disappointed in the internet community, ending this rumor right now

Ok, you cannot tell me I am the first one on this forum, to ask NERD directly (founders of the spider project) about the homozygous spider.... but yet time and time again, we are told that the homozygous spider is lethal, it doesn't exist, kevin told all of us.

100% WRONG

All i did was ask them, I believe my exact words were "Hey, since you guys are the founders of the spider project, what do you know about the homozygous spider being lethal?"

They told me that its a rumor that started around the time kevin started selling his spiders and never left and became "fact". They have never seen anything that suggests it. How can I be the first person to post this here? I've never seen this info here, and the whole homozygous spider thing seems to be fact around here.

then it gets better

then they tell me they have a suspected homozygous spider breeding, right now, has thrown all spiders in 2 clutches ( i didn't ask them how many eggs) and came from a breeding with both parents having spider in it. They believe it to be homozygous. could they of hit awesome odds? sure they could of, but sounds like the homozygous spider looks like a het spider, just like the pinstripe (ill get back to that one later)

and everyone says NERD is so secretive, sure about some of their new high end morphs, but not this. They don't hide the fact that they have a suspected homozygous spider, they don't hide the fact that being lethal is a stupid rumor. All I did was ask them. All the shows they go to and all the people on this forum that see them there.... and im the one to bring this to the forum?

im disappointed, this rumor went on for too long, and I feel bad for spreading it myself thinking it was fact like alot of us.

Only thing I can blame NERD about is I have emailed them about 3 times asking for information on the homozygous spider and never got a response.

More rumor dispelling....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...r/DSCN0717.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...r/DSCN0716.jpg

That would be a living Pearl aka homozygous hidden gene woma. They need to do more breeding to figure it out 100%, but heres the facts. They did have alot of pearls that were screwed up. They are not sure what other morphs are in this snake. They are not sure if one of the other morphs reversed what was wrong with the pearls, or if outcrossing did it.

but I got to hold it, they are not keeping it a secret, in fact he pointed it out to me after I asked about the homozygous spider. but facts are living breathing 100% healthy homozygous HG woma.

and this just needed to be cleared up....

Now about the pinstripe. Brian from BHB (founder of the pinstripe project) will not directly say a homozygous form exists, But he did tell me the facts. he has a pinstripe that came from a breeding with both parents having pin in it. 27 eggs and he got 27 pins. my math says he has a 11098/1489548344729 chance or to round it 1/148,954,834...yes over a one in a hundred million chance of hitting the odds.... you be the judge. and yes it looks just like a het pinstripe.

so what do you guys make of that?

Homozygous lethal is a possibility for any dominant type morph until proven differently. Homozygous lethal doesn’t necessarily mean anything bad about the heterozygous form just that you probably don’t want to breed them together.
Without a proven homozygous spider it would have been just as much a rumor to say that spider is dominant for years as to say it's homozygous lethal. It could turn out to be either. It would be very very hard to prove a homozygous lethal morph if the homozygous eggs never hatched. Even if a morph turns out to be dominant it's a matter of opinion how many babies it takes to prove that.
The BHB evidence that Pinstripe is dominant has been accepted for some time (2 years?). If NERD is getting close to that number with their potential homozygous spider and shares those numbers it will answer the legitimate question on spiders in most everyone’s mind. Even just hearing 2 clutches 2nd hand gets spider leaning more toward the dominant side for me than it has for years but without more info on the number of hatchlings or perhaps more hatchlings if it's low I certainly wouldn't consider it an answered question yet now 20 some years after the founding spider was imported.

Oh, and for what it's worth I might have started people considering the possibility of spider being homozygous lethal in an old post on kingsnake. I think Kevin started people considering the possibility that it's dominant on his web page. I don't really care either way I just want to know the answer already. It is what it is and don't think considering either possibility is less responsible than the other.

I could have swore I had a disagreement with someone on here before about the homozygous spider thing, but can't seem to find the post. I've never accepted the homozygous lethal thing though. Also, anytime you see someone list spider as a dominant mutation instead of incompletely dominant or co-dominant, they are implying they don't believe it is homozygous lethal either.

