spider x spider

While reading the "lesserbee x bumblebee" thread, the topic of crossing a spider to a spider gained my interest. In the past, I have always been told that crossing this morph to itself would be deadly. Has anyone attempted this project? Please share your knowledge and/or experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

While reading the "lesserbee x bumblebee" thread, the topic of crossing a spider to a spider gained my interest. In the past, I have always been told that crossing this morph to itself would be deadly. Has anyone attempted this project? Please share your knowledge and/or experience.

---

Did you read the info stating its more then likely lethal? No 100% proof has been wrote anywhere though.Its not true about all morphs though.

I don't understand why we hear of all kinds of projects, but no one talks about the spider x spider project. What if there is a super spider? There has to be someone out there trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

I don't understand why we hear of all kinds of projects, but no one talks about the spider x spider project. What if there is a super spider? There has to be someone out there trying.

---

Well that should tell you something went wrong with it then ;).Its kinda like the kinking in caramels its sad it happens so people really dont discuss it much.

I'm thinking the same as you.. I hope someone chimes in and maybe shares some knowledge..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

Well that should tell you something went wrong with it then ;).Its kinda like the kinking in caramels its sad it happens so people really dont discuss it much.

---

Are you kidding? I can't recall any Caramel thread where kinking or so called infertile females comes up (the later being completely false).

Truth of the matter is no one who has posted here has shown conclusive evidence to support either of the claims that #1. They don't exist and #2. It's a lethal gene. Everything that's been posted has been hear-say, and I'm tired of seeing people spread it like it's the law.

When Kevin McCurley, Brian Barcyzk, or someone with comprehensive evidence can formally say that Homozygous Spiders are a "Lethal Gene" then it will be the truth, until then or when someone proves a Homozygous Spider, Spiders will remain under the "Dominate" genetics category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

Are you kidding? I can't recall any Caramel thread where kinking or so called infertile females comes up (the later being completely false).

Truth of the matter is no one who has posted here has shown conclusive evidence to support either of the claims that #1. They don't exist and #2. It's a lethal gene. Everything that's been posted has been hear-say, and I'm tired of seeing people spread it like it's the law.

When Kevin McCurley, Brian Barcyzk, or someone with comprehensive evidence can formally say that Homozygous Spiders are a "Lethal Gene" then it will be the truth, until then or when someone proves a Homozygous Spider, Spiders will remain under the "Dominate" genetics category.

---

How long have spiders been around? If there were something good to share you would think it would have been somewhere by now dont you think? It only takes 3yrs to get a female spider up to breed.As far as the carmel kinking its known so why talk about it over and over :confused:

The search for a homozygous spider is ongoing. NERD tried, and failed, to produce one.

Since a homozygous spider hasn't been produced, and the morph is quite old now (and it's been tried many times), it's a pretty safe conclusion that one will NOT be produced. No one has mentioned any tendency of spiders from spiderXspider clutches dying young, so it can be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg. Since so many eggs are lost for various reasons, it doesn't stand out, so wasn't noticed immediately.

Conclusion--the lack of super-spiders means that spiders are probably co-dominant, and homozygous lethal. This means that in a spider X spider pairing, 25% of fertile eggs will not hatch. It doesn't seem worth it.

On the other hand, I understand that super Pinstripes HAVE been produced. This verifies that Pinstripe is dominant, and not co-dominant.

But hey, if you want to try and do the spider X spider crosses again, go right ahead. It's a huge project, and it will probably be fruitless, because it's been done before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

How long have spiders been around? If there were something good to share you would think it would have been somewhere by now dont you think? It only takes 3yrs to get a female spider up to breed.As far as the carmel kinking its known so why talk about it over and over :confused:

---

I've yet to hear anyone conclusively say that the Spider is Homozygous lethal Gene, not even NERD. I don't think that Spiders are Co-Dominate, I think they are simply dominate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

The search for a homozygous spider is ongoing. NERD tried, and failed, to produce one.

