morph genetic flaws?

first, a random thought- anyone think about the fact that one of the super expensive morphs is basically basically a normal ball python with a defect, genetically speaking? ;)

seriously, though, i love the morphs - something even more beautiful and special than a normal BP is. i wanted to breed my normals this season (my ladies were still a bit underweight, though), and i'm sure that eventually i'll want to buy a morph or two to make it even more exciting. since it'll be a little while before i'm working with morphs, i want to learn as much i can about them now. and i viewed a thread a few days ago that concerned me (that i can't find now). a few messages in the thread discussed some of the problems encountered with breeding the different morphs. the example i remember was the spider- the trait was expressed in the het state, being a dominant gene, but in the homozygous state it was possibly lethal to the snake. i was wondering if some breeders would share some information on this and any other problems they might have encountered in their work with the various morphs. i figure that since so many (if not all) of the different types have been inbred at sometime, there might be common problems associated with some of them.

thanks, and props to all for such an informative site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myopia

first, a random thought- anyone think about the fact that one of the super expensive morphs is basically basically a normal ball python with a defect, genetically speaking? ;)

---

no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myopia

the example i remember was the spider- the trait was expressed in the het state, being a dominant gene, but in the homozygous state it was possibly lethal to the snake.

---

There is ZERO evidence of that. It's basically just wild specualtion by monday morning morph breeders. The common belief by people that are actually working with spiders is that there is simply no homozygous state for the morph.


-adam

Quote:

---

There is ZERO evidence of that. It's basically just wild specualtion by monday morning morph breeders.

---

What has had me speculating about the viability of homozygous spiders for several years is the lack of evidence that they exist. I'm not saying for sure spider is one way or the other; it's just that the proven homozygous spider is getting more and more conspicuous by its absence each year.

You could turn it around and say it's wild speculation to assume that any morph for sure isn't homozygous lethal before it's proven otherwise. There is actually a precedent for homozygous lethal in other species and perhaps even in the woma ball pythons. One breeder told me that they where taught that "homozygous lethal" would cover a pearl that wasn't healthy enough to live to breed. However now it looks like there might be another strain that might be the same thing and not have that problem. In Syrian hamsters the homozygous lethal dominant spot gene is very popular, you just don't normally pair dominant spot animals.

Quote:

---

The common belief by people that are actually working with spiders is that there is simply no homozygous state for the morph

---

Please elaborate. Do you mean that you don't think the homozygous genotype is possible or that it exists and just doesn't have a visibly different phenotype? If you don't think it is possible then what is happening to the spider gene eggs that are fertilized by a spider gene sperm? Even if some how conception of the expected 1:4 homozygous spider gene babies from breeding heterozygous spider X heterozygous spider didn't happen I would think that would still fall under the classification as a "homozygous lethal" morph situation.

Maybe this year someone will prove a homozygous spider out and it’s just hasn’t been long enough to prove one before now. I have very little data on how many spider X spider breedings there have been so far and how many 33% chance homozygous spiders have been produced and bred yet. It just seems like it’s been a couple years since NERD announced that they felt they had made “enough” spider X spider crosses to feel confident that there wasn’t a visibly different looking spider so I would have expected enough of the male spider phenotype animals from those breedings to have bred by now and exposed the expected 1:3 homozygous spider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

You could turn it around and say it's wild speculation to assume that any morph for sure isn't homozygous lethal before it's proven otherwise.

---

You could say anything you want. I'm more concerned with what can be proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

There is actually a precedent for homozygous lethal in other species

---

In 50 years of captive reptile breedings, has there ever been a documented case of a homozygous lethal anything?

What's more likely, that the first time evidence of homozygous lethal shows up in the reptile kingdom it just happens to be in a co-dominant mutation of ball pythons or that a visually different "super" spider just doesn't exist?

There's a basic principal of logic that states "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". Obviously, I tend to agree.

-adam

Quote:

---

first, a random thought- anyone think about the fact that one of the super expensive morphs is basically basically a normal ball python with a defect, genetically speaking?

