» Site Navigation
1 members and 711 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,905
Threads: 249,105
Posts: 2,572,111
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
On the one hand perhaps I underestimated the average spider breeder in thinking they wouldn't have even considered the possibility of a homozygous lethal morph.
Well, if you've considered it just sitting around breeding your possible het males, why would you underestimate the ability of someone investing thousands upon thousands of dollars into a breeding project to research all of the possible outcomes of their investment? Sounds to me like the "average spider breeder" has the right to be a little insulted by your lack of faith in their ability to perform adequate due diligence before making an investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
On the other hand, it never occurred to me that there would be readers who wouldn't understand the theory and think that it indicated that heterozygous spiders where likely to drop dead.
It didn't? But you have read post after post where people ask if they'll get albinos from breeding het to normal or asking what "possible het" means and why possible hets don't look different from normals? The VAST MAJORITY of people reading ball python message boards are not dealing with genetics on a daily basis and many are just coming up to speed on what "heterozygous" means. Then you come along inundating discussions about spiders with extremely wordy posts beating the reader over the head with the word "lethal". What are new comers supposed to think that means? Who do you think your audience is? I promise you that the "big breeders" aren't reading your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
I've never represented the theory that the lack of a proven homozygous spider so far might be explained by the morph being homozygous lethal as fact and I expected the readers to understand that as well as the only implication of the theory is that it would be a waste of time to breed spider X spider if the theory is eventually substantiated.
I never said you did represent it as fact, but the problem with propaganda is that if it is repeated over and over and over, sooner or later people will start to view it as truth. The "expectations" you place on readers to me is a little irresponsible given the voracity with which you continue to pummel the message boards with your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
As far as the number of potential homozygous spiders (spiders from spider X spider breedings) that have been bred so far there are very few people who could make a very good estimate.
But do you talk to the very few people that could make that guesstimate? My guess would be no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
If that information is going to be given out I figure a public forum and a thread like this is the place for it.
No breeder is going to do that. Why? Here's my theory .... because no one knows for sure, so breeders can only speculate. The problem with speculating on an open forum is that the lack of precision will be attacked. People with "I know better" chips on their shoulders will JUMP out of the wood work in an attempt to bring down the person trying to help. Who wants to deal with that garbage? Breeders have better things to do with their time than to live on a message board defending themselves and their businesses from morons that are just trying to make a name for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
I'd rather not gather such information from a private e-mail and then not know if I should share it or not.
How about calling a breeder and asking? Talk about the numbers and ask how much they are comfortable with sharing. Even if they said "please keep it all under wraps Randy" the fact that you are actually discussing your theories one on one with breeders that have the data gives you a level of credibility that you don't have right now.
Personally, I’d be all for a post speculating about new genetic precedent if it were backed up with some type of data. Numbers, even if only an educated guess, make all the difference. Without numbers, your theories are not that much different from the headlines in the Weekly World News … which claims to have some basis in fact as well ya know ;)
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
-adam
-
Quote:
you underestimate the ability of someone investing thousands upon thousands of dollars into a breeding project to research all of the possible outcomes of their investment
Perhaps the "big breeders" are a little ahead of the newbies on the subject of genetics but I've seen plenty of examples where many of them show they are as fallible as the small breeders. In some cases last year’s newbies are this year’s moderately big breeders. Even a couple years ago when I first posted this theory there was already a good cross section of ball python owners with spiders. At this point there are potential owners of all knowledge levels. I guess I would say that the correlation between how much one spends on morph snakes and knowledge of genetics isn't as close as you might think. Many of us are in the same boat looking for more information and I think a public forum is the fairest way to insure a level playing field for anyone to access as much information as they have the inclination and aptitude to absorb regardless of the size of their pocket book.
Quote:
Who do you think your audience is? I promise you that the "big breeders" aren't reading your posts.
I think my audience is people like myself who want to help figure these things out in a public forum. I expect people to be able to read and understand. If I repeat a subject it's because I just think the people not understanding must have not seen it yet or I and others haven't done a good enough job of explaining (for example the true meaning of the word "heterozygous" which is currently a big point of confusion in the ball python community). At least you took the time to disagree with my methods but often I hear nothing back and don't know if I'm not being understood or being agreed with or perhaps no-one even cares about the subject. I've hoped that the cutting edge breeders would join in because of the data they can provide but I wouldn't say I single them out as a target audience.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
If that information is going to be given out I figure a public forum and a thread like this is the place for it.
Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki
No breeder is going to do that.