Also, very cool about that pearl. Did it seem to have any neurological issues, such as spider wobbling? I am curious because what I read about pearls suggested they normally had severe neurological problems that typically resulted in death. This one could be exceptional, or one of the other mutations in it may stop whatever is typically fatal in pearls alone. Regardless, cool little animal, and thanks for posting pics of it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ Lawson

Also, very cool about that pearl. Did it seem to have any neurological issues, such as spider wobbling? I am curious because what I read about pearls suggested they normally had severe neurological problems that typically resulted in death. This one could be exceptional, or one of the other mutations in it may stop whatever is typically fatal in pearls alone. Regardless, cool little animal, and thanks for posting pics of it!

---

Didn't have any neurological issue I could see at all, and I was looking for it. I didn't flip it on its back or anything, but no wooble at all. tongue was flickering and very alert. it was very curious snake lol. acted just like a normal ball python.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Homozygous lethal is a possibility for any dominant type morph until proven differently. Homozygous lethal doesn’t necessarily mean anything bad about the heterozygous form just that you probably don’t want to breed them together.
Without a proven homozygous spider it would have been just as much a rumor to say that spider is dominant for years as to say it's homozygous lethal. It could turn out to be either. It would be very very hard to prove a homozygous lethal morph if the homozygous eggs never hatched. Even if a morph turns out to be dominant it's a matter of opinion how many babies it takes to prove that.
The BHB evidence that Pinstripe is dominant has been accepted for some time (2 years?). If NERD is getting close to that number with their potential homozygous spider and shares those numbers it will answer the legitimate question on spiders in most everyone’s mind. Even just hearing 2 clutches 2nd hand gets spider leaning more toward the dominant side for me than it has for years but without more info on the number of hatchlings or perhaps more hatchlings if it's low I certainly wouldn't consider it an answered question yet now 20 some years after the founding spider was imported.

Oh, and for what it's worth I might have started people considering the possibility of spider being homozygous lethal in an old post on kingsnake. I think Kevin started people considering the possibility that it's dominant on his web page. I don't really care either way I just want to know the answer already. It is what it is and don't think considering either possibility is less responsible than the other.

---

possibility is the key word, the "fact" on here was homozygous spider was lethal so don't breed em together. It should of been we just don't know yet, go ahead and try it, but be warned, we don't know.

and this information shouldn't be herd first coming from some random guy on the web, I think people should of asked them directly before I was even in this hobby, or atleast sometime before today. I was honestly shocked, and probably why I didn't think to ask them how many eggs there were so I could give a probability.

want the answer? go ask em, their not hiding it like people also liked to claim.

I could never get numbers for the pinstripes, now I got em. thought id throw em out there.

Good information...Did you get it from Kevin at Tinley? :)

Yah, I don't ever expect a return e-mail or phone call from them...I gave up years ago, now I just admire their creations...

I never heard that it was a fact before, just that it was rumored to be letal, just as it was rumoured to be dom. maybe. IMO take nothing as "fact". Things are happening so fast, lips are tight, only option is to breed to prove, or read about it when someone else does its and feels like sharing. I beleive that the "superball" aka super spotnose was rumored lethal for a year or so also after the first one died, and I think that one was dropped. Rumors start, take it all with the preverbal grain of salt


chris

Um,

We have pointed out in several threads on the subject that nobody knows for sure if spider is homozygous lethal. :confused:

It's also mentioned that nobody has come forward with one - which is where the rumour comes from. There is also the rumour of pearls with something else mixed in surviving where as pearls from hidden gene womas on their own not thriving - but nobody has ever vounteered the information. :rolleyes:

Don't be dissapointed in the reptile community - if you must be dissapointed in learning something new be dissapointed in the people that didn't come forward with a proven homozygous or the people who didn't read the threads right. :P **ducks**

Seriously not kidding - go re-read the threads.