---

Yeah...I think about it all the time. Except, I don't think of them as "defects"; I think of them as mutants;) I often wonder if any of the mutants I have would make it out in the wild.......I know most would not. Lucky to have me:confused:.....who knows????? But I do think about it often.
I often wonder if the climate or environment were to change in Africa, which of the mutants would be best suited for survival. I think brown backs or spiders or axanthics would make it out in the wild and who knows.......if the environment were to change in such a way as to favor their survival.......they might become the norm. Albinos don't stand a chance:(
There is one thing that irks me though......"non snake" people tend to think of mutations, or "defects" as you put it, as a bad thing. But the truth is that mutation is the key to life and one of the key prinicples to evolution. Mutation is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myopia
i wanted to breed my normals this season (my ladies were still a bit underweight, though), and i'm sure that eventually i'll want to buy a morph or two to make it even more exciting. since it'll be a little while before i'm working with morphs, i want to learn as much i can about them now.

---

Good for you....that is the way to get things done. Do your homework first. Good luck in your future projects:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myopia
the example i remember was the spider- the trait was expressed in the het state, being a dominant gene, but in the homozygous state it was possibly lethal to the snake.

---

I don't think this is the case.....I don't think there is much evidence to suport this idea. I suppose that a homozygous spider can be produced.....will it or does it look different than a spider with just one copy of the mutant gene.....I don't know. The fact of the matter is that I have yet to breed or produce a single spider. Most keepers and enthusiasts are in the same boat. Very few have bred a spider to another spider. You would have to ask keepers with real experience on the subject (Kevin or Kara at NERD) to get an answer based on real trials.
I love spiders. It would be awesome if a super spider could be produced (one that was phenotypically different from a spider). But even if one can't be produced or the homozygous version looks no different than regular spider.......it's all good by me. Spiders are killer!
http://www.joecompelreptiles.com/ima...pider_04_9.jpg

Incidentally, I do think it is possible that we will see a lethal mutation in ball pythons. We are just scratching the surface.......our breedings and understanding on ball python genetics are limited. To say something like that is impossible would be foolish.

I guess we are coming up on about 50 years since the albino corn snake was first bred but the first cb ball python morph (also albino) is only about 12 or 13 years old. Morph breeding in snakes has really increased exponentially in the last few years and we have hardly had time to try anything yet.

If there where a homozygous lethal gene in snakes I think it would take a very long time to prove it. The only proof might be the absence of the homozygous and people could say for years that it just hadn't been long enough yet to prove one. I suspect that lots of spider phenotype animals from spider X spider have been bred by now but such numbers are hard to get. We should be seeing 1/3 of these potential homozygous spiders proving out by only producing spiders when bred to a normal but I'm not aware of one of them proving yet. If there have only been a handful of these bred so far then maybe it is just too early to call one way or the other but if dozens of potential homozygous spiders have been bred by now and all of them have proven only heterozygous spider then the evidence is mounting. Just because homozygous lethal is difficult to prove doesn't make it extremely improbable. In fact, I think we as snake breeders tend to sweep the difficult genetic questions under the rug and that might explain why we haven't documented more cases of hard to explain things like multiple morph alleles or mutations being linked by being on the same chromosome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I guess we are coming up on about 50 years since the albino corn snake was first bred but the first cb ball python morph (also albino) is only about 12 or 13 years old. Morph breeding in snakes has really increased exponentially in the last few years and we have hardly had time to try anything yet.

---

If you consider the number of corn, burn, boa, and retic morph breedings and offspring over the last 50 years, ball pythons are just a drop in the bucket. Even though albino balls were proven 12 years ago, ball pythons didn't get hot until 99 or so when Pete proved out pieds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

If there where a homozygous lethal gene in snakes I think it would take a very long time to prove it.

---

So what exactly is the rush? Personally, I'd rather bet on the obvious until that possibility is completely exhausted before I start fantasizing about alternatives. A theory means nothing until it can be proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Just because homozygous lethal is difficult to prove doesn't make it extremely improbable.

---

I agree, but logic dictates that all obvious probabilities should be thoroughly exhausted before considering new precedent. I think the lack of known prior occurrence in any reptilian species is what sets the bar for skepticism. Do you have enough data to conclude that we will never see a homozygous spider and we should be looking for alternative explanations? I don't think anyone does yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

In fact, I think we as snake breeders tend to sweep the difficult genetic questions under the rug and that might explain why we haven't documented more cases of hard to explain things like multiple morph alleles or mutations being linked by being on the same chromosome.