Actually Ralph Davis posts a huge amount of breeding data every year. Maybe it has cost him (like when most of us figured out Mojave was likely to be het leucistic 2 years ago) something but it also earns him a lot of good will and trust. Perhaps time management and insecurity are the reasons other breeders don't share more in discussions of cutting edge morph genetics which is what I’m gathering from your post on the subject as opposed to my probably overly cynical take that secretive business concerns are often to blame.
I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility but mainly about the discussion to get to weigh the credibility of the ideas. The big breeders aren’t going to buy my possible hets because I’m credible and frankly they aren’t even worth shipping to anyone likely to find me via the Internet.
Here is a guess for you. I'm guessing that about 10 potential homozygous spiders have breed so far producing large enough sample sizes and/or some normals to have eliminated themselves as homozygous spiders. This guess is based on conservative extrapolating from the two posted examples of male possible homozygous spiders breeding last year for relatively small breeders, that these two cases had the relatively statistically rare probability of producing all spider first clutches (hence making them interesting enough to post), that more established (and traditionally more tight lipped concerning breeding data) breeders likely had an earlier opportunity to breed potential homozygous spiders, and on the assumption that if ANYONE would have statistically proven a homozygous spider they would post that positive info.
There is only a 1.7% chance of 10 RANDOM possible homozygous spiders (33% chance homozygous - the only kind until a homozygous is proven for 50% possible het homozygous from homo X het) in a row failing to prove. If me guess of 10 is good then either we where unlucky enough to miss the 98.3% chance that there would be a homozygous spider in the first 10 potentials to breed, the sample is not random (perhaps the homozygous take longer to reach breeding age or look slightly different and aren't being sold to people who breed them as young etc.), or there isn't going to be a homozygous spider (i.e. the homozygous lethal theory – perhaps “lethal” is an unfortunate word for this morph type due to the excessively negative connotation of the word).
So, someone who can make a better informed guess than I as to how many potential homozygous spiders have been breed without one proving homozygous (and perhaps add if there are still any candidates that bred last year with small sample sizes, or perhaps even some they consider proven homozygous) PLEASE come forward with a better number so we can move on to discussing the possible explanations and the odds of each.
-
I consider myself to be a newbie to the ball python world. I have had high school genetics and a simple college biology course and I feel that I can hold my own when discussing genetics with someone. These genetic concepts being discussed are NOT NEW to the animal kingdom itself. These genetic concepts are new to the world of ball pythons because people in general are just getting involved with the species. Any "NEW" ball python theory that someone comes up with already exists in another part of the animal kingdom. I believe that over time the majority of genetic possibilities concerning ball pythons will be discovered and explained. How long this process will take, only god knows.
As far as the homozygous spider is concerned, how will it ever be proven without a genetic analysis of the snake? Assuming homosygous lethal (in utero) to be true: With every spider x spider breeding, the chance of an normal egg going bad compared to the chance of the egg containing the homozygous form are for the most part the same. So guessing that every 'bad egg' from a spider x spider breeding is the result of a homozygous lethal trait seems to be incorrect. How is one to know if the bad egg is the result of a homozygous lethal trait or is just a bad egg? In order to prove a trait to be homozygous, you must breed a homozygous pair and produce all homozygous young. If the trait is homozygous lethal, there will NEVER be a homozygous pair to breed. Sorry for the lengthy post....I just want to know how would you prove something to be homozygous lethal (in utero)?
As far as homozygous spiders being produced then dying from a lethal trait years down the road, only time will tell. It could be that they die after 10 years or 25 years. I dont know of any spiders that just spontaneously died of unknown causes in the past 6 years. As far as fear of investing in a homozygous spider for this reason, I dont see the problem as far a money is concerned. Even if there is some homozygous lethal trait after a 6 year time period, you will most likely make your investment back plus alot more. So i dont see it as a problem.
-
In the case of the homozygous lethal hamsters (dominant spot in Syrian hamsters) it was only "proven" by consensus that after years of never being able to prove out a potential homozygous dominant spot that it must be homozygous lethal. Apparently with that mutation the homozygous embryos are reabsorbed early in gestation so the only evidence is the 3/4 sized litters. I don't think snakes have uteruses so I'm not sure what would happen to eggs that died at various stages. I think the female's follicles are pretty well developed at fertilization so hard to imagine them not coming out in some form but I’m certainly no expert at python reproduction. I've actually read a post indicating that there wasn't a tendency for 1/4 of the spider X spider eggs to go bad so that is evidence against the theory. Really the only thing supporting it is the lack of a proven homozygous spider so far and for all I know there may have only been the two potential homozygous spiders bred so far. The whole weight of the theory hinges on how many potential homozygous spiders have been bred so far and I doubt we will get many reports before this season’s eggs hatch and perhaps not even then.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
Many of us are in the same boat looking for more information and I think a public forum is the fairest way to insure a level playing field for anyone to access as much information as they have the inclination and aptitude to absorb regardless of the size of their pocket book.