I'm glad you got some answers from the source though - getting the skinny from the people best placed to know is always welcome. :bow:


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Um,

We have pointed out in several threads on the subject that nobody knows for sure if spider is homozygous lethal. :confused:

It's also mentioned that nobody has come forward with one - which is where the rumour comes from. There is also the rumour of pearls with something else mixed in surviving where as pearls from hidden gene womas on their own not thriving - but nobody has ever vounteered the information. :rolleyes:

Don't be dissapointed in the reptile community - if you must be dissapointed in learning something new be dissapointed in the people that didn't come forward with a proven homozygous or the people who didn't read the threads right. :P **ducks**

Seriously not kidding - go re-read the threads.

I'm glad you got some answers from the source though - getting the skinny from the people best placed to know is always welcome. :bow:


dr del

---

^^^^^^^^^This exactly!!!!

Honestly, I've never heard about the homozygous spider or homozygous pins being lethal, just difficult to tell from a single-gene snake. The pearl, though, never heard of one thriving--glad to see one that is.

(But that's a homozygous "hidden gene woma", right? That would be a completely different animal from a homozygous ordinary woma, correct?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

I'm glad you got some answers from the source though - getting the skinny from the people best placed to know is always welcome. :bow:

---

I was disappointed that no one else has done this before me. I mean im a nobody as far as the reptile community goes. all the debates and what not we've had on here and no ones bothered to ask them?

and btw reread the threads (atleast resent threads) and im the one argueing we don't know anything for sure. I always through out the possiblity its not a simple gene and we can't pin point whats going on with it. could be lethal, could just only exisit in the het form for some reason we don't understand, all we could do was speculate. im not disappointed in that, we don't know what we don't know lol.

now you guys got 2nd hand info, im urge you guys to make it 1st hand info for yourselves and possibly get some more data I forgot to ask for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonunit

Honestly, I've never heard about the homozygous spider or homozygous pins being lethal, just difficult to tell from a single-gene snake. The pearl, though, never heard of one thriving--glad to see one that is.

(But that's a homozygous "hidden gene woma", right? That would be a completely different animal from a homozygous ordinary woma, correct?)

---

yes thats a hidden gene woma, i guess the story goes, the orginal woma came first, then NERD got one, looked like a woma, they called it woma, then they saw the combo it was throwing, thought it had a hidden gene and then figured out it a completly different morph. someone want to give merit to that story?

off topic but has anyone made a homozygous woma?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

yes thats a hidden gene woma, i guess the story goes, the original woma came first, then NERD got one, looked like a woma, they called it woma, then they saw the combo it was throwing, thought it had a hidden gene and then figured out it a completely different morph. someone want to give merit to that story?

off topic but has anyone made a homozygous woma?

---

the story is right except that the HG came first iirc

and BHB has done woma x woma had homozygous womas, its not lethal and is just dominant


edit: also, a superball is a borneo short tailed python x ball python hybrid. a powerball is a super spotnose

There are threads where NERD has provided some first hand info on homozygous spider, way before your time. As I remember they said something like there had been enough spider X spider breedings without a super to prove it dominant. They seemed to discount the possibility of homozygous lethal and didn't quantify how many where "enough". When asked if they had ever proven a homozygous spider they said something like they weren’t interested enough to try. So basically just like now, not enough info yet to answer the question and end either the rumor that it's dominant or the rumor that it's lethal.

Did they say how old the pearl was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

possibility is the key word, the "fact" on here was homozygous spider was lethal so don't breed em together. It should of been we just don't know yet, go ahead and try it, but be warned, we don't know.

---

Where did you see "don't breed them together, because it's homozygous lethal"? I've never seen that. Donna - aka Winged Wolf was the first person I ever read who claimed as fact that it was a homozygous lethal gene, and I've openly disagreed with that.

