spider x spider

I know this thread is several years old, and shame on me for bringing it up again ^^" But I was just wondering about some things in this thread that really, really gets under my skin and makes me think.

I have not once, never, seen a conclusive thread with pictures showing deformed or kinked spiders from a spider x spider cross. I haven't heard of a dramatic loss of eggs, such as a spider carrying female normally laying around 6-10 eggs, but suddenly drop down to 4 when mated with a spider, every time, over and over again.

Now, this thread was created several years ago, we have come a long way since then in understanding morphs and how they work. IF there was a lethal part of spider x spider crossings, surely there would be plentiful of evidence by now, yes? So...show me. Anything? O_o

Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all.

I know there have been talk about how the spider gene restricts a certain protein in the animal during development, and this causes not only the coloration but also the wobble since that protein have to do with the neurological functions as well. Double set of this gene sounds likely to be lethal, so I understand people's concern, but after this many years, where is the proof?

Also, if the babies do die before they even develop, then what's the harm in that, really? All that happens is that you get a few less eggs that start their development if that is true.

I think cinny x cinny, or cinny x black pastel that created kinked babies are far worse...many of those babies are alive when hatching and then die from kinked bodies.

IF a spider x spider creates 1-4 eggs less by the 25% less, then isn't that up to the breeder to choose to have more spider morphs born in the clutch, but less egg as a total?

I have crossed my spinner blast with my spider male, since she would not accept my two other males. I don't see a risk with this, other than knowing I will get a lot more spiders and spider based morphs. I honestly don't think there will be kinked or dead born babies, because I have yet to see any proof of this happening to someone else.

Also I've been told that the wobble might get worse, but once again this makes no sense for me. If a spider can only be viable with one spider gene, then biologically and genetically that animal is no different from the composition of the spider that produced it (it has it's own set of dna and is unique compared to it's parents, but I mean morph wise). You can't suddenly have a spider gene that behaves differently than the source, that doesn't sound right. In order to increase color, behavior or wobble, you would need 'more' and if two genes stops the development from the start then this can not happen.

Sorry for bringing such an old thread back to life, but yeah....we have come a long way and it would be fun to see some fact laid down on the table instead of rumors and old thinking.

I'm only going to address the "Super" issue. Super is used to mean homozygous. When you ask about how many Supers of a morph look like the morph, you are really asking how many homozygous phenotypes of a morph look like the heterozygous phenotype of the morph, and that is the definition of a dominant gene, that the homozygous and heterozygous phenotypes are the same. The only way to differentiate between the homozygous and heterozygous phenotypes of a morph is by breeding them to an animal without that gene and looking at the babies over a large enough sample size (the heterozygous animal should visually reproduce that gene 50% of the time and the homozygous animal will visually reproduce that gene 100% of the time).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnykit

Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all.

---

For a gene to be classified as dominant the homozygous form (or "super" ) must have an identical appearance to the heterozygous form. Thats literally the definition of a dominant gene. All genes have homozygous forms. We classify genes as dominant, co dominant, incomplete dominant, or recessive by looking at the appearance of the normal, heterozygous, and homozygous forms.

Your thoughts about taking homozygous spiders as a sunk cost and doing the pairing anyway is 100% spot on. If the homozygous form is lethal you will see fewer hatchlings total and a higher ratio of spiders to normals then expected. There are some breeders of the jag mutation in carpet pythons that do exactly this, because they feel normals are really undesirable, and homozygous jags are lethal.

Its funny because I have the exact opposite feeling about this based on similar reasoning. If the homozygous spider was a perfectly healthy, normal animal, then why hasnt one ever shown up after all this time? If its possible to produce as a viable healthy animal surely someone would have shown evidence that it exists.




Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk 2

I see I have learned quite a bit since I participated in this thread. Sadly there not much new about this subject, not that anyone expects there to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnykit

I have not once, never, seen a conclusive thread with pictures showing deformed or kinked spiders from a spider x spider cross. I haven't heard of a dramatic loss of eggs, such as a spider carrying female normally laying around 6-10 eggs, but suddenly drop down to 4 when mated with a spider, every time, over and over again.

Now, this thread was created several years ago, we have come a long way since then in understanding morphs and how they work. IF there was a lethal part of spider x spider crossings, surely there would be plentiful of evidence by now, yes? So...show me. Anything? O_o

---

post 13: http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...der+homozygous but the theory for most has been most don't make it full term. As for the dramatic drop in eggs scenario, your asking quite a bit out of someone to take a high egg producing female and hold back a years of progressing genetically, just to see what happens. Most people aren't going to do this, so why would there be something to be heard? especially over and over again.