---

I don't agree at all. I think snake breeders are passionate about finding the truth and promoting their love for snakes. I don't think there is anything that a true breeder would not at least consider if it meant understanding their animals better. We've come a long way in only a handful of years and breeders are working very hard to take care of their animals, clean rodents, promote their business, work on sales, educate customers, ship snakes, etc. In that time, people focus on what they can prove. The hobby/business is growing and moving so fast that I don't think people have the luxury of focusing on speculation. For now, people are focusing on what they can prove for certain. I think you'll find that once those avenues are exhausted, the search for answers will take different people in different directions and hopefully lead to some definitive explanations. I think it's unrealistic to expect that to have happened by now, or tomorrow, or next week. Like Joe said above, we are only now scratching the surface.

-adam

Quote:

---

So what exactly is the rush? Personally, I'd rather bet on the obvious until that possibility is completely exhausted before I start fantasizing about alternatives. A theory means nothing until it can be proven.

---

It just seems to me that many are banking on the "obvious" that there will be a homozygous spider without any proof that there will be one. I'm certainly not saying that spider is definitely homozygous lethal, I'm just pointing out the possibility. With very little data on what spider X spider breedings and more importantly breedings of the possible homozygous spiders have been done I can only speculate that it seems like a proven homozygous spider is overdue.

If spider (or any dominant type morph) is homozygous lethal it will likely take years for the public to gather enough indirect evidence to come to a consensus that it is "proven" homozygous lethal. I think the people who work on the project for those years should at least be aware of the possibility so they can make informed decisions and be on the lookout for evidence either supporting or refuting the theory.

If a theory where proven it would be a fact. Theories are useful for comparing to the data along the way to get to the facts eventually. Unfortunately some theories are difficult to prove.

If sickly potential super spiders where regularly hatched (like with Pearl) or about 1/4 of the spider X spider eggs went bad then we would have some direct evidence to support this theory. However, I did see a post by NERD once indicating that spider X spider eggs don't have an abnormally high rate of bad eggs so that is evidence against the homozygous lethal theory. If some how the lethal effect happens early enough to not only prevent sickly homozygous hatchlings or even bad eggs then there would be no direct evidence, just the never ending wait for a proven homozygous spider. This is how the nature of the homozygous lethal dominant spot gene in Syrian hamsters was eventually proven. The hamster breeders had the advantage of much quicker generation times and inexpensive animals to work with so they didn’t have to wait as long for an answer and the stakes and passions probably weren’t as high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I think the people who work on the project for those years should at least be aware of the possibility so they can make informed decisions and be on the lookout for evidence either supporting or refuting the theory.

---

Why would you assume that they aren't already aware of the possibility? Believe it or not, there are some pretty intelligent people out there that actually own and produce spiders, and every year they are getting closer to an answer to this question. I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you're the only person that can think outside the box and feel the need to educate the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

If sickly potential super spiders where regularly hatched (like with Pearl) or about 1/4 of the spider X spider eggs went bad then we would have some direct evidence to support this theory.

---

So how many sickly potential super spiders have you documented?

-adam

also, how could you tell the difference from a regular sickly hatchling and a genetically sick hatchling? Maybe the hatchling just looked sickly...how can you prove the sickly look to be related to the genetics of the animal? It seems to me that there is no way to directly prove that being sickly is related to genetics.

Adam,

Quote:

---

Why would you assume that they aren't already aware of the possibility? Believe it or not, there are some pretty intelligent people out there that actually own and produce spiders, and every year they are getting closer to an answer to this question.

---

I believe you are very intelligent but my take on your opinion (quite possibly incorrect - correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's irresponsible to even speculate on the possibility that spider is homozygous lethal. If intelligent people don’t agree that the chance that spider is homozygous lethal is even worth talking about there are probably lots of people who would have never even thought of the possibility. It's to the point now that there are MANY spider owners and even when there was only a few big spenders with spiders I don't think we could make assumptions about what they knew or didn't know or happened to think about.