I never bought the lethal thing either. I remeber a thread a few months ago about it where I said that it was wrong that some people were claiming it as a fact. I think unless more people do the breedings and we start seeing a lot of eggs going bad during incubation, or babies failing to thrive there is really no evidence to support the theory. I think eventually know for sure. We should start seeing a lot more people pairing spider combos with other spider combos now that are getting so common. Not really even shooting for a super spider, but more just to increase your odds of hitting on 4,5,6... gene morphs. I would be surprised if nerd has not done many of these combos already to produce some of the crazy spider combos they make.

I would also be interested in knowing how old that Pearl is. Doesn't look very old to me so unless nerd has an adult laying around I am not sure we can put that one to rest yet. I just don't see any possibility that mixing another gene into the pearl could make it any more viable. It just does not make any sense, but I guess anything is possible with BP's.

I never bought it, I always believed that it was likely something similar to the Pinstripe where the homozygous form just looks like the "heterozygous" form.

I stopped posting in those threads because frankly a simple forum search will provide you with a few dozen of the exact same thread over and over and over and over again. And it gets really old stating the same opinion over and over again, with a new "know it all" trying to argue with you.

[rant]If people would use the search function for a change the post counts would be 1/2 of what they are.[/rant]

/residentknowitall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

Where did you see "don't breed them together, because it's homozygous lethal"? I've never seen that. Donna - aka Winged Wolf was the first person I ever read who claimed as fact that it was a homozygous lethal gene, and I've openly disagreed with that.

---

I see it all the time, I searched "spider x spider" and heres a few threads.... both of us, always trying to clear it up also
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...pider+x+spider

this must be the post your refering to, but as you can see the OP herd it form somewhere else along with a few other people.
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...pider+x+spider

2nd post on each of these
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...pider+x+spider
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...pider+x+spider

just search "spider x spider"

if your point is not everyone believes (believed) it to be lethal, ok mayb i should of used better wording and made myself more clear, but it was a rumor that should of ended a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

There are threads where NERD has provided some first hand info on homozygous spider, way before your time. As I remember they said something like there had been enough spider X spider breedings without a super to prove it dominant. They seemed to discount the possibility of homozygous lethal and didn't quantify how many where "enough". When asked if they had ever proven a homozygous spider they said something like they weren’t interested enough to try. So basically just like now, not enough info yet to answer the question and end either the rumor that it's dominant or the rumor that it's lethal.

Did they say how old the pearl was?

---

my opinion is they wern't trying to produce a homozygous, just they noticed they had one that was possible, all he told me was all spiders out of 2 clutches, i wish i asked how many eggs were in each clutch.

The pearl looked mayb a few months old, I have no idea. This pearl had no issues, its eating on its own, had 100% control over what it was doing, flicking its tounge. acting 100% normal, its not like alot of the others.

it sounded like age wasn't the issue, it was more they were so screwed up they couldn't eat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

it was a rumor that should of ended a long time ago.

---

Agreed. Pinstripe is a much younger mutation and we have already had the answer for it for a year or two. Hopefully we can get those numbers on the spider clutches and maybe know if the rumor that spider is dominant is true or not. However if the numbers don't yet support a proven homozygous spider then the homozygous lethal explanation still remains plausible. If it is homozygous lethal, it may not be possible to ever prove that.

What is your original post really all about?
Thinking you're the first person to ask NERD about homozygous spiders is ridiculous.
Of course people have asked and the ones that were able to get responses, did.

When I was speaking with Kevin years ago, his answer was simply:

They never really pursued the homozygous spider. They were too busy making all the cool combos they could with the spider gene to ever really care.

I have to say that the comment about them claiming to have a possibly homo spider is funny. Sounds like they suspected you as being gullible and are having a little fun with you.

2 clutches...all spiders... Yep, sounds good to me. Haha. 2 whole clutches.

-Steven

Here's an often referred to thread where the reference to the spider x spider combo clearly states there is no definitive answers yet. It does not claim "fact" one way or another.

http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showt...Basic-Genetics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

...., but it was a rumor that should of ended a long time ago.