Since a homozygous spider hasn't been produced, and the morph is quite old now (and it's been tried many times), it's a pretty safe conclusion that one will NOT be produced. No one has mentioned any tendency of spiders from spiderXspider clutches dying young, so it can be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg. Since so many eggs are lost for various reasons, it doesn't stand out, so wasn't noticed immediately.

Conclusion--the lack of super-spiders means that spiders are probably co-dominant, and homozygous lethal. This means that in a spider X spider pairing, 25% of fertile eggs will not hatch. It doesn't seem worth it.

On the other hand, I understand that super Pinstripes HAVE been produced. This verifies that Pinstripe is dominant, and not co-dominant.

But hey, if you want to try and do the spider X spider crosses again, go right ahead. It's a huge project, and it will probably be fruitless, because it's been done before.

---

Your conclusions are flawed. You can't assume that Homozygous spiders die in the egg, that would mean that you would first have to prove the Spider to be an Co-Dominate gene, which so far we have yet to do.

Just because your female lays a couple of duds in a Spider x Spider breeding doesn't necessarily mean those Duds/Infertile Eggs were Homozygous spiders.

I also don't recall anyone having ever pointed me to where NERD has officially said that the Homozygous spider is a lethal gene, I do however recall that their website labels the Spider as a "Dominate" gene.

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ner...ns/spider.html

Yes Pinstripes were recently proven to be a Co-Dominate animal by Barcyzk, but Pins have been around just as long as Spiders, in fact Pinstripes are newer. But it took Barcyzk a long time to be able to show evidence of that, and even then he's not conclusively saying it, he says he feels confident that it is but still needs to play with it just a little more.

This isn't like the Woma Gene, where the animal occasionally hatches and later dies, or is dead in the egg but you can definitely tell it was a Pearl, the Spider "Lethal" gene is more or less hear say.

I welcome you to point me to articles/posts from people with evidence to prove me otherwise but until then, I will conclude that the Spider gene is simply Incomplete-Dominate.

Can anyone link to this super pinstripe, or where they heard about it?

My BF and I were just discussing a super pin, and super spider a few weeks back. This topic is very interesting, I look forward to reading the responses!

I wonder if it's a similar gene to the Jag gene in carpets..
Both are said to have head 'wobble' or twisting issues in some snakes, 'Super' jags (leucistics) either die in the egg or shortly after hatching.

Has anyone here seen a 'super' spider dead in the egg? Was it leucistic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

The search for a homozygous spider is ongoing. NERD tried, and failed, to produce one.

Since a homozygous spider hasn't been produced, and the morph is quite old now (and it's been tried many times), it's a pretty safe conclusion that one will NOT be produced. No one has mentioned any tendency of spiders from spiderXspider clutches dying young, so it can be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg. Since so many eggs are lost for various reasons, it doesn't stand out, so wasn't noticed immediately.

Conclusion--the lack of super-spiders means that spiders are probably co-dominant, and homozygous lethal. This means that in a spider X spider pairing, 25% of fertile eggs will not hatch. It doesn't seem worth it.

On the other hand, I understand that super Pinstripes HAVE been produced. This verifies that Pinstripe is dominant, and not co-dominant.

But hey, if you want to try and do the spider X spider crosses again, go right ahead. It's a huge project, and it will probably be fruitless, because it's been done before.

---

How can it be safely assumed that homozygous spiders die in the egg? Why can't it be safely assumed that there just isn't a homozygous spider? Why is the conclusion that they die in the egg? Why isn't the conclusion that they just don't exist and that there aren't any that die in eggs?

Ok, refresher on what the terms mean:

Dominant: Heterozygous and Homozygous animals look/are morphologically identical.

Co-Dominant: Heterozygous animals do not look normal. Homozygous animals look different from Heterozygous animals.