So where are the "Many of us" that share in the belief that the homozygous spider will never appear because of lethal alleles? I've only seen you champion the theory on the forums and some others jump on the bandwagon haphazardly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
I expect people to be able to read and understand. If I repeat a subject it's because I just think the people not understanding must have not seen it yet or I and others haven't done a good enough job of explaining (for example the true meaning of the word "heterozygous" which is currently a big point of confusion in the ball python community). At least you took the time to disagree with my methods but often I hear nothing back and don't know if I'm not being understood or being agreed with or perhaps no-one even cares about the subject. I've hoped that the cutting edge breeders would join in because of the data they can provide but I wouldn't say I single them out as a target audience.
Here's one big problem I have with your posts ... you use the phrase "homozygous lethal" with no caveats or further explanation and "expect" people to understand what the implications of the idea (if it were proven true) would really mean. Without further explanation, some people are led to conclude wild things like homozygous spiders will drop dead at 6 or 10 years of age instead of realizing that all homozygous lethal would probably mean is that a super spider is just never produced.
Your quest for more information by posting open ended ideas without empirical data or responsible explanations of the true implications of those ideas (if they were to be proven true) actually do more harm than good in my opinion. By now you must realize that the people you want to answer won't and many of the people that are reading your posts are making incorrect assumptions about your ideas. I think that there are ways to go about promoting this hobby/business in a positive manner and at the same time have the discussions you desire, but obviously I don't feel that your ways are it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
Actually Ralph Davis posts a huge amount of breeding data every year.
Yes, but not on a open forum. He posts them on a static web page that cannot be responded to. Ever wonder why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
Perhaps time management and insecurity are the reasons other breeders don't share more in discussions of cutting edge morph genetics which is what I’m gathering from your post on the subject as opposed to my probably overly cynical take that secretive business concerns are often to blame.
Ya think? Do you have any idea how much crap big breeders take behind the scenes when they post anything even remotely controversial? It takes a lot of time and energy to keep up with all of the discussion boards, email, and phone calls ... and when you're taking care of 1000+ animals, working on sales, and packing/shipping all day long, at the end of the day you want to go home and be with your family ... not sit on a message board and respond to cheap shots from people that are jealous of what you've accomplished.
On that same note, I've never once called a "big breeder" on the phone and not had any of them graciously take the time to answer my questions one on one. If you're looking for discussion, direct communications may be a much better route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility but mainly about the discussion to get to weigh the credibility of the ideas.
Has this ever happened? How long have you been posting your ideas now? Maybe it's time for a new approach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
Here is a guess for you. I'm guessing that about 10 potential homozygous spiders have breed so far producing large enough sample sizes and/or some normals to have eliminated themselves as homozygous spiders. This guess is based on conservative extrapolating from the two posted examples of male possible homozygous spiders breeding last year for relatively small breeders, that these two cases had the relatively statistically rare probability of producing all spider first clutches (hence making them interesting enough to post), that more established (and traditionally more tight lipped concerning breeding data) breeders likely had an earlier opportunity to breed potential homozygous spiders, and on the assumption that if ANYONE would have statistically proven a homozygous spider they would post that positive info.
There is only a 1.7% chance of 10 RANDOM possible homozygous spiders (33% chance homozygous - the only kind until a homozygous is proven for 50% possible het homozygous from homo X het) in a row failing to prove. If me guess of 10 is good then either we where unlucky enough to miss the 98.3% chance that there would be a homozygous spider in the first 10 potentials to breed, the sample is not random (perhaps the homozygous take longer to reach breeding age or look slightly different and aren't being sold to people who breed them as young etc.), or there isn't going to be a homozygous spider (i.e. the homozygous lethal theory – perhaps “lethal” is an unfortunate word for this morph type due to the excessively negative connotation of the word).
The numbers are better even if they are a guess .... remember, not all spiders breed at 1, 2, or even 3 years of age ... sometimes it takes a male ball python to get the hang of it and females can be pokey too. You always hear the stories of the strong eaters and early breeders, but you never hear about the animals that grow slow or act like "normal" ball pythons with respect to eating and breeding timetables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
So, someone who can make a better informed guess than I as to how many potential homozygous spiders have been breed without one proving homozygous (and perhaps add if there are still any candidates that bred last year with small sample sizes, or perhaps even some they consider proven homozygous) PLEASE come forward with a better number so we can move on to discussing the possible explanations and the odds of each.
LOL ... good luck with that .... Get yourself a calling card and put in the work!