---

If Kevin only has two clutches that have thrown all spiders...this says he hasn't been trying (or looking) for a super for all that long...so why should we have had an answer years ago? :confuzd:

Personally, I've always been a tad surprised that more people haven't tried and proven it out before this...but it is what it is...for whatever reason, even IF someone has a known super-spider, they have not showered the 'Net with proof of it. So why should we have all known this so long ago?

There's always the possibility that there is a homozygous spider: it just looks like a regular spider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevenkeogh

What is your original post really all about?
Thinking you're the first person to ask NERD about homozygous spiders is ridiculous.

Of course people have asked and the ones that were able to get responses, did.

When I was speaking with Kevin years ago, his answer was simply:

They never really pursued the homozygous spider. They were too busy making all the cool combos they could with the spider gene to ever really care.

---

it is ridiculous, thats my point, i said there no way I was the first person, so why have I never seen someone say something about it in the countless homozygous threads, I kept hearing kevin said he proved there wasn't a homozygous, which isn't true, he said he proved it to be dominate, then obviously with your input he didn't try to prove a homozygous. this is news to me, why didn't you say something in one of the threads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevenkeogh

I have to say that the comment about them claiming to have a possibly homo spider is funny. Sounds like they suspected you as being gullible and are having a little fun with you.

2 clutches...all spiders... Yep, sounds good to me. Haha. 2 whole clutches.

-Steven

---

read post #19 and that wouldn't make sense, if you were standing there and got told they had a possible homozygous, would you laugh at them and say "ha good one, im not stupid" when they are the most likly people to have one, who can tell them "no your wrong"? i mean if the 2 clutches had 6 eggs each, thats a 1/4069 chance of hitting all spiders... sure we'd like to see more, but statistics is statistics.

Check for a thread where I posted how many clutches/hatchlings I had out of my poss homo spider. It was more than two clutches, never threw a normal but I still stopped short of saying it was a homo spider, intending on waiting for more clutches to make such a claim. Sadly, my male spider died this past year, so we'll never know.

I'm not quite coherant right now to look it up, but the info is there. I wouldn't consider it to be definitive until at least ten clutches, and I had a LOT of non-viable eggs/hatchlings out of him, but all formed fetuses were spiders.

Loads of folks have talked to NERD about the spider/homo spider/possiblities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Check for a thread where I posted how many clutches/hatchlings I had out of my poss homo spider. It was more than two clutches, never threw a normal but I still stopped short of saying it was a homo spider, intending on waiting for more clutches to make such a claim. Sadly, my male spider died this past year, so we'll never know.

I'm not quite coherant right now to look it up, but the info is there. I wouldn't consider it to be definitive until at least ten clutches, and I had a LOT of non-viable eggs/hatchlings out of him, but all formed fetuses were spiders.

Loads of folks have talked to NERD about the spider/homo spider/possiblities.

---

i looked, you first clutch was 4 eggs, all i could find, id be intrested in how big your 2nd clutch was if you ever look it up.

Ok, what I don´t understand (or believe) is why hasn´t anyone ever bred a spider x spider.
It´s as simple as that so I don´t know why this hasn´t been done.

regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gran Pito

Ok, what I don´t understand (or believe) is why hasn´t anyone ever bred a spider x spider.
It´s as simple as that so I don´t know why this hasn´t been done.

regards

---

What makes you think that they haven't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

What makes you think that they haven't?

---

The rumor is still out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Gran Pito

Ok, what I don´t understand (or believe) is why hasn´t anyone ever bred a spider x spider.
It´s as simple as that so I don´t know why this hasn´t been done.

regards

---

It has been done, if the homozygous exists, it will look like a hetrozygous spider. so the only way to prove it homozygous, is through multiple breedings and it sounds like this hasn't been explored too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

Ok, you cannot tell me I am the first one on this forum, to ask NERD directly (founders of the spider project) about the homozygous spider.... but yet time and time again, we are told that the homozygous spider is lethal, it doesn't exist, kevin told all of us.

100% WRONG

All i did was ask them, I believe my exact words were "Hey, since you guys are the founders of the spider project, what do you know about the homozygous spider being lethal?"