What exactly do you think happens to the super-spiders? Genetics dictates that some animals will carry both genes. So where are they? If we don't have them, then they MUST be dead. This is logic. "They don't exist" is not genetically possible. They don't mysteriously vanish before eggs are laid, that isn't the way things happen inside a snake.

Why are Spiders therefore co-dominant? Because the super form is not the same as the heterozygous form. If it were, then we would have super-spiders that look just like spiders. But we don't. So, the super-spiders express differently--they don't hatch. What they look like is irrelevent, we know they ARE different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

Are you kidding? I can't recall any Caramel thread where kinking or so called infertile females comes up (the later being completely false).

Truth of the matter is no one who has posted here has shown conclusive evidence to support either of the claims that #1. They don't exist and #2. It's a lethal gene. Everything that's been posted has been hear-say, and I'm tired of seeing people spread it like it's the law.

When Kevin McCurley, Brian Barcyzk, or someone with comprehensive evidence can formally say that Homozygous Spiders are a "Lethal Gene" then it will be the truth, until then or when someone proves a Homozygous Spider, Spiders will remain under the "Dominate" genetics category.

---

Not kidding. There are tons and tons of Caramel kinking threads. Do a search for Caramel kinking on this forum and you will find a bunch.

There can be no conclusive testing short of DNA testing all eggs after fertilization from multiple spider to spider crosses. In the mean time consider this. NERD had tried and failed to create a super spider. There is no evidence that they die after hatching. There are many examples of gene combinations being lethal in many species at various stages of development. All of this leads the community to believe that a super spider is lethal. Its an educated conclusion that has yet to be proved or disproved. It fits the evidence so I would call it a solid hypothesis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caz

I wonder if it's a similar gene to the Jag gene in carpets..
Both are said to have head 'wobble' or twisting issues in some snakes, 'Super' jags (leucistics) either die in the egg or shortly after hatching.

Has anyone here seen a 'super' spider dead in the egg? Was it leucistic?

---

Anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Ok, refresher on what the terms mean:

Dominant: Heterozygous and Homozygous animals look/are morphologically identical.

Co-Dominant: Heterozygous animals do not look normal. Homozygous animals look different from Heterozygous animals.



Why are Spiders therefore co-dominant? Because the super form is not the same as the heterozygous form. If it were, then we would have super-spiders that look just like spiders. But we don't. So, the super-spiders express differently--they don't hatch. What they look like is irrelevent, we know they ARE different.

---

But we don't KNOW that the super spider even exists. No one has ever seen one that I'm aware of (answer to your question Caz). From what I've read and seen, any babies that were born (or died) looked just like normal Spiders. So, I repeat what Robin said: what if "Super Spiders" simply do not exist? That would make the Spider trait Dominant, not Co-dominant.

Have you ever seen a super spider?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ladywhipple02

But we don't KNOW that the super spider even exists. No one has ever seen one that I'm aware of (answer to your question Caz). From what I've read and seen, any babies that were born (or died) looked just like normal Spiders. So, I repeat what Robin said: what if "Super Spiders" simply do not exist? That would make the Spider trait Dominant, not Co-dominant.

Have you ever seen a super spider?

---

You are missing the point. What makes a super a super is not necessarily how it looks. Its when having two genes is expressed differently than having one. If a het and homozygous looked the same but the homozyguous could breath fire then it would be a super and therefor the trait would be co-dominant. The point is that dieing is what makes them different and therefore its a co-dominant morph.

Homozygous spiders would make up 25% of all spider to spider crosses. The fact that we don't see them means that its most likely lethal. You can't just say they don't exist. The genetics makes them relatively easy to make. The fact that they are not here is the proof.

Thats like saying that the Amazon women of legend didn't have male children.

My guess is that someday, with the right combo, a homozygous spider will be created. There might be something in another morph that will counteract the lethality of a homozygous spider.