My opinion is that the more public discussion and information the better. From one of Stone's posts it sounded to me like he didn't even know about the spinning thing until he hatched some spinning spiders of his own.

Quote:

---

So how many sickly potential super spiders have you documented?

---

When I first saw the post asking about the spinning thing on Kingsnake I almost fired back that it had to be an untrue rumor because if it where true we would surely have heard of it by now. I hadn’t really even thought of the possibility before that post (maybe someone should have speculated about it on the forums to help me think outside the box on that one). I've not heard of ANY sickly potential super spiders but at this point I've become cynical enough that I would no longer assume that we would have heard of them if they existed.


Daniel,

Quote:

---

how could you tell the difference from a regular sickly hatchling and a genetically sick hatchling? Maybe the hatchling just looked sickly...how can you prove the sickly look to be related to the genetics of the animal? It seems to me that there is no way to directly prove that being sickly is related to genetics.

---

That is a tough one. In the case of the Woma and Pearl we are just guessing due to the lack of a reported healthy Pearl (presumed homozygous Woma) from the original line. However, now there is a report of a healthy adult that looks like a pearl so maybe the guess was wrong (too small of a sample size?) or maybe the new line is different from the original.

While not “sickly” animals the cases of kinked caramels and spinning spiders illustrate the way I think about determining if an oddity is related to the mutant gene or not. It’s sounding to me that both caramel kinking and spider spinning may well be inherent to those respective mutant genes. This is based on reports of many caramels being kinked but no reports of their het and possible het caramel siblings being kinked. If the kinking was due to a separate gene not tightly linked to caramel it should show up in the non-caramel siblings which are every bit as inbred as the caramel ones. With spider I’m reading similar reports of no spinning in the non-spider siblings but a significant occurrence of this condition in the spiders in spite of being perhaps the most outbred morph in existence.

too small of a sample size.....

i think that is one of the main points here. The other is that within that small sample size the availability of information is very slim. If ALL breeders could communicate their opinions and data maybe something could be resolved....but what are the chances of that happening? Like it has been said, ball python breeding is kinda new on the scene compared to everything else....maybe this is one of those things that only time will tell.

I have a question. What if the case of homozygous lethal, spinning spiders, and kinked caramels is DEFINATELY determined to be genetics problem...What would that do to them as far as value?

Maybe someone knows the answers to the genetic questions and is just afraid that prices will drop if those problems are true. Just speculation....but i see that as a possibility for not distributing info too fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Adam,



I believe you are very intelligent

---

Well, there's your first mistake ... I'm just your average shmoe. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

but my take on your opinion (quite possibly incorrect - correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's irresponsible to even speculate on the possibility that spider is homozygous lethal.

---

That is totally incorrect. My opinion is that it is irresponsible to speculate in a manner that can be misconstrued as fact. Many people just coming into this hobby thinking about investing in an animal like a spider often struggle with the basic principles of Mendelian theory. There is so much for them to learn and so much bad information on the internet that it's hard for them to figure out what is right and wrong, truth and bull$hit. Then, they stumble across one of your very long, extremely articulate posts speculating about homozygous lethal alleles in spiders and mistakenly are led to the conclusion that the spider they were thinking about buying may end up dying one day because it posses "lethal" genetics. I've spoken to people that had already decided against getting a spider after reading your posts about the possibility of super spiders being homozygous lethal because they didn't understand what the real implications of that possibility were. I’m all about promoting ball pythons in a positive way and feel that the constant barrage of posts speculating about genetic defects and lethal alleles unintentionally turns into fear mongering that frightens new people away from extremely awesome projects that even if they had some degree of genetic complications would still be extremely bountiful financially over the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

My opinion is that the more public discussion and information the better.

---

I'm all for that as well, but I'd like to see more hard data with that discussion and less "lets dream up a scenario". How can you openly speculate about the lack of an actual super spider without at least guesstimating how many spider x spider offspring have been produced? Or talk about kinked caramel without talking about the ratio of non-kinked to kinked animals? I know you don't breed any of these morphs yourself, but if you'd like to actually do some research by talking with breeders that do and present some kind of findings, then lets discuss until we're blue in the face. Without that, sitting back in an Ez Chair and deciding that super spiders are probably homozygous lethal is about as responsible as saying that Elvis is running around kidnapping them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

From one of Stone's posts it sounded to me like he didn't even know about the spinning thing until he hatched some spinning spiders of his own.

