Stupid Question..

Ive been searching for the answer on this and for the life of me, cant find it..

What is the difference between a spider and woma?

From what i see - a woma has less yellow/white pigment and tends to have thicker black lines.

*edit in* also woma seems to mix with everything while spider traits arent really as noticeable sometimes?

So what is the main difference if you mix a mojoXwoma / mojoXspider

<nerd hat> ive been wondering this..but i kinda feel stupid for asking :oops:

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I'm pretty sure that the Womas do not wobble like the Spiders do.

Womas dont have white sides

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.KNOX

Womas dont have white sides

---

Exactly. Spiders have white sides, womas don't.

It seems to me that the spiders have a lot more variation than the womas do -- some are super-reduced pattern, some have spots, some have a solid black stripe down their backs, etc., etc.. I've seen some spiders that look a lot like womas but that seems to be just one variant thereof ... On the other hand, most of the womas I've seen tend to have a similar banded-type pattern.

What I would consider to be a "good" spider (in my book) would have a nice, light golden color with high white sides, which as others have pointed out womas don't have.

I also tend to prefer the "spider combo" version of things versus the "woma combo" version -- from what I've seen the "spider version" tends to be cleaner and brighter (or at least has more potential to be, if you use the right ingredients).

But, as was already mentioned the womas don't tend to have the same neurological problems AFAIK. So I have heard of folks working with womas instead of spiders if the neuro issues are something that bother them.

Basically, they're two different mutations that do kinda look somewhat similar.

(All of this assuming we're talking about your run of the mill "regular woma" as opposed to NERD's "hidden gene woma," which I really think ought to have a different name by now :P )

I get asked this quite often at our facility from people who come in wanting to add pieces to their collection. The answer I give in most cases is that these two genes are different in that the Spider is a co-dominant trait in that there has never been a dominant form produced such as a Super Pastel or in the case of a Woma a Pearl. The Woma does have a dominant form that unfortunately never lives unless there is another gene included in the breeding such as breeding a Pastel Woma to a Woma. Pearls produced from a Woma to Woma breeding to my knowledge have all died with in a week of hatching, where as Pearls produced from breeding a Pastel Woma to a Woma live. It should also be pointed out that the Pearl from this breeding does not include the Pastel trait since there has also been Pastel Pearls produced. So to make a long story short while the Woma morph is somewhat similar to the Spider morph, it has a dominant form, while the Spider does not.

good question i was wondering myself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOFSKC

I get asked this quite often at our facility from people who come in wanting to add pieces to their collection. The answer I give in most cases is that these two genes are different in that the Spider is a co-dominant trait in that there has never been a dominant form produced such as a Super Pastel or in the case of a Woma a Pearl. The Woma does have a dominant form that unfortunately never lives unless there is another gene included in the breeding such as breeding a Pastel Woma to a Woma. Pearls produced from a Woma to Woma breeding to my knowledge have all died with in a week of hatching, where as Pearls produced from breeding a Pastel Woma to a Woma live. It should also be pointed out that the Pearl from this breeding does not include the Pastel trait since there has also been Pastel Pearls produced. So to make a long story short while the Woma morph is somewhat similar to the Spider morph, it has a dominant form, while the Spider does not.

---

I think you are a little confused on the dominant thing.

Spider is a dominant gene. This means that the heterozygous form and the homozygous form look exactly a like and you cannot tell the difference between the two. Most spiders you see for sale and that are produced are heterozygous animals.

Woma is a co-dominant gene. This means that the heterozygous form looks different from the normal and the homozygous. In the case of the woma the homozygous form is called the pearl and it is supposidly (sp) lethal with all babies dying in the egg or shortly after they emerge (as you stated).

All and all they are two different genes that produce similar looking animals in their heterozygous forms.

p.s.

There is no such thing as a stupid question! :D

Without even getting into the "homozygous spider" debate --

Has anyone proven that there is no viable homozygous "regular woma?" Or do folks now just avoid breeding woma x woma due to fear of the lethal homozygous "pearl" -- even though AFAIK that is the homozygous form of the "hidden gene woma" and not the "regular" woma?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellysballs

I think you are a little confused on the dominant thing.

Spider is a dominant gene. This means that the heterozygous form and the homozygous form look exactly a like and you cannot tell the difference between the two. Most spiders you see for sale and that are produced are heterozygous animals.

Woma is a co-dominant gene. This means that the heterozygous form looks different from the normal and the homozygous. In the case of the woma the homozygous form is called the pearl and it is supposidly (sp) lethal with all babies dying in the egg or shortly after they emerge (as you stated).

All and all they are two different genes that produce similar looking animals in their heterozygous forms.

---

I believe you are getting these two terms confused with recessive genes. To my knowledge there has never been a dominant Spider produced. Let me be clear, a dominant Spider would be like a Super Pastel in that breeding a Super Pastel to anything other than a Pastel would produce all visual Pastels. So if you bred a Super Pastel to a Spider you would produce an entire clutch of Pastels, however half of them would be Bumble Bees since the Spider gene is Co-dominant.