That being said, it is a substantial risk to take. If you have a bunch of Spider females, are you going to risk wasting 1/4 of your offspring by breeding them to a male containing the spider gene ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Homozygous spiders would make up 25% of all spider to spider crosses. The fact that we don't see them means that its most likely lethal. You can't just say they don't exist. The genetics makes them relatively easy to make. The fact that they are not here is the proof.

Thats like saying that the Amazon women of legend didn't have male children.

---

See the problem is we're Assuming, with no real proof. Chances are there are Homozygous spiders but they were sold as regular spiders and they either are in the hands of people who don't intend to breed them, have had relatively small clutches so the person thinks they're doing good on the odds, or are keeping their mouths shut because they don't want anyone else to know.

And if you don't think that's the case, then why would you assume they just die?

That said I don't think it's impossible. But seeing as how the only other proven lethal gene is the Homozygous Woma, and it acts completely different, I just find it hard to believe the hear say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

See the problem is we're Assuming, with no real proof.

---

Just because you don't have the actual proof in front of you doesn't mean it isn't true.

Let's say you are an established breeder that was in early on the Spider. You breed your first male spider to a ton of normals and produce a bunch of spiders. You keep most of your females. As soon as they are ready, you breed them back to your original male spider.

The vast majority of those spiders produced from the Spider X Spider breeding will have been bred again in various projects. If there were a homozygous spider (odds say 25% of the Spider X Spider would have been homozygous) out there, it would have been found out some time ago. Not to hard to figure out that every clutch produced all had the spider gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caz

I wonder if it's a similar gene to the Jag gene in carpets..
Both are said to have head 'wobble' or twisting issues in some snakes, 'Super' jags (leucistics) either die in the egg or shortly after hatching.

Has anyone here seen a 'super' spider dead in the egg? Was it leucistic?

---

No one has seen a super spider, or atleast admitting it, and it safe to say that a super spider if it exists, just looks like a normal spider.

and just so everyone knows all these are guesses... there is no public proof of any of this.
1. they die in the egg
2. they get reabsorbed
3. they just simply don't exist
4. they do exist

i did put sex linked down but, now i just thought about it, and yea sex linked doesn't work, because a male spider would make all its female offspring spiders... so i think we would notice that trend.

Aaron i would highly doubt they are out there in secret, people do bubblebee to bubblebee breedings in hopes of killer bees, plus im sure when spider gene came out 10 years ago people were doing spider x spider alot, and i think by now someone would of noticed something.

its not crazy to think there are other genes that don't happen, i mean jags in carpets, dwarfism in humans, it happens.

truth is there no real proof of any of it tho, I try to think in terms of statistics. and even that, I have no real numbers, so i guess its just thinking in terms of trends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayCee

Just because you don't have the actual proof in front of you doesn't mean it isn't true.

---

You're kidding, right? The proof is what makes it true. We're not talking about Big Foot here. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayCee

Let's say you are an established breeder that was in early on the Spider. You breed your first male spider to a ton of normals and produce a bunch of spiders. You keep most of your females. As soon as they are ready, you breed them back to your original male spider.

The vast majority of those spiders produced from the Spider X Spider breeding will have been bred again in various projects. If there were a homozygous spider (odds say 25% of the Spider X Spider would have been homozygous) out there, it would have been found out some time ago. Not to hard to figure out that every clutch produced all had the spider gene.

---

That's assuming you hit on those odds though, which you can very well miss.

Prime example: Albino x Het. Albino. I am friends with a popular breeder in this industry, one year he bred 4 Het. Albino females (Proven Het Albino females) to an Albino male (Whom is also Proven). Between the 4 girls he gets roughly 28 eggs, come hatching time all 28 are Het Albinos, not a single Albino out of 28 eggs. Now "Odds" dictate that he could have had 14 Albinos yet he missed on the odds 28 times in a row.

He actually inspired me to attempt again to prove my P. Het Albino girl to be Het. Albino, when she didn't prove out last year with a perfect 6 Egg clutch with an awesome sex ratio (2.4). Does that mean she isn't Het. Albino? No, I'm trying again this year, and hopefully I'll get another clutch of 6, maybe more and if I get lucky maybe I'll hatch an albino, but if I don't I'll write her off as a normal.

