disappointed in the internet community, ending this rumor right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Ok, you cannot tell me I am the first one on this forum, to ask NERD directly (founders of the spider project) about the homozygous spider.... but yet time and time again, we are told that the homozygous spider is lethal, it doesn't exist, kevin told all of us.

100% WRONG

All i did was ask them, I believe my exact words were "Hey, since you guys are the founders of the spider project, what do you know about the homozygous spider being lethal?"

They told me that its a rumor that started around the time kevin started selling his spiders and never left and became "fact". They have never seen anything that suggests it. How can I be the first person to post this here? I've never seen this info here, and the whole homozygous spider thing seems to be fact around here.

then it gets better

then they tell me they have a suspected homozygous spider breeding, right now, has thrown all spiders in 2 clutches ( i didn't ask them how many eggs) and came from a breeding with both parents having spider in it. They believe it to be homozygous. could they of hit awesome odds? sure they could of, but sounds like the homozygous spider looks like a het spider, just like the pinstripe (ill get back to that one later)



so what do you guys make of that?

---

OK - I happen to be at NERD right now for the weekend, and I just asked Kevin about this. He remembers you asking about the homozygous lethal and said that he said there's no such thing when it comes to spider. But he said that he NEVER said nor implied that they have a homozygous spider. I read the post from my phone to him and he said that he doesn't remember that part of the conversation.

So - for the record, Kevin said that he has not produced and does not believe that there is a homozygous spider nor that spider is homozygous lethal.

Thanks for that update rabernet.

So sounds like we are back to the question of why is there no public proven homozygous spider.

Is it:

1. Not enough spider X spider breedings have been done to produce a homozygous spider. Remember that NERD reported enough spider X spider breedings where done for them to be sure there wasn't a visible different super spider.

2. Not enough of those possible homozygous spiders have been bred to find the ones that are homozygous. I suppose this depends on how many possible homozygous spiders where produced early on. I know TSK produced some female possible homozygous spiders in the last few years that have yet to breed. I would think that most all of the early spiders where bred but more recently perhaps some are just pets.

3. Homozygous spiders are proven but for some reason aren't being publicized. Could just be in the hands of keepers that aren't on the net and/or don't care to give out such information. Could be that they are upside down all the time and don't photograph well.

4. Spider is homozygous lethal. This might be very difficult to prove. I don't know enough about python reproduction to know if this is even possible but what if they die at conception. Would they come out as slugs or could they possibly not get shelled at all? The pearl is easier to make the homozygous lethal case for because a visually different assumed homozygous animal actually hatches and lives for a while but if the homozygous spider doesn't even hatch you are trying to prove something by its absence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

OK - I happen to be at NERD right now for the weekend, and I just asked Kevin about this. He remembers you asking about the homozygous lethal and said that he said there's no such thing when it comes to spider. But he said that he NEVER said nor implied that they have a homozygous spider. I read the post from my phone to him and he said that he doesn't remember that part of the conversation.

So - for the record, Kevin said that he has not produced and does not believe that there is a homozygous spider nor that spider is homozygous lethal.

---

One of his employees was told me, kevin was standing next to him when he was talking to me tho, he didn't argue with anything that was said, he atleast looked like he was listening, but i guess not. he told me right after he said that there was nothing that suggested a lethal homozygous spider. literally the sentence after. i donno the guys name, bigger guy with a bald head.

im tried to retype exactly what was said, so there was no confussion.

ok i feel i need to defend myself just because this is bothering me

I just repeated what was said to me at tinley, from what I thought was the most reliable source, I guess besides Kevin, but why wouldn't kevin's employee know the same things he does? I just didn't want to bother kevin and I was already talking to his employee. I can only say what I was told. Its not like I was trying to lie, there was nothing "implied" thats what I was told.

obviously someone else would verify the information, which rabernet did, and what I wanted, so someone else could hear the same thing. then it comes back as false, makes me look like a *insert word of choice here.* So i was lied to i guess, what else can I say.:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

obviously someone else would verify the information, which rabernet did, and what I wanted, so someone else could hear the same thing. then it comes back as false, makes me look like a *insert word of choice here.* So i was lied to i guess, what else can I say.:mad:

---

To me there is a difference between being lied to and someone telling you something they believe to be the truth and being mistaken. I don't think you were lied to so in turn you're no a lier you were simply passing on information that you received and it turned out to be less than accurate, No sweat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

ok i feel i need to defend myself just because this is bothering me

I just repeated what was said to me at tinley, from what I thought was the most reliable source, I guess besides Kevin, but why wouldn't kevin's employee know the same things he does? I just didn't want to bother kevin and I was already talking to his employee. I can only say what I was told. Its not like I was trying to lie, there was nothing "implied" thats what I was told.

obviously someone else would verify the information, which rabernet did, and what I wanted, so someone else could hear the same thing. then it comes back as false, makes me look like a *insert word of choice here.* So i was lied to i guess, what else can I say.:mad:

---

You weren't lied to, you just given information from someone who really doesn't know and speculated. Since Kevin and I were going through his recent creations yesterday, I asked him about it, and he looked completely confused until I mentioned the part about the homozygous lethal and then he remembered that part of the conversation. He laughed and said "no - I've never said, nor do I believe that there is a homozygous form of the spider".

I've been reading this thread, but I haven't voiced my opinions because I don't want to be giving out information that is not necessarily mine to give out, that and I am very new to the community and don't expect people to necessarily believe me. I am not going to name any names or sources in order to keep confidentiality, so you can believe what I have to say or disregard it, but I fully believe that this information is true and comes from a reliable source.

Now that the disclaimer is out there...

I spoke with someone recently about spiders and spider wobble. This person is not new to the BP business by any means. The person I spoke with has a homozygous spider. I did not ask much about it, whether he bred it, etc, but he told me that it looks like a reduced spider. He also mentioned that it has an awful wobble; it is a male.

***BUT IT IS NOT HOMOZYGOUS LETHAL***

He said that he does NOT believe that the awful wobble is because it is a 'lethal' combination. He fully believes that it is because the spider was so heavily inbred early on that the animal is the way it is because of serious inbreeding and not because it is a homozygous spider. It is also an older animal, so it was produced before the spider was really outcrossed.

He does not believe that the wobble and spider are inseparable. He among some others believe that the spider wobble generated at the earliest stages of the morph development. When they were first brought over, they were so heavily inbred (spider to spider) that some developed a serious wobble. Now that they are being outcrossed, you are seeing spiders/combos that have little to no apparent wobble.

The theory that the genes sit close to each other on the genetic ladder implies that it is harder to separate right at the cutoff from other deformities. This is a possible explanation for why it has taken so much outcrossing to see spiders without wobble.

I know people VEHEMENTLY believe that 100% of all spiders/combos have wobble. He does not believe this (nor do I.) I think MOST spiders carry wobble to some degree, maybe even 95%+, but I believe there are some out there without it. I have seen a spider with no visible wobble (and I've tried all the 'tricks' to get it to do so) I have also seen spiders/combos with significant wobble or at least *some* wobble (this is more often than not.)

I am not saying there are a lot of spiders that don't wobble, or that it will be easy to eradicate wobble from the spider ball pythons. I just believe that it is possible to separate the two.

***

Anyways, I'm not trying to start any arguments, I simply wanted to share the information that I had acquired. I don't see any reason to keep it a secret, but if people ARE keeping it a secret for some reason, I didn't want to name names or give out specific information.

My only thoughts are that, there are no/very few homozygous spiders that aren't showing signs of heavy inbreeding and they are waiting to produce one that they are comfortable showing to the public. There is something preventing the spider to be free from the wobble (whether it be because the genes lie close together or whatever other reason) but I believe that this is why it has taken so long to see spiders with less wobble.

anyway you could talk to him again and possibly get some more info? if hes been around awhile, it might be time for him to get on the forum.

as for the spider wobble, which may be a little off topic, I don't think people have an issue with it because I can't find one case of a spider having a wobble so bad it cannot thrive. even if one did pop up, natural selection would take care of it. if he has a breeding homozygous spider, it obviously thrives so why not share some information with the rest of us? the issue has nothing to do with the wooble, its what the gene truly is.

also i will add even if he did get on I wouldn't expect everyone to 100% "believe" him right away, even if he says hes produced 50 eggs all spiders. but if more people come forward mayb even a couple years from now, we might be able to put together something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungmina

I've been reading this thread, but I haven't voiced my opinions because I don't want to be giving out information that is not necessarily mine to give out, that and I am very new to the community and don't expect people to necessarily believe me. I am not going to name any names or sources in order to keep confidentiality, so you can believe what I have to say or disregard it, but I fully believe that this information is true and comes from a reliable source.

Now that the disclaimer is out there...

I spoke with someone recently about spiders and spider wobble. This person is not new to the BP business by any means. The person I spoke with has a homozygous spider. I did not ask much about it, whether he bred it, etc, but he told me that it looks like a reduced spider. He also mentioned that it has an awful wobble; it is a male.

***BUT IT IS NOT HOMOZYGOUS LETHAL***

He said that he does NOT believe that the awful wobble is because it is a 'lethal' combination. He fully believes that it is because the spider was so heavily inbred early on that the animal is the way it is because of serious inbreeding and not because it is a homozygous spider. It is also an older animal, so it was produced before the spider was really outcrossed.

He does not believe that the wobble and spider are inseparable. He among some others believe that the spider wobble generated at the earliest stages of the morph development. When they were first brought over, they were so heavily inbred (spider to spider) that some developed a serious wobble. Now that they are being outcrossed, you are seeing spiders/combos that have little to no apparent wobble.

The theory that the genes sit close to each other on the genetic ladder implies that it is harder to separate right at the cutoff from other deformities. This is a possible explanation for why it has taken so much outcrossing to see spiders without wobble.

I know people VEHEMENTLY believe that 100% of all spiders/combos have wobble. He does not believe this (nor do I.) I think MOST spiders carry wobble to some degree, maybe even 95%+, but I believe there are some out there without it. I have seen a spider with no visible wobble (and I've tried all the 'tricks' to get it to do so) I have also seen spiders/combos with significant wobble or at least *some* wobble (this is more often than not.)

I am not saying there are a lot of spiders that don't wobble, or that it will be easy to eradicate wobble from the spider ball pythons. I just believe that it is possible to separate the two.

***

Anyways, I'm not trying to start any arguments, I simply wanted to share the information that I had acquired. I don't see any reason to keep it a secret, but if people ARE keeping it a secret for some reason, I didn't want to name names or give out specific information.

My only thoughts are that, there are no/very few homozygous spiders that aren't showing signs of heavy inbreeding and they are waiting to produce one that they are comfortable showing to the public. There is something preventing the spider to be free from the wobble (whether it be because the genes lie close together or whatever other reason) but I believe that this is why it has taken so long to see spiders with less wobble.

---

The very first spider that was imported (and the animal that ALL spiders are descendents of) has the wobble. It's the ONLY spider ever found in Africa and imported. It has ZERO to do with inbreeding, as spiders are the most outbred of the mutations, because it has no super form.

Recessives are far more likely to be inbred - especially pieds when they were first imported, and yet none of them have any genetic defects that we are aware of.

Count myself as one who believes that the wobble is part of the spider gene. Even with all the combo's that Kevin is doing with even more outcrossing (and spider combo's that have influences of three or four other genes as well) - they all have a degree of wobble.

Kevin's seen more spiders than anyone - he also believes that the spider and the wobble can't be separated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

anyway you could talk to him again and possibly get some more info? if hes been around awhile, it might be time for him to get on the forum.

as for the spider wobble, which may be a little off topic, I don't think people have an issue with it because I can't find one case of a spider having a wobble so bad it cannot thrive. even if one did pop up, natural selection would take care of it. if he has a breeding homozygous spider, it obviously thrives so why not share some information with the rest of us? the issue has nothing to do with the wooble, its what the gene truly is.

also i will add even if he did get on I wouldn't expect everyone to 100% "believe" him right away, even if he says hes produced 50 eggs all spiders. but if more people come forward mayb even a couple years from now, we might be able to put together something.

---

I will ask him about the homozygous spider for you, but I will simply pm you anything I find out so that we don't beat the dead horse anymore about spider wobble. Since the post was about the lethality of the homozygous spider, and not about spider wobble anyways...

I only mentioned it because it was in the discussion I had with him about the reason why his homozygous spider wobbled badly, he did not believe it had anything to do with the animal carrying two copies of the spider gene, only that it was the heavy inbreeding (once again this was an older animal from before the lines became more diluted.)