This is not to say that you couldn't luck out on the odds and produce an entire clutch of Bumble Bees but in most cases since the Spider gene is Co-Dominant you would more often than not get half and half.

The Woma gene however does have what is believed to be a Dominant or "Super" form. To my knowledge the idea that it is Dominant is purely speculation since I don't know that anyone has ever raised one up and breed it to prove this theory out.

Layman's Definitions
Homozygous - The visual state of a particular gene or trait
Heterozygous - The state of a recessive trait in it's non homozygous (visual) form
Dominant - A gene that supersedes the natural appearance
Co-Dominant - A gene that is equally available in appearance as the natural appearance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOFSKC

I believe you are getting these two terms confused with recessive genes. To my knowledge there has never been a dominant Spider produced. Let me be clear, a dominant Spider would be like a Super Pastel in that breeding a Super Pastel to anything other than a Pastel would produce all visual Pastels. So if you bred a Super Pastel to a Spider you would produce an entire clutch of Pastels, however half of them would be Bumble Bees since the Spider gene is Co-dominant.

This is not to say that you couldn't luck out on the odds and produce an entire clutch of Bumble Bees but in most cases since the Spider gene is Co-Dominant you would more often than not get half and half.

The Woma gene however does have what is believed to be a Dominant or "Super" form. To my knowledge the idea that it is Dominant is purely speculation since I don't know that anyone has ever raised one up and breed it to prove this theory out.

Layman's Definitions
Homozygous - The visual state of a particular gene or trait
Heterozygous - The state of a recessive trait in it's non homozygous (visual) form
Dominant - A gene that supersedes the natural appearance
Co-Dominant - A gene that is equally available in appearance as the natural appearance

---

Sorry but ... I think your "corrections" to her post are a bit less correct than her actual post. I wasn't gonna butt in and get all technical (lord knows I doubt anyone even reads all of what I type), but ......... :rolleyes:

I know that you acknowledge that you're making up "layman's" terms, but the word "homozygous" does NOT refer to the visual state of a gene or trait. It means that, for a given gene locus, that animal has the same exact allele on each chromosome -- which, in "layman's terms," would mean that the animal has "two copies" of the gene of interest.

By your definition of "homozygous" to mean "expressing a trait," a regular (non-super) pastel would be "homozygous pastel," which, no offense, is flat-out wrong.

"Heterozygous" means that, for a given locus, the animal has two different alleles on each chromosome -- in "layman's terms," that means that it has "one copy" of the gene of interest. Pastels (non-"super"), Enchis (non-"super"), all spiders and all pinstripes (as far as we all know) are heterozygous for their respective mutation genes.

Yes, non-visual "normal" looking animals that are heterozygous for recessive traits (AKA "hets") are also "heterozygous." And indeed, the visual forms of those recessive traits are "homozygous." However, there are definitely visually expressing heterozygous animals (like regular pastels).

Your "layman's definitions" of dominant and co-dominant are a bit more "right," but your explanation in the text is, again, wrong. (Sorry. :oops:)

The terms "Dominant," "Co-dominant" and "Recessive" refer to the way in which one gene behaves with regards to another gene -- in this case, the gene of interest is whatever morph gene and the "other gene" is the wild-type.

The spider gene is dominant to the wild-type gene, because an animal that carries both the spider gene and the wild-type gene expresses the spider gene -- it looks like a "spider." If spider were not dominant to the wild-type gene, you could have an animal that carried the gene but looked like a normal -- ie, a "het spider." There are no "het spiders," and we know that breeding a spider to a pure wild-type produces spiders; we therefore know that spider must be dominant.

(Now, to my knowledge there has never been a homozygous spider produced ... But spider is dominant, based on its mode of inheritance.)

The term "co-dominant" is used in snake breeding to refer to a gene that "blends" with the wild-type in its heterozygous form, and has a different looking homozygous form (a "super.") So, pastel is considered "co-dominant" because a heterozygous pastel looks different from a homozygous pastel.

The difference between a true dominant and "co-dominant" is that a true dominant gene looks the same in its homozygous and heterozygous forms. (Like Kelly said :) ) I've heard rumors that the pinstripe is "true dominant" (supposedly somebody out there has a pinstripe that only produces pinstripes, suggesting that it is homozygous for pinstripe, but I can't substantiate that in any way). I don't know of any other mutations of ball python that are true dominant.

I don't know whether woma (regular-style) is true dominant or co-dominant.

"Hidden gene" woma is co-dominant, but the homozygous form is lethal (pearl).

Spider is thought to be co-dominant with a homozygous lethal form that dies in the egg, but AFAIK nobody really knows and it might just be true dominant and not enough breedings have been done to identify that homozygous spider.

I know it's all just semantics, and probably that was all mega-overkill, but I think it's important to all try and use the same words to describe the same things -- otherwise it gets even more confusing than it already is O.o

Sorry that was so horribly long-winded.

After reading this I agree that I was wrong, I was saying the same thing just mixing up my terms. Thank you for the clarification.