---

That's too bad for Jeremy. With each project that I've invested in, I've always either been educated by the breeder or educated myself as to the projects entire history and idiosyncrasies that go along with it. The information is out there if you take the time to look, and if you're actually spending the money, the information will find you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

When I first saw the post asking about the spinning thing on Kingsnake I almost fired back that it had to be an untrue rumor because if it where true we would surely have heard of it by now. I hadn’t really even thought of the possibility before that post (maybe someone should have speculated about it on the forums to help me think outside the box on that one). I've not heard of ANY sickly potential super spiders but at this point I've become cynical enough that I would no longer assume that we would have heard of them if they existed.

---

I don't feel that it's anyone duty to go out on the internet and disclose anything. Buy an animal from a reputable breeder and if there is a history to the morph, you will hear about it. The problem is that with most of the issues out there in the ball python world right now, there are no real answers. No one can say for sure what causes spinners or how frequently they happen. No one can give you any real information about kinking frequencies in caramels. Etc, Etc .... Breeders are working very hard to gather data and find answers to these questions, but it's really going to take some time. In the mean time, what purpose does it serve to go on a public forum and say "Hey, I think I know about a problem, but don't ask me any questions, because I don't know anything yet." .... I mean, who really wants to do that?

The information will come out, and there will be hard data to back it up. If the answers aren't coming fast enough for you, then drop the big coin and answer them for yourself.

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

I have a question. What if the case of homozygous lethal, spinning spiders, and kinked caramels is DEFINATELY determined to be genetics problem...What would that do to them as far as value?

Maybe someone knows the answers to the genetic questions and is just afraid that prices will drop if those problems are true. Just speculation....but i see that as a possibility for not distributing info too fast.

---

No one knows the answers Daniel ... Contrary to popular belief, there are no great ball python conspiracies out there. The big guys in the game, while at each others throats from time to time, really do love these animals.

As far as price, I don't think it makes one difference. I knew about all of the rumors before I bought my animals and I laid down the big bucks anyway. Why? Because spiders KICK A$$!!! and Caramels are AMAZING!! It is possible to produce non-spinning spiders and non-kinked caramels, so why wouldn't they be a great investment if they are a morph you want to work with!!!

As far as homozygous lethal spiders ... if one day it proves to be true, in all likelihood, all it will mean is that a super spider dies in utero. It doesn't mean that spiders will one day start dying because they have some kind of "lethal" genetics.

Be careful what you read on the internet ... whether it's posted by me, a big breeder, or anyone ... always do your own research and make your own conclusions.

-adam

sorry, I was not accusing anyone. I dont have the pleasure of knowing alot of those bigger breeders, so It just seemed like an idea to me. I will cross that one off my bp conspiracy list. Thanks. :)

If you think about it, most of the public discussion about this stuff takes place on online message boards. Many breeders no longer participate on such boards due to all of the drama & BS that usually comes with many public forums. Not a conspiracy...more like a "victim of circumstance." ;)

Just my $.02

K~

wow, i miss a few days and come back to see such a long list of replies. i didn't mean to start a conflict over the whole "lethal" spider thing; i guess it was a bad example to use (since it looks like it's wrong). the thread i saw mentioned the spider spinning and caramel kinking, also the possibility of the spider situation. i wasn't sure about any of them, and just wanted to find out some more info on it. wasn't trying to represent the "i saw it on the internet, i know it's true" state of mind. but i am glad for the clarification on that issue.

really, the spider spinning and caramel kinking were more along the lines of what i was looking for (wish i had remembered those as examples). just wanted to know if anything was commonly noticed in any morph in particular, like the way dog breeds often have specific common health problems (also due to inbreeding). oh, and by the way, what exactly are spinning and kinking, while we're on the subject?

thanks

It's hard to guess what other people will understand. On the one hand perhaps I underestimated the average spider breeder in thinking they wouldn't have even considered the possibility of a homozygous lethal morph. On the other hand, it never occurred to me that there would be readers who wouldn't understand the theory and think that it indicated that heterozygous spiders where likely to drop dead. I've never represented the theory that the lack of a proven homozygous spider so far might be explained by the morph being homozygous lethal as fact and I expected the readers to understand that as well as the only implication of the theory is that it would be a waste of time to breed spider X spider if the theory is eventually substantiated.