But again that's 1:2 Odds, not 1:4. That may not seem like a big difference but when our average clutch size is 5-6 Eggs, that's a lot of room to miss out on the odds.

Now none of that takes into play the fact that "Stuff Happens" meaning, animals die, don't breed, get injured and can't be bred.

But this is all hear say, I want to see the facts or at least someone reputable to come forth and say it, until then I'll consider the Spider to be a dominate morph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Aaron i would highly doubt they are out there in secret, people do bubblebee to bubblebee breedings in hopes of killer bees, plus im sure when spider gene came out 10 years ago people were doing spider x spider alot, and i think by now someone would of noticed something

---

I highly doubt there is a Homozygous spider, but I also doubt that the Homozygous Spider is "Lethal". I'm open to both ideas though, I just want to see the evidence that backs that which no one has brought forth.

They keep comparing it to Carpet Jags and Womas but both of those can be spotted in the egg, how many people have come forth sand said "I bred spider x spider "X" amount of times and "Y" amount of times I have had "Z" number of dead in the egg offspring that I believe to be homozygous spiders".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elise.m

Can anyone link to this super pinstripe, or where they heard about it?

My BF and I were just discussing a super pin, and super spider a few weeks back. This topic is very interesting, I look forward to reading the responses!

---

there no link, and it just looks like a normal pinstripe, email brian yourself, he'll tell you "we're pretty confident we have proven the pinstripe gene co-dominate" mayb if enough people bug him he'll finally post something public, but then again i don't remember if it was a forum or what but i remember reading about it over 2 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

there no link

---

Right no link, but I believe he said it in a Reptile Radio show, I'll make a clip later tonight if I have time and put it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

I highly doubt there is a Homozygous spider, but I also doubt that the Homozygous Spider is "Lethal". I'm open to both ideas though, I just want to see the evidence that backs that which no one has brought forth.

They keep comparing it to Carpet Jags and Womas but both of those can be spotted in the egg, how many people have come forth sand said "I bred spider x spider "X" amount of times and "Y" amount of times I have had "Z" number of dead in the egg offspring that I believe to be homozygous spiders".

---

"super dwarf" humans don't make it out of the womb alive. tho yes there is a fetus. but i think it aborts itself... point is deadly genes are weird, super jags crawl right out of the egg and die, i've herd of one report where a super jag was spotted alive over night but was dead in the morning. sadly he took no pics... but pearls, people have had those live up to a month. so the cause of death has got to be entirly different. whos to say the spider doesn't act different.

but like you said there no proof of eigher. and i was kinda playing the devil's advocate personally, i just think its a dominate gene also. but if other evidence comes forth, mayb i'l change my mind.

mayb see take a big group of spider x spider breedings at see what % of spider we hit on, is it closer to 75% or 66%? but getting enough pairings to make a reasonable guess would be the impossible part to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

but like you said there no proof of eigher. and i was kinda playing the devil's advocate personally, i just think its a dominate gene also. but if other evidence comes forth, mayb i'l change my mind.

mayb see take a big group of spider x spider breedings at see what % of spider we hit on, is it closer to 75% or 66%? but getting enough pairings to make a reasonable guess would be the impossible part to me.