They told me that its a rumor that started around the time kevin started selling his spiders and never left and became "fact". They have never seen anything that suggests it. How can I be the first person to post this here? I've never seen this info here, and the whole homozygous spider thing seems to be fact around here.

then it gets better

then they tell me they have a suspected homozygous spider breeding, right now, has thrown all spiders in 2 clutches ( i didn't ask them how many eggs) and came from a breeding with both parents having spider in it. They believe it to be homozygous. could they of hit awesome odds? sure they could of, but sounds like the homozygous spider looks like a het spider, just like the pinstripe (ill get back to that one later)



so what do you guys make of that?

---

OK - I happen to be at NERD right now for the weekend, and I just asked Kevin about this. He remembers you asking about the homozygous lethal and said that he said there's no such thing when it comes to spider. But he said that he NEVER said nor implied that they have a homozygous spider. I read the post from my phone to him and he said that he doesn't remember that part of the conversation.

So - for the record, Kevin said that he has not produced and does not believe that there is a homozygous spider nor that spider is homozygous lethal.

Thanks for that update rabernet.

So sounds like we are back to the question of why is there no public proven homozygous spider.

Is it:

1. Not enough spider X spider breedings have been done to produce a homozygous spider. Remember that NERD reported enough spider X spider breedings where done for them to be sure there wasn't a visible different super spider.

2. Not enough of those possible homozygous spiders have been bred to find the ones that are homozygous. I suppose this depends on how many possible homozygous spiders where produced early on. I know TSK produced some female possible homozygous spiders in the last few years that have yet to breed. I would think that most all of the early spiders where bred but more recently perhaps some are just pets.

3. Homozygous spiders are proven but for some reason aren't being publicized. Could just be in the hands of keepers that aren't on the net and/or don't care to give out such information. Could be that they are upside down all the time and don't photograph well.

4. Spider is homozygous lethal. This might be very difficult to prove. I don't know enough about python reproduction to know if this is even possible but what if they die at conception. Would they come out as slugs or could they possibly not get shelled at all? The pearl is easier to make the homozygous lethal case for because a visually different assumed homozygous animal actually hatches and lives for a while but if the homozygous spider doesn't even hatch you are trying to prove something by its absence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

OK - I happen to be at NERD right now for the weekend, and I just asked Kevin about this. He remembers you asking about the homozygous lethal and said that he said there's no such thing when it comes to spider. But he said that he NEVER said nor implied that they have a homozygous spider. I read the post from my phone to him and he said that he doesn't remember that part of the conversation.

So - for the record, Kevin said that he has not produced and does not believe that there is a homozygous spider nor that spider is homozygous lethal.

---

One of his employees was told me, kevin was standing next to him when he was talking to me tho, he didn't argue with anything that was said, he atleast looked like he was listening, but i guess not. he told me right after he said that there was nothing that suggested a lethal homozygous spider. literally the sentence after. i donno the guys name, bigger guy with a bald head.

im tried to retype exactly what was said, so there was no confussion.

ok i feel i need to defend myself just because this is bothering me

I just repeated what was said to me at tinley, from what I thought was the most reliable source, I guess besides Kevin, but why wouldn't kevin's employee know the same things he does? I just didn't want to bother kevin and I was already talking to his employee. I can only say what I was told. Its not like I was trying to lie, there was nothing "implied" thats what I was told.

obviously someone else would verify the information, which rabernet did, and what I wanted, so someone else could hear the same thing. then it comes back as false, makes me look like a *insert word of choice here.* So i was lied to i guess, what else can I say.:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

obviously someone else would verify the information, which rabernet did, and what I wanted, so someone else could hear the same thing. then it comes back as false, makes me look like a *insert word of choice here.* So i was lied to i guess, what else can I say.:mad:

---

To me there is a difference between being lied to and someone telling you something they believe to be the truth and being mistaken. I don't think you were lied to so in turn you're no a lier you were simply passing on information that you received and it turned out to be less than accurate, No sweat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

ok i feel i need to defend myself just because this is bothering me

I just repeated what was said to me at tinley, from what I thought was the most reliable source, I guess besides Kevin, but why wouldn't kevin's employee know the same things he does? I just didn't want to bother kevin and I was already talking to his employee. I can only say what I was told. Its not like I was trying to lie, there was nothing "implied" thats what I was told.

obviously someone else would verify the information, which rabernet did, and what I wanted, so someone else could hear the same thing. then it comes back as false, makes me look like a *insert word of choice here.* So i was lied to i guess, what else can I say.:mad:

---

You weren't lied to, you just given information from someone who really doesn't know and speculated. Since Kevin and I were going through his recent creations yesterday, I asked him about it, and he looked completely confused until I mentioned the part about the homozygous lethal and then he remembered that part of the conversation. He laughed and said "no - I've never said, nor do I believe that there is a homozygous form of the spider".

I've been reading this thread, but I haven't voiced my opinions because I don't want to be giving out information that is not necessarily mine to give out, that and I am very new to the community and don't expect people to necessarily believe me. I am not going to name any names or sources in order to keep confidentiality, so you can believe what I have to say or disregard it, but I fully believe that this information is true and comes from a reliable source.

Now that the disclaimer is out there...

I spoke with someone recently about spiders and spider wobble. This person is not new to the BP business by any means. The person I spoke with has a homozygous spider. I did not ask much about it, whether he bred it, etc, but he told me that it looks like a reduced spider. He also mentioned that it has an awful wobble; it is a male.

***BUT IT IS NOT HOMOZYGOUS LETHAL***

He said that he does NOT believe that the awful wobble is because it is a 'lethal' combination. He fully believes that it is because the spider was so heavily inbred early on that the animal is the way it is because of serious inbreeding and not because it is a homozygous spider. It is also an older animal, so it was produced before the spider was really outcrossed.

He does not believe that the wobble and spider are inseparable. He among some others believe that the spider wobble generated at the earliest stages of the morph development. When they were first brought over, they were so heavily inbred (spider to spider) that some developed a serious wobble. Now that they are being outcrossed, you are seeing spiders/combos that have little to no apparent wobble.

The theory that the genes sit close to each other on the genetic ladder implies that it is harder to separate right at the cutoff from other deformities. This is a possible explanation for why it has taken so much outcrossing to see spiders without wobble.

I know people VEHEMENTLY believe that 100% of all spiders/combos have wobble. He does not believe this (nor do I.) I think MOST spiders carry wobble to some degree, maybe even 95%+, but I believe there are some out there without it. I have seen a spider with no visible wobble (and I've tried all the 'tricks' to get it to do so) I have also seen spiders/combos with significant wobble or at least *some* wobble (this is more often than not.)

I am not saying there are a lot of spiders that don't wobble, or that it will be easy to eradicate wobble from the spider ball pythons. I just believe that it is possible to separate the two.

***

Anyways, I'm not trying to start any arguments, I simply wanted to share the information that I had acquired. I don't see any reason to keep it a secret, but if people ARE keeping it a secret for some reason, I didn't want to name names or give out specific information.

My only thoughts are that, there are no/very few homozygous spiders that aren't showing signs of heavy inbreeding and they are waiting to produce one that they are comfortable showing to the public. There is something preventing the spider to be free from the wobble (whether it be because the genes lie close together or whatever other reason) but I believe that this is why it has taken so long to see spiders with less wobble.

anyway you could talk to him again and possibly get some more info? if hes been around awhile, it might be time for him to get on the forum.

as for the spider wobble, which may be a little off topic, I don't think people have an issue with it because I can't find one case of a spider having a wobble so bad it cannot thrive. even if one did pop up, natural selection would take care of it. if he has a breeding homozygous spider, it obviously thrives so why not share some information with the rest of us? the issue has nothing to do with the wooble, its what the gene truly is.

also i will add even if he did get on I wouldn't expect everyone to 100% "believe" him right away, even if he says hes produced 50 eggs all spiders. but if more people come forward mayb even a couple years from now, we might be able to put together something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sungmina

I've been reading this thread, but I haven't voiced my opinions because I don't want to be giving out information that is not necessarily mine to give out, that and I am very new to the community and don't expect people to necessarily believe me. I am not going to name any names or sources in order to keep confidentiality, so you can believe what I have to say or disregard it, but I fully believe that this information is true and comes from a reliable source.

