Re: Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look
Quote:
Originally Posted by
critta
In your first Spider x Spider cross what was the sex ratio of the offspring exhibiting the Spider trait from that initial cross? Was the spider offspring mostly male or female or equal numbers? Did you get about 100 males exhibiting spider or equal numbers of 75 males and 75 females exhibiting spider? Conversely, was the normal offspring mostly male or female or equal numbers?
All through out the breedings from beginning to the end the sex ratio was pretty much 50/50 per clutch. some a few more males some a few more females.
Re: Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dragoon
you read too much into the meaning of dominant, look at a spider super mojave. the post you quoted may be iffy but so is your reply, it isn't dominating if it is just masking
I don't see how a super Mojave spider is a relevant example here. Mojave is an incomplete dominant, not a recessive. What do you mean by "it isn't dominating if it is just masking"?
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reptileexperts
Dominate just means that when two genes are present on the same Loci the dominate one will show the phenotype. . . if a recessive gene was at a different loci it could conceal a dominate gene / be expressed think albino spider . . . So yes a recessive gene CAN dominate a dominant gene at a differnet loci for a different phenotypic (visual) result.
A recessive gene being expressed (such as an albino spider) is not the same thing as a recessive gene completely masking a dominant gene, which is not possible.
- - - Updated - - -
And I'm sorry to be the only nay-sayer here, but I just can't take this at face value. A normal laying eggs containing spider and bumblebee hatchlings? This is really a bit too far-fetched. I have no idea who tattlife2001 is. He could be some random person who decided to troll the ball python community by posting fake breeding results.
Re: Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look
Quote:
Originally Posted by
meowmeowkazoo
I don't see how a super Mojave spider is a relevant example here. Mojave is an incomplete dominant, not a recessive. What do you mean by "it isn't dominating if it is just masking"?
- - - Updated - - -
A recessive gene being expressed (such as an albino spider) is not the same thing as a recessive gene completely masking a dominant gene, which is not possible.
- - - Updated - - -
And I'm sorry to be the only nay-sayer here, but I just can't take this at face value. A normal laying eggs containing spider and bumblebee hatchlings? This is really a bit too far-fetched. I have no idea who tattlife2001 is. He could be some random person who decided to troll the ball python community by posting fake breeding results.
how could it not be possible for a recessive gene to mask a dominant one? if the phenotype of the dominant isnt shown because of the recessive phenotype.... recessive albinism masks over dominant traits in other species, why not snakes? it was just an idea and not even likely, dont worry about it.
on the other hand paradoxs pop up quite a bit and the mom even looks like a paradox, i dont see any reason to doubt. everything (besides the more than likely paradox) reported falls right in line with what kevin has been saying all along. while it would if been nice to get data like this from him a long time ago... he still said not lethal and no super.
Re: Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gsarchie
Interesting. Did any of the spider X normal offspring produce clutches that were 100% spider? If not then there must be some prezygotic barrier between a spider sperm and egg, leaving the egg there waiting until a normal, or at least non-spider, sperm comes along and fertilizes it.
Was this ever answered? I didnt see it.
Re: Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rat160
Was this ever answered? I didnt see it.
it was in the first post, OP said there was no super spiders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
interloc
I read this whole thread and the Super Mojave thing got me thinking. Woma and Spider look very close, and in some instances it would take a well trained eye to tell them apart. I havent seen or heard of too many woma x spider breedings (probly cause the cross wouldn't be to extravagant) but a thought came to my mind. We all know that woma x woma makes a fail for a snake. A sweet looking baby that doesnt make it. Also we know that womas have wobble as well as spiders. Perhaps the woma is acting on the same locus as spider? Does anyone know if a Woma Spider acts as a super? Producing all either spiders and womas. Or does it act like a Bumblebee, producing spiders, pastels, and normals. Food for thought?
you might be mixing up hidden gene woma with woma. HG woma makes the pearl which is the fail snake. There is no known homozygous woma. I do know quite a few woma x spider have been made, heck ive seen a few in real life, but honestly I've never herd of breeding results from a spider woma parent. hm....
Re: Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look
Quote:
Originally Posted by
interloc
Oh ok. The HG woma makes the pearl and the plain jane woma acts like a spider then with no super? Interesting.
no the woma doesn't have a proven homozygous, we don't know how it acts.