As far as the number of potential homozygous spiders (spiders from spider X spider breedings) that have been bred so far there are very few people who could make a very good estimate. If that information is going to be given out I figure a public forum and a thread like this is the place for it. I'd rather not gather such information from a private e-mail and then not know if I should share it or not. I did hear of two male potential homozygous spiders that initially (early clutches) looked like they might prove homozygous last year but then proved to be only heterozygous spider (by producing some normals in later clutches). Based on how long spiders have been available and the unlikelihood that the only two potential homozygous breeding males wouldn't both just happen to produce all spiders their first clutch and be in the hands of breeders who would discuss the situation publicly I suspect that there may have been perhaps several more potential homozygous spiders that have failed to prove by now. After this breeding season hopefully there will be enough public data to assign a probability that homozygous spider exists and just hasn't been bred yet (i.e. there is a 99.97% chance against 20 random potential homozygous spiders in a row all failing to prove homozygous if the expected 1/3 of the spiders from spider X spider are homozygous - when we know of at least 20 potential homozygous spiders failing to prove and none proving then we might start to take the homozygous lethal theory seriously, even though it can technically never be proven).

For what it's worth (or not) spider is the highest morph on my want list (i.e. morphs I want that I think I might be able to afford soon). The reports that some young spiders tend to roll their heads back when they are excited (the "spinning") sounds like a harmless, if not totally desirable, condition to me. Even if it turns out to be impossible to produce a homozygous spider the heterozygous spider and it's combinations with other morphs are stunning, I just probably won't bother to breed spider X spider if there has been enough evidence that homozygous spider isn't possible by the time I have an adult pair of spiders.

I'm also working with possible het caramels. However, now that I know that a large percentage of caramels have visible kinks in their spines (one estimate I read was 50% of the imported ones, also a local breeder to me I believe had 100% kinking of the 2 or 3 caramels he produced and 0% kinking of their possible het siblings) I will be on the look out for any information on any possible countermeasures (incubation temps, humidity, vitamins).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

On the one hand perhaps I underestimated the average spider breeder in thinking they wouldn't have even considered the possibility of a homozygous lethal morph.

---

Well, if you've considered it just sitting around breeding your possible het males, why would you underestimate the ability of someone investing thousands upon thousands of dollars into a breeding project to research all of the possible outcomes of their investment? Sounds to me like the "average spider breeder" has the right to be a little insulted by your lack of faith in their ability to perform adequate due diligence before making an investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

On the other hand, it never occurred to me that there would be readers who wouldn't understand the theory and think that it indicated that heterozygous spiders where likely to drop dead.

---

It didn't? But you have read post after post where people ask if they'll get albinos from breeding het to normal or asking what "possible het" means and why possible hets don't look different from normals? The VAST MAJORITY of people reading ball python message boards are not dealing with genetics on a daily basis and many are just coming up to speed on what "heterozygous" means. Then you come along inundating discussions about spiders with extremely wordy posts beating the reader over the head with the word "lethal". What are new comers supposed to think that means? Who do you think your audience is? I promise you that the "big breeders" aren't reading your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I've never represented the theory that the lack of a proven homozygous spider so far might be explained by the morph being homozygous lethal as fact and I expected the readers to understand that as well as the only implication of the theory is that it would be a waste of time to breed spider X spider if the theory is eventually substantiated.

---

I never said you did represent it as fact, but the problem with propaganda is that if it is repeated over and over and over, sooner or later people will start to view it as truth. The "expectations" you place on readers to me is a little irresponsible given the voracity with which you continue to pummel the message boards with your thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

As far as the number of potential homozygous spiders (spiders from spider X spider breedings) that have been bred so far there are very few people who could make a very good estimate.

---

But do you talk to the very few people that could make that guesstimate? My guess would be no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

If that information is going to be given out I figure a public forum and a thread like this is the place for it.