Now that the disclaimer is out there...

I spoke with someone recently about spiders and spider wobble. This person is not new to the BP business by any means. The person I spoke with has a homozygous spider. I did not ask much about it, whether he bred it, etc, but he told me that it looks like a reduced spider. He also mentioned that it has an awful wobble; it is a male.

***BUT IT IS NOT HOMOZYGOUS LETHAL***

He said that he does NOT believe that the awful wobble is because it is a 'lethal' combination. He fully believes that it is because the spider was so heavily inbred early on that the animal is the way it is because of serious inbreeding and not because it is a homozygous spider. It is also an older animal, so it was produced before the spider was really outcrossed.

He does not believe that the wobble and spider are inseparable. He among some others believe that the spider wobble generated at the earliest stages of the morph development. When they were first brought over, they were so heavily inbred (spider to spider) that some developed a serious wobble. Now that they are being outcrossed, you are seeing spiders/combos that have little to no apparent wobble.

The theory that the genes sit close to each other on the genetic ladder implies that it is harder to separate right at the cutoff from other deformities. This is a possible explanation for why it has taken so much outcrossing to see spiders without wobble.

I know people VEHEMENTLY believe that 100% of all spiders/combos have wobble. He does not believe this (nor do I.) I think MOST spiders carry wobble to some degree, maybe even 95%+, but I believe there are some out there without it. I have seen a spider with no visible wobble (and I've tried all the 'tricks' to get it to do so) I have also seen spiders/combos with significant wobble or at least *some* wobble (this is more often than not.)

I am not saying there are a lot of spiders that don't wobble, or that it will be easy to eradicate wobble from the spider ball pythons. I just believe that it is possible to separate the two.

***

Anyways, I'm not trying to start any arguments, I simply wanted to share the information that I had acquired. I don't see any reason to keep it a secret, but if people ARE keeping it a secret for some reason, I didn't want to name names or give out specific information.

My only thoughts are that, there are no/very few homozygous spiders that aren't showing signs of heavy inbreeding and they are waiting to produce one that they are comfortable showing to the public. There is something preventing the spider to be free from the wobble (whether it be because the genes lie close together or whatever other reason) but I believe that this is why it has taken so long to see spiders with less wobble.

---

The very first spider that was imported (and the animal that ALL spiders are descendents of) has the wobble. It's the ONLY spider ever found in Africa and imported. It has ZERO to do with inbreeding, as spiders are the most outbred of the mutations, because it has no super form.

Recessives are far more likely to be inbred - especially pieds when they were first imported, and yet none of them have any genetic defects that we are aware of.

Count myself as one who believes that the wobble is part of the spider gene. Even with all the combo's that Kevin is doing with even more outcrossing (and spider combo's that have influences of three or four other genes as well) - they all have a degree of wobble.

Kevin's seen more spiders than anyone - he also believes that the spider and the wobble can't be separated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

anyway you could talk to him again and possibly get some more info? if hes been around awhile, it might be time for him to get on the forum.

as for the spider wobble, which may be a little off topic, I don't think people have an issue with it because I can't find one case of a spider having a wobble so bad it cannot thrive. even if one did pop up, natural selection would take care of it. if he has a breeding homozygous spider, it obviously thrives so why not share some information with the rest of us? the issue has nothing to do with the wooble, its what the gene truly is.

also i will add even if he did get on I wouldn't expect everyone to 100% "believe" him right away, even if he says hes produced 50 eggs all spiders. but if more people come forward mayb even a couple years from now, we might be able to put together something.

---

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.)

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. ;)