even my example of a gene coding for pattern or color is an oversimplification, just more correct than a single gene responsible for the phenotype of a morph. Now these genes may be passed on together no the same chromosome, but they are not the same gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBotteron

Ok so how do these different morphs "pop up randomly"? Do they all come from the wild or is it just some random unexplained base morph that pops out of an egg bc of some random genetic mutation?..

---

Everything "comes from the wild". It just takes the exact right combination of animals sometimes for some genes to show up. Whether this happens while they're still "in the wild" or in someone's collection is irrelevant.

You're getting into "What is a genetic trait?" territory here. Ball python morphs are not special snowflakes (as much as we'd like to think that they are), so maybe some research into the basics of genetics would help. :gj:

I've been doing a lot of reading about genetic traits just the more I read the more questions pop up and you answered one I've been wondering for awhile lol "everything "comes from the wild"" thank you :)

In others words my underlying question that I beat around the bush at was "there's not some secret science lab somewhere creating these morphs and doing tests on a bunch of snakes are there?" Questions answered and I feel a lot better knowing the answer haha got me a little nervous for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBotteron

In others words my underlying question that I beat around the bush at was "there's not some secret science lab somewhere creating these morphs and doing tests on a bunch of snakes are there?" Questions answered and I feel a lot better knowing the answer haha got me a little nervous for a minute.

---

Ha! No. No one's playing mad scientist with these guys. Ain't nobody's got the time or money for that - the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. We're talking about pretty snakes here, not curing cancer.

In short, breeders are more like bartenders than zymurgists (how's that for a word of the day).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntTheDestroyer

I would suggest you take more classes. You, again are using an oversimplification of genetics. A "super spider" does not have to exist. You are assuming that genes can only exist in pairs which is simply not true. The spider gene when combined could have a deleterious effect leaving only a single copy of the gene. The animal would pass on its genes as a homozygote but would not be one. Genes, while usually found in pairs, can also exist as singles and even triples. I am not even saying that the spider gene is not lethal just that I am not sure it has been proven to be. The term lethal gene is a bit ambiguous in itself because at what point of development do they die? There seems to be a lot of different information on this. Sure we can speculate, but we have to realize it is nothing more than speculation.

The human genome consists of around 20000 genes, as a benchmark, and you think it is possible that there is a single gene that codes for color pattern and what ever other unseen affect the cinnamon phenotype presents? Even my example of a gene coding for pattern or color is an oversimplification, just more correct than a single gene responsible for the phenotype of a morph. Now these genes may be passed on together no the same chromosome, but they are not the same gene.

---

I'd be very interested to learn your background. I apologize for my inflammatory comment if my information was incorrect in any way, as I said I'm no geneticist that is simply my understanding.

I'll give you the fact that these alleles can exist in singular copies due to deleterious effects however I'm not sure I'd be willing to give you the rest of that. I'm not aware of any instances in which alleles exist in triplicate. Due to the structure of DNA it does not make sense to me how this would work. Can you cite your example? I'm genuinely interested in how that might work.

It seems odd that the inhertence patterns would be as such if the mutation was due to an alteration of multiple genes. What you're suggesting is that due to the close proximity of these genes on the chromosome they are always or almost always passed on together right? I suppose this is possible, if this is the case I'd be interested to see what would happen if recombinace occurred and one of these genes were lost. Would we then be able to isolate specific traits of the "genes" in ball pythons? I'm rather interested to hear what you think is going on here however this is really far away from the intended discussion. If I didn't offend you and you care to explain I'd love to hear a pm about it.

Sounds good to me lol I actually just looked that book up on amazon and google it looks REALLY interesting I may order one. Curiously enough I'm so interested I've been thinking the last couple months of when I get back to school wonder if I can minor in biology along with my software development...I never entered the realm of genetics until recently and I never knew the majority of this stuff existed. I mean sure we all had biology in high school but nothing compared to what I've learned the last few months... I mean what else is out there in genetics that is so awesome!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry guess I did just hijack this thread my bad op


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBotteron

Sorry guess I did just hijack this thread my bad op


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

😜

I agree with the original post , even before some of you shed light on the situation . I just can't see myself having a snake with that disability. And to me , just an opinion, the morph pattern isn't all that great, to have to watch one wobble like that. The only way I could see myself owning a "Spider" is if it was a rescue, and fell into my lap, because someone was neglecting it. . . I come to a great disappointment when i realized that 2 of the morphs that I really had my eyes on, contained Spider genes. :( Killer Clown and Bumblebee. . . Why why why?

wow, what a beauty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zincubus

Well I've only ever had one spider morph ... My Caramel Albino Spider who is simply perfect . Not a hint of any shake or wobble or anything , ravenous eater , lovely and calm . This is him a year or so ago but he's probably about 1kg now .




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalkhttps://ball-pythons.net/forums/cach...162e77e9b4.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slither Seeker

wow, what a beauty!

---

Thank you !

He's actually on improving colourwise as he ages which is a bonus ...