---

No breeder is going to do that. Why? Here's my theory .... because no one knows for sure, so breeders can only speculate. The problem with speculating on an open forum is that the lack of precision will be attacked. People with "I know better" chips on their shoulders will JUMP out of the wood work in an attempt to bring down the person trying to help. Who wants to deal with that garbage? Breeders have better things to do with their time than to live on a message board defending themselves and their businesses from morons that are just trying to make a name for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I'd rather not gather such information from a private e-mail and then not know if I should share it or not.

---

How about calling a breeder and asking? Talk about the numbers and ask how much they are comfortable with sharing. Even if they said "please keep it all under wraps Randy" the fact that you are actually discussing your theories one on one with breeders that have the data gives you a level of credibility that you don't have right now.

Personally, I’d be all for a post speculating about new genetic precedent if it were backed up with some type of data. Numbers, even if only an educated guess, make all the difference. Without numbers, your theories are not that much different from the headlines in the Weekly World News … which claims to have some basis in fact as well ya know ;)

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

-adam

Quote:

---

you underestimate the ability of someone investing thousands upon thousands of dollars into a breeding project to research all of the possible outcomes of their investment

---

Perhaps the "big breeders" are a little ahead of the newbies on the subject of genetics but I've seen plenty of examples where many of them show they are as fallible as the small breeders. In some cases last year’s newbies are this year’s moderately big breeders. Even a couple years ago when I first posted this theory there was already a good cross section of ball python owners with spiders. At this point there are potential owners of all knowledge levels. I guess I would say that the correlation between how much one spends on morph snakes and knowledge of genetics isn't as close as you might think. Many of us are in the same boat looking for more information and I think a public forum is the fairest way to insure a level playing field for anyone to access as much information as they have the inclination and aptitude to absorb regardless of the size of their pocket book.

Quote:

---

Who do you think your audience is? I promise you that the "big breeders" aren't reading your posts.

---

I think my audience is people like myself who want to help figure these things out in a public forum. I expect people to be able to read and understand. If I repeat a subject it's because I just think the people not understanding must have not seen it yet or I and others haven't done a good enough job of explaining (for example the true meaning of the word "heterozygous" which is currently a big point of confusion in the ball python community). At least you took the time to disagree with my methods but often I hear nothing back and don't know if I'm not being understood or being agreed with or perhaps no-one even cares about the subject. I've hoped that the cutting edge breeders would join in because of the data they can provide but I wouldn't say I single them out as a target audience.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRemington
If that information is going to be given out I figure a public forum and a thread like this is the place for it.


Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki
No breeder is going to do that.

---

Actually Ralph Davis posts a huge amount of breeding data every year. Maybe it has cost him (like when most of us figured out Mojave was likely to be het leucistic 2 years ago) something but it also earns him a lot of good will and trust. Perhaps time management and insecurity are the reasons other breeders don't share more in discussions of cutting edge morph genetics which is what I’m gathering from your post on the subject as opposed to my probably overly cynical take that secretive business concerns are often to blame.

I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility but mainly about the discussion to get to weigh the credibility of the ideas. The big breeders aren’t going to buy my possible hets because I’m credible and frankly they aren’t even worth shipping to anyone likely to find me via the Internet.

Here is a guess for you. I'm guessing that about 10 potential homozygous spiders have breed so far producing large enough sample sizes and/or some normals to have eliminated themselves as homozygous spiders. This guess is based on conservative extrapolating from the two posted examples of male possible homozygous spiders breeding last year for relatively small breeders, that these two cases had the relatively statistically rare probability of producing all spider first clutches (hence making them interesting enough to post), that more established (and traditionally more tight lipped concerning breeding data) breeders likely had an earlier opportunity to breed potential homozygous spiders, and on the assumption that if ANYONE would have statistically proven a homozygous spider they would post that positive info.

There is only a 1.7% chance of 10 RANDOM possible homozygous spiders (33% chance homozygous - the only kind until a homozygous is proven for 50% possible het homozygous from homo X het) in a row failing to prove. If me guess of 10 is good then either we where unlucky enough to miss the 98.3% chance that there would be a homozygous spider in the first 10 potentials to breed, the sample is not random (perhaps the homozygous take longer to reach breeding age or look slightly different and aren't being sold to people who breed them as young etc.), or there isn't going to be a homozygous spider (i.e. the homozygous lethal theory – perhaps “lethal” is an unfortunate word for this morph type due to the excessively negative connotation of the word).