---

Right, again I'm not saying it's impossible I just find it unlikely, but I am open to whatever the evidence points to.

honestly i also think that there is no super sipder... fatal or not, but rumors are well known to spread with no direct facts. im sure the breeding has been done from a spider and spider to see if there was a super.... and have had no luck or there would be alot more posts in threads about it (IMO). like alot of people on here i have been cruisin bp.net for a couple of years and never came acrossed anyone stating there is a "super" form. i guess ill try to call bhb and ask if they have a super spider for sale lol... i have bought stuff from bryan before and man that guy is one busy person but lets see if his staff knows ne thing about it... brb

ok i just called and brian was the one just to answer right away. we talked for a little bit but he just said that honestly it just hasnt been proved yet. his pinstripe that was proven almost 100% that it was super, was from multiple females that he bred his male pin to out of somthing like 28 eggs all came out pins. he stated that he believed that there could possibly be a "super" spider but the gene is a bit geneticly quirky, (in a weak sort of way) that might be a cause for some people that have tried it and have deaths in the egg or have not hatched any out.... so pretty much were still in the same place where its not been proven or disproven. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishanaconda

ok i just called and brian was the one just to answer right away. we talked for a little bit but he just said that honestly it just hasnt been proved yet. his pinstripe that was proven almost 100% that it was super, was from multiple females that he bred his male pin to out of somthing like 28 eggs all came out pins. he stated that he believed that there could possibly be a "super" spider but the gene is a bit geneticly quirky, (in a weak sort of way) that might be a cause for some people that have tried it and have deaths in the egg or have not hatched any out.... so pretty much were still in the same place where its not been proven or disproven. lol

---

your mixing up 2 things. spiders and pinstripes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Aaron i would highly doubt they are out there in secret, people do bubblebee to bubblebee breedings in hopes of killer bees, plus im sure when spider gene came out 10 years ago people were doing spider x spider alot, and i think by now someone would of noticed something.

---

What's a bubblebee? Lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Did you mean bumblebee?
:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stratus_020202

What's a bubblebee? Lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Did you mean bumblebee?
:rofl:

---

lmao guess i was typing too fast oops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

your mixing up 2 things. spiders and pinstripes

---

no i know what both are, was just stating that as a simmilar morph to the spider, and if a pin can "in theory" have a super then the punnett square should still work for the spider. i am getting a female spider from chris gibson (aka gib) that he has had for some time that has yet to throw a spider with wobbles. i believe even his offspring that have been bought off of other members to this site have had babbies that havent thrown wobblers or corkscrewing ones so this might be a better specimen to use for a project... i dont know. but i figure this year there is enough female bees of breeding weights that hopefully a couple of people will try a bee to a bee.

[QUOTE=irishanaconda;1192208]no i know what both are, was just stating that as a simmilar morph to the spider, and if a pin can "in theory" have a super then the punnett square should still work for the spider. QUOTE]

not that you trying wouldn't aid to this investigation, but that statement is comparing apples to oranges, each gene is different. if spider is dominate, like it is stated on NERDs website, then the punnett square does not work. pin and spider are not simmilar gentically. just so you know. mix the 2 and you get a spinner.

but we need people to try, lets us know your results.

have u called nerd and asked? maybe call ralph davis too... ask some opinions and post them here.

I have to agree that it probably just isn't proven yet.

1. If there is a Super Spider that looks like a regular Spider, you would have to breed all Spiders from many clutches to normals several times to see if all the offspring of a particular Spider are Spiders. Even doing this several times would not prove there isn't a Super due to those annoying probabilities. You'd be able to say, "Well, it's highly unlikely there's a Super," but that's about it.

2. If Super Spiders die in the egg, then why aren't there pictures of those? I would think if a breeder were trying to produce a Super Spider, he would be checking those eggs that die during incubation to see if they look any different or not. Even if the Super dies before the pattern appears, we could still do some statistics of the number of dead eggs in Spider x Spider clutches and see if we get ~25% egg mortality rate. Again, it wouldn't be certain proof, but it would be good enough to come to a conclusion, at any rate. Again, if I were a breeder, I would want to be keeping track of this so I know when to stop wasting time on it.

3. If Super Spiders don't exist at all for some reason (or if the eggs get reabsorbed, etc.), there would be no way of proving that, either, unless we had some way of showing that every, single Spider offspring only has one Spider gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

You're kidding, right? The proof is what makes it true.