I have a black bee female which only shows signs when she eats. She gets so excited her head bobs up and down, but she's a deadly shot. I also have a spider het clown that shows zero signs. Both eat live and frozen thawed just fine, the black bee, if she touches the hair on my arm or I touch a rat pup to her nose, will wipe her nose off, which is kinda hysterical to watch, but she goes back to normal. Neither do the upside down slither or anything. Both came from the same breeder who tries not to carry on the line if there is any wobble in the parents. Can it be bread out, I certainly don't know.

I do plan on breeding my snakes, but I will not breed these two females (even thought the possibilities are awesome with my banana and pastel). I see no reason to amplify the trait or carry on the gene. Some i've seen as babies are atrocious. The two I have, didn't have any immediate sign.

To each their own. It's all good. Do what is good in your conscience.

If it wasn't for the spider morph, I wouldn't have my beautiful, sweet little Maya. My first morph and simply the Best. Never upset or flighty or cranky. Always easygoing and sweet. No visible wobble or issue, although I know she carries it.
I can't help but say she is my favorite (well, so are the others, but she is a bit more)


Here she is "then". Almost 7 years ago

http://photos.imageevent.com/morgens.../large/bp1.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/morgens...e/SAM_0042.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/morgens...e/IMG_4082.JPG


and now. From yesterday:

http://photos.imageevent.com/morgens...35244302_n.jpg

She has days where she is darker or lighter, but she is always beautiful. I just love that snake..

I've mentioned in the past that I will not own or work with the spider gene because of the wobble. I do not condemn those that wish to do so but I can't in good conscience do it myself.

If I were to put it in relative human terms, I've never met a person with Down's Syndrome who wasn't sweet, gentle, compassionate, and for the most part very lovable. A world filled with people whose dispositions where like that, would probably be a nicer world. But there are clearly deficits when we examine the whole being. It would be self indulgent and irresponsible for me to ignore those deficits and produce people with the syndrome, just to reap the characteristics I desire.

As hyperbolic as my example may be, we don't/can't really know what's going on with snakes that carry the spider gene beyond what we see. To assume the animal is fine because it lives, eats , and poops is cavalier. Please be reminded that people with Down's Syndrome live, eat, and poop. This is just my $0.02.

I shall now run for cover while you light the torches and grab the pitchforks.

Personally I'm avoiding any morph with the spider gene as my first bp because I'm new to snakes in general. However once I build up more experience as a bp owner, I wouldn't mind considering a spider/spider combo as my second bp :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rlditmars

I've mentioned in the past that I will not own or work with the spider gene because of the wobble. I do not condemn those that wish to do so but I can't in good conscience do it myself.

If I were to put it in relative human terms, I've never met a person with Down's Syndrome who wasn't sweet, gentle, compassionate, and for the most part very lovable. A world filled with people whose dispositions where like that, would probably be a nicer world. But there are clearly deficits when we examine the whole being. It would be self indulgent and irresponsible for me to ignore those deficits and produce people with the syndrome, just to reap the characteristics I desire.

As hyperbolic as my example may be, we don't/can't really know what's going on with snakes that carry the spider gene beyond what we see. To assume the animal is fine because it lives, eats , and poops is cavalier. Please be reminded that people with Down's Syndrome live, eat, and poop. This is just my $0.02.

I shall now run for cover while you light the torches and grab the pitchforks.

---

This is a very good argument. I know stopping at combos with multiple wobbly genes is kind of arbitrary but this is my logic for using that as a stopping point.

I've heard spider is the gene with the worst wobble (that could be wrong) but I've seen plenty of spiders that seem to be fine (of course we can't know for sure as you stated). To me it doesn't make sense how two genes that both cause wobble couldn't make it worse (unless they cancel it out entirely). Regardless of whether it's an additive effect or a multiplicative effect it's just not something I want to do. The animal might seem completely fine and appear to thrive but it seems immoral to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rlditmars

I've mentioned in the past that I will not own or work with the spider gene because of the wobble. I do not condemn those that wish to do so but I can't in good conscience do it myself.

If I were to put it in relative human terms, I've never met a person with Down's Syndrome who wasn't sweet, gentle, compassionate, and for the most part very lovable. A world filled with people whose dispositions where like that, would probably be a nicer world. But there are clearly deficits when we examine the whole being. It would be self indulgent and irresponsible for me to ignore those deficits and produce people with the syndrome, just to reap the characteristics I desire.

As hyperbolic as my example may be, we don't/can't really know what's going on with snakes that carry the spider gene beyond what we see. To assume the animal is fine because it lives, eats , and poops is cavalier. Please be reminded that people with Down's Syndrome live, eat, and poop. This is just my $0.02.

I shall now run for cover while you light the torches and grab the pitchforks.

---

No-one is going to grab pitch forks, LOL !!

This is a discussion forum, and discussing is what we do ;) We all have opinions and they don't have to be the same.

That said, I really do not think that is comparable. There are PLENTY of spider morphs who aren't nice and sweet. There are plenty of other morphs that are. I don't think temperament plays into it. I like my Bumble bee because she IS a wonderful snake, not because she is a spider. She isn't sweet because she is a spider.