I don't know why there would be plentiful of evidence, where are the spider x spider pairing people supposedly do all the time and where are the breeding results of the spider offspring the produce? It's just not worth people's time to try to prove failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnykit

Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all.

---

BHB had a pin that produced 20 some eggs that were all pin, never produce a normal. The odds of it happening were like a hundred million to one, if the animal was heterozygous. As no other public breeding trails trying to prove out or disprove super pins has came forward, with he current evidence we can say pin is dominant. The original Congo was homozygous according to vin russo. Ralph has bred platty x platty a few times now, producing a animal that looks like a daddy gene, which knowing lesser and daddy gene to be allelic, it must be a super daddy gene. Greg also announced not to long ago that leopard is a dominant gene also, with a couple super leopards being produced. So to sum it up, pin, congo, daddy gene, and leopard with the current information can be called dominant. with the het and super forms both looking the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnykit

I know there have been talk about how the spider gene restricts a certain protein in the animal during development, and this causes not only the coloration but also the wobble since that protein have to do with the neurological functions as well. Double set of this gene sounds likely to be lethal, so I understand people's concern, but after this many years, where is the proof?

IF a spider x spider creates 1-4 eggs less by the 25% less, then isn't that up to the breeder to choose to have more spider morphs born in the clutch, but less egg as a total?

I have crossed my spinner blast with my spider male, since she would not accept my two other males. I don't see a risk with this, other than knowing I will get a lot more spiders and spider based morphs. I honestly don't think there will be kinked or dead born babies, because I have yet to see any proof of this happening to someone else.

Also I've been told that the wobble might get worse, but once again this makes no sense for me. If a spider can only be viable with one spider gene, then biologically and genetically that animal is no different from the composition of the spider that produced it (it has it's own set of dna and is unique compared to it's parents, but I mean morph wise). You can't suddenly have a spider gene that behaves differently than the source, that doesn't sound right. In order to increase color, behavior or wobble, you would need 'more' and if two genes stops the development from the start then this can not happen.

Sorry for bringing such an old thread back to life, but yeah....we have come a long way and it would be fun to see some fact laid down on the table instead of rumors and old thinking.

---

Truth is there isn't a whole lot of public information on spider x spider pairing. I am told people do it all the time, but I would love to see the mythical results. I have found scattered reports of smaller clutch sizes and more than usual slugs, but I'm not even sure I could find them again if I tired. I have only heard of 2 born dead babies, only one having pictures (thread above). I would expect most don't make it that far though, if the homozygous spider is causing the condition. As you explained, the worse wobble is bullcrap. We are at the point now, it would be a cool project for someone to figure it all out (if possible), but it makes zero sense economically or if you want to progress farther genetically, which is almost all of us. I don't really like the idea of starting a project expecting to fail and having a hard time proving the fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CryHavoc17

Its funny because I have the exact opposite feeling about this based on similar reasoning. If the homozygous spider was a perfectly healthy, normal animal, then why hasnt one ever shown up after all this time? If its possible to produce as a viable healthy animal surely someone would have shown evidence that it exists.

---

Riddle me this, were are the breeding results of spiders that came from spider x spider pairings, to prove the very thing you are asking? Has anyone attempted to prove them out? Of course everyone wants to jump in and say of course they did, why wouldn't they have of.... so where are the results? I mean I'm sure "they" did also, but what did they do, what are the numbers, there isn't anything public. Same with the pinstripe, we only have one account of a super pin, where is everyone else's breeding trails? Personally I did pin x pin last year and didn't get eggs, I'm doing the same pairing this year. Then I'll have to see what the babies produce. I'm honestly more surprised there isn't another account of a super pin, I mean there is zero reason to think it is a failure. People just don't seem to be interested in producing these animals.

Just to clear something up, when I say spider x spider I mean all spider combos crossed with eachother.
This year I have a spinnerblast x spider cross, which can produce spinnerblasts. This is worth my time, a spider x spider wouldn't be.

I never expected anyone to sit around and crossing a single gene spider with naother single gene spider, but rather combos with each other, which is much more likely to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnykit

Just to clear something up, when I say spider x spider I mean all spider combos crossed with eachother.
This year I have a spinnerblast x spider cross, which can produce spinnerblasts. This is worth my time, a spider x spider wouldn't be.

I never expected anyone to sit around and crossing a single gene spider with naother single gene spider, but rather combos with each other, which is much more likely to happen.

---

this thread is indeed about breeding any morph combo containing the spider gene to any other morph combo containing the spider gene. or, in short, spider x spider.

Found this one;

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...06#post1847606