---

Um, wow. o.O So...someone who is on trial for murder didn't actually kill the person until the jury reads the verdict? Who killed the person before it is "proven" that the murderer did it? No, that's not what proof is. Proof is showing evidence that something is true; the proof in and of itself does not make something true.

Well, except for quantum mechanics, but that's something completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

I have to agree that it probably just isn't proven yet.

1. If there is a Super Spider that looks like a regular Spider, you would have to breed all Spiders from many clutches to normals several times to see if all the offspring of a particular Spider are Spiders. Even doing this several times would not prove there isn't a Super due to those annoying probabilities. You'd be able to say, "Well, it's highly unlikely there's a Super," but that's about it.

---

tho there are no numbers, this has already happened, between when spiders first hit the sceen and combo morphs dealing with spiders like bubble i mean bumblebees, we are at the "well, its highly unlikely" point.

Quote:

---

2. If Super Spiders die in the egg, then why aren't there pictures of those? I would think if a breeder were trying to produce a Super Spider, he would be checking those eggs that die during incubation to see if they look any different or not. Even if the Super dies before the pattern appears, we could still do some statistics of the number of dead eggs in Spider x Spider clutches and see if we get ~25% egg mortality rate. Again, it wouldn't be certain proof, but it would be good enough to come to a conclusion, at any rate. Again, if I were a breeder, I would want to be keeping track of this so I know when to stop wasting time on it.

---

how many people do you know take pictures of dead things in eggs? and it would look just like a normal spider, so whats that prove anyways?

Quote:

---

3. If Super Spiders don't exist at all for some reason (or if the eggs get reabsorbed, etc.), there would be no way of proving that, either, unless we had some way of showing that every, single Spider offspring only has one Spider gene.

---

it being dominate (which seems to be the most likly case at this point) is the reason they wouldn't exist. and your right there is no way of 100% proving it unless we dig into decoding snake DNA and testing unborn spiders and seeing what happens to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

how many people do you know take pictures of dead things in eggs? and it would look just like a normal spider, so whats that prove anyways?

---

Well, if I were trying to prove/disprove something like this, I would definitely be taking pictures! Or, at the very least, keeping track. I've had some leopard and fat-tail gecko eggs die during incubation, and I wanted to see why they died. Also, if you're trying to prove out a het and some eggs in the clutch die during incubation, I'd want to check them to see if the het proved or not.

If the Super Spider does not look like a normal Spider (and always dies in the egg), we might be able to see the difference in pattern between the Super and the Spider. But if no one is checking the dead eggs just in case, how would we know the Super form does or does not look different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

Proof is showing evidence that something is true; the proof in and of itself does not make something true.

---

That...is a contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proof - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

---

We're not doing a Trial by Jury, juries can be wrong, we're talking cold hard facts.

here is a pretty good lonk i found if anyone wants to check it out
http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics_101.html
from randy remington.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

Well, if I were trying to prove/disprove something like this, I would definitely be taking pictures! Or, at the very least, keeping track.

---

Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ?? Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ?? Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??


Now, to try and step into the shoes of a "big breeder". I'd get a chuckle out of all the newcomers trying to reinvent the wheel. At best, it even helps sales of Spiders. Every 2-3 months there is a new thread on "super spider" and a handful that refuse to believe it until they do 100 Spider X Spider pairings themselves. I'll happily sell them as many Spiders as they want.

i just told u i got off of the phone with one of the biggest reptile breeders in the us, and even he said he doesnt even know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayCee

Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ?? Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ?? Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??


Now, to try and step into the shoes of a "big breeder". I'd get a chuckle out of all the newcomers trying to reinvent the wheel. At best, it even helps sales of Spiders. Every 2-3 months there is a new thread on "super spider" and a handful that refuse to believe it until they do 100 Spider X Spider pairings themselves. I'll happily sell them as many Spiders as they want.

---

I'll just add my .02 and a question. The question is: Have there been any wild caught spiders since the first ones? I hear of every other morph coming in WC occasionally but never spiders.

