Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robert7107
This is the YouTube video of Kevin from nerd talking about spider to spider .
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
He offers no data to draw a conclusion, even when asked to follow up. Yet we have other evidence that says it's lethal. Out of the big breeders he is probably the best there is as far as the snake part of the hobby. Science related parts of the hobby are not his strong suit imo. You can form your own conclusion.
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robert7107
This is the YouTube video of Kevin from nerd talking about spider to spider .
Time 1:03
https://youtu.be/-fhnR5YdGdI
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Yep but info and video are old, since several people have posted pictures of the Super Spider (see my link above), same thing happened with other mutations as well until what we thought we knew was disproved.
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Ok.. iam going by what I have I saw . personal I wouldn't chance it an ruin a year of breeding or make a animal suffer from a major birth defect it's not in me...
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ogre
Dave green produced two of them, both died like many other pearl type animals.
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robert7107
This is the YouTube video of Kevin from nerd talking about spider to spider .
Time 1:03
https://youtu.be/-fhnR5YdGdI
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Kevin says words to the effect that spider to spider is not lethal and then moves on. That can be taken two ways:
1. There are living homozygous spider ball pythons.
2. Mating a spider ball python to another spider produces living young.
If Kevin meant #2, then I agree with him. Even if homozygous (super) spider ball pythons die before hatching, mating two spiders would still produce living spider and normal babies.
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
I think the thing to take away from this is something Kevin says in the interview, there's no science involved in any of this this entire industry exists from regular people either doing something they enjoy or something they see as profitable or both. We are playing god so to speak. Making pairings and combinations that statistically would never happen in the wild. Because of this the responsibility is on us to be ethical in our pairings and decisions. While there may not be "definitive" proof, if there is enough for an educated guess that a certain pairing will produce lethal or deformed results those pairings shouldn't be made period. Now something like a wobble, while not ideal, I don't think is grounds to not make a pairing. That's my opinion only and solely based on the fact that spiders clearly thrive those with and without wobbles. But pairings that produce snakes that die shortly after hatch or rarely make it to term just shouldn't be done. No matter how beautiful we think the resulting Pattern/color may be. Sorry for my ramble i was bored lol.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OTorresUSMC
I think the thing to take away from this is something Kevin says in the interview, there's no science involved in any of this this entire industry exists from regular people either doing something they enjoy or something they see as profitable or both. We are playing god so to speak. Making pairings and combinations that statistically would never happen in the wild. Because of this the responsibility is on us to be ethical in our pairings and decisions. While there may not be "definitive" proof, if there is enough for an educated guess that a certain pairing will produce lethal or deformed results those pairings shouldn't be made period. Now something like a wobble, while not ideal, I don't think is grounds to not make a pairing. That's my opinion only and solely based on the fact that spiders clearly thrive those with and without wobbles. But pairings that produce snakes that die shortly after hatch or rarely make it to term just shouldn't be done. No matter how beautiful we think the resulting Pattern/color may be. Sorry for my ramble i was bored lol.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I highly doubt people are purposely pairing snakes just to see the white offspring die, its not very economical. If you wanna see a white snake, makes some BEL. If anything I'm probably the unethical one planning on pairing womas together and woma spiders, but that is purely to find the truth about them, data gathering. It has nothing to do with potential pattern/colors or money.
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OhhWatALoser
I highly doubt people are purposely pairing snakes just to see the white offspring die, its not very economical. If you wanna see a white snake, makes some BEL. If anything I'm probably the unethical one planning on pairing womas together and woma spiders, but that is purely to find the truth about them, data gathering. It has nothing to do with potential pattern/colors or money.
Well that's sort of what I'm getting at I feel as tho there is already enough info out there to avoid those particular pairings. Let's face it these are genes that have been around for years and if those offspring were viable they would already exist. And I'm not saying people are doing it to see them die I'm saying they are doing it like you trying to see "welllll is it really lethal" I just personally believe there is enough info to make that call. If pearls or super spiders were viable Nerd would already be selling them for 3K a piece lol.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Re: Known Genetic Defects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OTorresUSMC
Well that's sort of what I'm getting at I feel as tho there is already enough info out there to avoid those particular pairings. Let's face it these are genes that have been around for years and if those offspring were viable they would already exist. And I'm not saying people are doing it to see them die I'm saying they are doing it like you trying to see "welllll is it really lethal" I just personally believe there is enough info to make that call. If pearls or super spiders were viable Nerd would already be selling them for 3K a piece lol.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The only info is the absence of records or the animal itself. Try finding records of a woma x woma pairing, most refer to hgw x hgw before people knew they were hgw and not woma. woma x spiders are claimed to be viable by many as "they have one" yet I haven't been able to find one that actually proved out to have both woma and spider gene. So there no evidence of them being lethal besides the absence of evidence. What if woma is just a dominant morph, what if spider womas are allelic. Given I feel it is unlikely looking at correlations with other neuro morphs, still the thing is we don't know, we just assume. I'm even fine with educated assuming, but what data are we assuming based off of? Almost nothing.
Pinstripes used to be in the same situation, people shouting about how they don't exist and/or are lethal. Yet there was no evidence to back that claim up either, then we had a couple people prove them out (given both poorly documented) so here we are 16 years after the gene was founded and finally have a few people that might start proving out a super pin transparently. Bad information and believing in the absence of evidence is the reason we haven't seen super pins on the market for 10 years.