-adam
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by daniel1983
These genetic concepts being discussed are NOT NEW to the animal kingdom itself. These genetic concepts are new to the world of ball pythons because people in general are just getting involved with the species. Any "NEW" ball python theory that someone comes up with already exists in another part of the animal kingdom. I believe that over time the majority of genetic possibilities concerning ball pythons will be discovered and explained. How long this process will take, only god knows.
Daniel,
You are certainly correct. The concept of lethal alleles is not new to the animal kingdom. But, there is not a single documented case of a lethal allele in any reptile. For almost 50 years now, snakes have been observed and bred in captivity. There have been multitudes of corn, king, milk, boa, burm, retic, and other offspring produced from "wild type" animals as well as morphs without one hint of a lethal allele being present. (Not to mention alligators, bearded dragons, leopard geckos, etc)
If you remember your high school genetics and college biology then you'll also remember that scientific process dictates that when looking for explanations to a problem, the simplest answer is the best place to start. This idea is based on the basic rule of science known as Ockhams razor, which means:
Ock•ham's razor also Oc•cam's razor
n.
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
All I'm asking is what's more likely; .... that in this brand new world of ball python mutations, is the lack of a proven super spider due to the fact that we haven't exhausted the natural breeding timetables needed to prove one yet or is this one (particularly high dollar) mutation in one species of reptiles effected by a phenomenon that shows up for the first time in this class of the animal kingdom after 50 years of captive breedings?
I'm certainly not saying that the idea of super spiders being homozygous lethal is completely outside of the realm of possibilities, I'd just like to follow the most likely theory to it's logical conclusion one way or the other until we attempt to set a brand new precedent for the class Reptilia
-adam
-
I just wanted to pop in and say I'm so glad you're having this discussion here. It's interesting, informative, and educational, and I think it benefits all of our members to hear from those of you (Joe, Kara, Adam and Randy) who have taken our hobby to the next level (or 2 or 3). Thanks so much! And carry on!
-
Quote:
there is not a single documented case of a lethal allele in any reptile. For almost 50 years now, snakes have been observed and bred in captivity. There have been multitudes of corn, king, milk, boa, burm, retic, and other offspring produced from "wild type" animals as well as morphs without one hint of a lethal allele being present.
A homozygous lethal recessive mutation could easily be missed, especially if it dies too early to be seen. Who is going to spend years documenting that 1/4 of the eggs from their normal looking pair die?
Was tiger retic the first dominant type morph in the reptile industry? The first cb tiger retics where only 12 years ago. I don't know why dominant type ball python morphs now seem to be coming out of the woodwork but we have only just barely started working with dominant type morphs given the slow generation time for most reptiles.
However, I've seen several hints at homozygous lethal already. In addition to spider balls, how about woma/pearl balls and jaguar/leucistic carpet pythons? Disclaimer: none of these are proven homozygous lethal and even if they where the heterozygous forms (spider, woma, and jaguar) wouldn’t necessarily have any problems – you just wouldn’t bother to try for the homozygous form if they are eventually accepted to be homozygous lethal.
So, given that there may not have been enough possible homozygous spiders bred yet to support speculation that it's homozygous lethal (meaning that a homozygous spider might not be possible) how many breedings would you need to see to think that homozygous lethal is a likely explanation? If there are homozygous spiders randomly distributed at 33% of the spiders in spider X spider clutches and they are indistinguishable in appearance, health, growth, and breeding then the odds of having at least one homozygous spider in the first group of potential homozygous spiders to breed goes like this:
First 10 = 98.3%
First 20 = 99.97%
First 30 = 99.9996%
So it all comes back to the question of how many potential homozygous spiders have proven not to be homozygous through breeding and are there any candidates yet that have produced a fair number of only spiders.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
So it all comes back to the question of how many potential homozygous spiders have proven not to be homozygous through breeding and are there any candidates yet that have produced a fair number of only spiders.
Exactly, so why don't you do the work and get a sound approximate answer from the people that know? I'd think that talking to the people that have actually done spider x spider breedings and gathering the data first hand is a much more responsible approach to promoting your theory than pining away on internet forums with unsubstantiated guesses hoping that someone might respond. No?
-adam
-
Actually posting on open forums was my work to try to get information starting a couple years ago on how many spider X spider breedings have been done and more recently how many possible homozygous spiders have bred. I would agree with you though that it has failed miserably. Too darn any many secrets! What if I talked to a big breeder in person today and they told me a homozygous spider had already been proven but was being kept secret in an attempt to manipulate the market price - could I tell anyone? I'd rather get my info from the web and not have to worry about such questions.
|