I think if spiders are co-dom then the reason we can't get supers from them could have something to do with whatever genes make them spin. I haven't heard anyone bring that up but it seems plausible to me. Once I get to the point where I can spare the space I definitely want to try my hand at a super spider unless its proven to not exist by that time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

That...is a contradiction.

We're not doing a Trial by Jury, juries can be wrong, we're talking cold hard facts.

---

No, it isn't. I used "make" in that sentence as "turn from falsity into truth." Your definition from MW is basically what I'm trying to get across. I used the jury example because of the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty." I admit, it is a loose definition of "proven," and it's a rather poor example.

Here's a better one: I wore a coat today. Now, I have no proof that I wore a coat today, but just because I don't have proof doesn't mean I didn't wear a coat today.

I figure I should also mention that I am a scientist, so for me, "facts" are merely tautologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayCee

Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ?? Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ?? Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??

---

No, I don't. However, I find it odd that no one seems willing to come forward with any hard evidence of what the Spider gene really is. All we hear about is "so-and-so said this" or "I heard that...." I have yet to see a breeder who has tried the Spider x Spider thing for several years come forward with quantitative results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeartAche

I'll just add my .02 and a question. The question is: Have there been any wild caught spiders since the first ones? I hear of every other morph coming in WC occasionally but never spiders.

I think if spiders are co-dom then the reason we can't get supers from them could have something to do with whatever genes make them spin. I haven't heard anyone bring that up but it seems plausible to me. Once I get to the point where I can spare the space I definitely want to try my hand at a super spider unless its proven to not exist by that time

---

Actually a lot of morphs haven't been brought in again. We haven't seen another Pinstripe, we haven't seen another Desert, we haven't seen more Black Axanthics, or Leopards. But time will tell.

Hmm, I've never considered that before....

The only morph I know of right off the top of my head that has several variants is Axanthic, and those aren't even compatible with each other...so...they can be even be considered the same morph?

Does anyone know if there has been more than one of a certain type of [compatible] morph found in the wild?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

Hmm, I've never considered that before....

The only morph I know of right off the top of my head that has several variants is Axanthic, and those aren't even compatible with each other...so...they can be even be considered the same morph?

Does anyone know if there has been more than one of a certain type of [compatible] morph found in the wild?

---

Actually the VPI and the NERD Line of Axanthics are compatible and I believe there are others.

Morphs with multiple Lines:
Piebald
Albino
Axanthic
Cinnamon
Black Pastel
Woma
Clown
Lavender Albino
Pastel
Hypo (There are TONS of linese of these)
Yellow Belly
Lesser/Butter (I know there are multiple lines of Lesser, I think there are Butter)
I think Mojave
Phantom/Mystic
Fire

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

Actually a lot of morphs haven't been brought in again. We haven't seen another Pinstripe, we haven't seen another Desert, we haven't seen more Black Axanthics, or Leopards. But time will tell.

---

Outside of this conversation, who is breeding the leopards? I saw JK just got one but haven't seen them for sale anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WildCreations

Outside of this conversation, who is breeding the leopards? I saw JK just got one but haven't seen them for sale anywhere?

---

Greg Graziani

i dont think it would be leathal at all, just think about it the only difference between one ball python to the next is there skin, other than that there completly the same. so yes a spider has different genetics compared to a normal, but they are still the same.

And would a spider and a spider be a pin? not sure just wondering, dont know that much about the ball pythons

Skin color is the only difference we can see, but the genetics in the different morphs no doubt produce other differences. In development, melanocytes -- cells that produce melanin -- are derived from a special group of cells that also contribute to the nervous system, intestinal and facial development. If we mess around with the genes responsible for those cells, we are messing around with more than skin color, even if we don't know it.

For example, in horses there is something called "lethal white foal syndrome." These are foals that are all white, because they don't have melanocytes. However, they don't live very long because in addition to lacking melanocytes, they are missing cells essential to normal intestinal function.