Also, every time when you breed for one certain trait only, and in this case it is a aberration of the "normal" genetics, then you can and usually will run into problems. Heavily in-breeding a genetic abnormality comes with a price. Perhaps they aren't all as visible as a wobble. But they are there. There are a few morphs that display problems. No-one would breed people together to create funky "colors" and traits either. For all you know, the morphs YOU like are actually "autistic", you wouldn't know, would you? They don't have to display a wobble to have issues such as that. And once you knew about it, what would you do? There can be many issues that are there, but the snakes still eat, poop, move and appear fine, because Ball Pythons don't do much to begin with. Not all issues present neurotic, fatal or severe. Those are the only ones we notice, though.

I do know people that are purist and find the entire morph breeding abhorrent for those reasons. They will only consider "normals". And I respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreDeuce

I agree with the original post , even before some of you shed light on the situation . I just can't see myself having a snake with that disability. And to me , just an opinion, the morph pattern isn't all that great, to have to watch one wobble like that. The only way I could see myself owning a "Spider" is if it was a rescue, and fell into my lap, because someone was neglecting it. . . I come to a great disappointment when i realized that 2 of the morphs that I really had my eyes on, contained Spider genes. :( Killer Clown and Bumblebee. . . Why why why?

---

I already corrected you once, Killer clown does NOT have the spider morph in it! It is super pastel and clown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rlditmars

I've mentioned in the past that I will not own or work with the spider gene because of the wobble. I do not condemn those that wish to do so but I can't in good conscience do it myself.

If I were to put it in relative human terms, I've never met a person with Down's Syndrome who wasn't sweet, gentle, compassionate, and for the most part very lovable. A world filled with people whose dispositions where like that, would probably be a nicer world. But there are clearly deficits when we examine the whole being. It would be self indulgent and irresponsible for me to ignore those deficits and produce people with the syndrome, just to reap the characteristics I desire.

As hyperbolic as my example may be, we don't/can't really know what's going on with snakes that carry the spider gene beyond what we see. To assume the animal is fine because it lives, eats , and poops is cavalier. Please be reminded that people with Down's Syndrome live, eat, and poop. This is just my $0.02.

I shall now run for cover while you light the torches and grab the pitchforks.

---

it all comes down to what we as either keepers or breeders feel for the snakes. I can certainly understand the abstaining from using spider in any projects at all.

I however do have a beautiful mojo spider male with, as far as I can tell physically, almost no wobble. He will on occasion flip just his head over if he misses a strike, but other than that he acts perfectly normal. I do plan on using him in a few projects coming up, but if he produces any offspring with even a moderately more noticeable wobble I will abstain from using him any more.

I wish there was a way to tell if the snakes are in any kind of distress even if they don't show any physical signs. Mine eats like a champ on live only right now, and sheds perfect every time so he must be feeling ok haha, but again neither I or anyone else can truly know how they feel.

Honestly, I love the look of spiders and maybe it sounds selfish, but I hope to get one someday. IMHO as long as the animal functions fine, doesn't have any serious health defects, and lives as long as its counterparts, I don't see much problem with the wobble. On the other hand, it could be only a symptom of deeper mental issues so I would definitely do more research before purchasing. Also, I was not aware that Killer Clowns were predisposed to the wobble. Is this true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlynnTheBP

Also, I was not aware that Killer Clowns were predisposed to the wobble. Is this true?

---

No. Not in the least bit. The person who posted that thought that Killer Clown was a Spider combo, which is just plain wrong. That statement has been corrected multiple times in this thread as well as another on this forum since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

No. Not in the least bit. The person who posted that thought that Killer Clown was a Spider combo, which is just plain wrong. That statement has been corrected multiple times in this thread as well as another on this forum since then.

---

I just saw the correction post after I posted. Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

They are either found in the wild or they pop up randomly in people's collections. They are not "created" by people - they are discovered and then proven.

The Pastel story (from Kevin McCurley's book, The Complete Ball Python: A Comprehensive Guide to Care, Breeding, and Genetic Mutations):

---

Books ordered from the amazon (bean farm) absolutely cannot wait until it gets here :))
Sorry just had to share lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBotteron

Books ordered from the amazon (bean farm) absolutely cannot wait until it gets here :))
Sorry just had to share lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If you're looking for good books, Pythons of the World, Vol. II: BALL PYTHONS by David & Tracy Barker is another one I highly recommend.

I think I seen that on there as well and was about to go to google and get info on it
Woh...not off this site I'm not haha had to zoom in to see if I was seeing the decimal place was in the correct place
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...1ce70958a7.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the limited edition version. ;)

Ah gotcha that's really nice though it's tempting but I think the woman would be p***ed if I spent 250+ on a book haha 75 not bad I'll look through the first one and read it and then I'll probably pick that one up after. (I've got a bad habit of reading multiple books at the same time and ultimately get confused as crap and just have to reread again anyways)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk