disappointed in the internet community, ending this rumor right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungmina

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.)

---

alrite thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungmina

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.)

---

About the bolded: How certain are you about this supposedly heavy inbreeding early on with spiders? Have you seen documentation of this, or is this just hearsay? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest spiders were more heavily inbred than other mutations, especially considering they reproduce in the first generation. Sure, maybe two or three generations when they were still trying to find a super form, but that doesn't really constitute heavy inbreeding when compared to most recessive mutations. Simple logic would tell me the exact opposite would have been more likely, and the original spider male would have been bred much more to normal females and other mutations than to his spider daughters.

I would also like to know more about how this breeder came to believe the spider was homozygous. Was it just because it had a bad wobble and maybe was known to be from a spider X spider breeding (so a possible homozygous spider) or has he actually proven homozygous by produced a large number of only spider offspring? If so, of course the next question would be what is "a large number".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungmina

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.)

---

But that's the thing - there never WAS heavy inbreeding, so his claims make no sense. I also would like to know the numbers of all spiders that this animal has produced.

Who is this person who is "not new to BP breeding"?

I have already stated my reasons for keeping names and people anonymous, and already regret posting the information as I knew I would get jumped on with such a heated topic. I imagine he stays away from forums to avoid the trolling but I wouldn't be surprised if he reads the posts here.

It was not about how much the spider was possibly more heavily inbred than other morphs (although I will ask about this again and get back to the OP) it was about the possibility that the spider (pattern) gene and the wobble gene sit right next to each other on a chromosome. The thought is that early inbreeding caused the issue and then since the issue sits so close to the gene we are trying to cultivate, it is near impossible to separate.

Therefore in breeding the spider, although there may be far more outcrossing now than any other morph, it is unlikely to 'get lucky' and have a split between the two genes. If the pattern and wobble sat far apart on the chromosome, a split could occur anywhere in between and separate the two. However if they sit right next to each other, despite all the outcrossing, the split would have to occur at the single spot between the two, which of course would be very rare, but not impossible.

I want to note that this is all speculation about the genetics of the wobble, nothing is definite. I am not saying that there are 100% for certain spiders without wobble, I'm just saying I believe the possibility exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungmina

It was not about how much the spider was possibly more heavily inbred than other morphs (although I will ask about this again and get back to the OP) it was about the possibility that the spider (pattern) gene and the wobble gene sit right next to each other on a chromosome. The thought is that early inbreeding caused the issue and then since the issue sits so close to the gene we are trying to cultivate, it is near impossible to separate.

Therefore in breeding the spider, although there may be far more outcrossing now than any other morph, it is unlikely to 'get lucky' and have a split between the two genes. If the pattern and wobble sat far apart on the chromosome, a split could occur anywhere in between and separate the two. However if they sit right next to each other, despite all the outcrossing, the split would have to occur at the single spot between the two, which of course would be very rare, but not impossible.

I want to note that this is all speculation about the genetics of the wobble, nothing is definite. I am not saying that there are 100% for certain spiders without wobble, I'm just saying I believe the possibility exists.

---

I tend to agree with Robin that the spider gene and spider "wobble" are most likely plieotropic effects of the same gene -- ie, one mutation causing both the difference in pattern and the neuro problems.

That having been said, I absolutely concede that linkage (two separate genes that are very close on the chromosome) is possible. However, inbreeding would have had nothing to do with this. As Robin said, the first spider out of the wild was "loopy;" any initial inbreeding wouldn't have "fixed" the linkage any more than a whole bunch of initial outcrossing would've done.

To me, it's almost meaningless whether it's one gene or two linked ones, because the practical upshot is the same: The spider and wobble are going to be very difficult, if not impossible to separate. In goats, the gene for being polled (no horns), a desirable, dominant trait, is very tightly linked to a gene for being a hermaphrodite (an undesirable, recessive trait). We know this for a fact and yet still can't separate that bad hermaphrodite gene from the good polled gene despite years of breeding.

Now, I do think that there may be other genes that can modify and "tone down" or "tone up" the effects of the neuro gene ... But I don't think you can ever fully breed it out.

As far as the homozygous spider goes, to me it's almost (almost!) a moot point. I think one thing we can be fairly certain of is that there's no visually distinct homozygous spider (unless Sungmina's friend wants to come forward with his). Therefore, it's going to be impossible to differentiate a homozygous from a heterozygous spider. Therefore, you won't be able to tell your more valuable homozygous animals from your less valuable heterozygous ones. I wouldn't breed pinstripe x pinstripe for the same reason ... I guess the only real reason it might make a difference (to me) is that if I ever REALLY wanted to breed a male that carried the spider gene to a female that did as well, I might want to know if I was likely to get 25% less babies, or if I should plan to market the spiders as "33% possible homozygous." That, and for pure, geeky, gee-whiz curiosity. ;)