So, someone who can make a better informed guess than I as to how many potential homozygous spiders have been breed without one proving homozygous (and perhaps add if there are still any candidates that bred last year with small sample sizes, or perhaps even some they consider proven homozygous) PLEASE come forward with a better number so we can move on to discussing the possible explanations and the odds of each.

I consider myself to be a newbie to the ball python world. I have had high school genetics and a simple college biology course and I feel that I can hold my own when discussing genetics with someone. These genetic concepts being discussed are NOT NEW to the animal kingdom itself. These genetic concepts are new to the world of ball pythons because people in general are just getting involved with the species. Any "NEW" ball python theory that someone comes up with already exists in another part of the animal kingdom. I believe that over time the majority of genetic possibilities concerning ball pythons will be discovered and explained. How long this process will take, only god knows.

As far as the homozygous spider is concerned, how will it ever be proven without a genetic analysis of the snake? Assuming homosygous lethal (in utero) to be true: With every spider x spider breeding, the chance of an normal egg going bad compared to the chance of the egg containing the homozygous form are for the most part the same. So guessing that every 'bad egg' from a spider x spider breeding is the result of a homozygous lethal trait seems to be incorrect. How is one to know if the bad egg is the result of a homozygous lethal trait or is just a bad egg? In order to prove a trait to be homozygous, you must breed a homozygous pair and produce all homozygous young. If the trait is homozygous lethal, there will NEVER be a homozygous pair to breed. Sorry for the lengthy post....I just want to know how would you prove something to be homozygous lethal (in utero)?

As far as homozygous spiders being produced then dying from a lethal trait years down the road, only time will tell. It could be that they die after 10 years or 25 years. I dont know of any spiders that just spontaneously died of unknown causes in the past 6 years. As far as fear of investing in a homozygous spider for this reason, I dont see the problem as far a money is concerned. Even if there is some homozygous lethal trait after a 6 year time period, you will most likely make your investment back plus alot more. So i dont see it as a problem.

In the case of the homozygous lethal hamsters (dominant spot in Syrian hamsters) it was only "proven" by consensus that after years of never being able to prove out a potential homozygous dominant spot that it must be homozygous lethal. Apparently with that mutation the homozygous embryos are reabsorbed early in gestation so the only evidence is the 3/4 sized litters. I don't think snakes have uteruses so I'm not sure what would happen to eggs that died at various stages. I think the female's follicles are pretty well developed at fertilization so hard to imagine them not coming out in some form but I’m certainly no expert at python reproduction. I've actually read a post indicating that there wasn't a tendency for 1/4 of the spider X spider eggs to go bad so that is evidence against the theory. Really the only thing supporting it is the lack of a proven homozygous spider so far and for all I know there may have only been the two potential homozygous spiders bred so far. The whole weight of the theory hinges on how many potential homozygous spiders have been bred so far and I doubt we will get many reports before this season’s eggs hatch and perhaps not even then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Many of us are in the same boat looking for more information and I think a public forum is the fairest way to insure a level playing field for anyone to access as much information as they have the inclination and aptitude to absorb regardless of the size of their pocket book.

---

So where are the "Many of us" that share in the belief that the homozygous spider will never appear because of lethal alleles? I've only seen you champion the theory on the forums and some others jump on the bandwagon haphazardly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I expect people to be able to read and understand. If I repeat a subject it's because I just think the people not understanding must have not seen it yet or I and others haven't done a good enough job of explaining (for example the true meaning of the word "heterozygous" which is currently a big point of confusion in the ball python community). At least you took the time to disagree with my methods but often I hear nothing back and don't know if I'm not being understood or being agreed with or perhaps no-one even cares about the subject. I've hoped that the cutting edge breeders would join in because of the data they can provide but I wouldn't say I single them out as a target audience.

---

Here's one big problem I have with your posts ... you use the phrase "homozygous lethal" with no caveats or further explanation and "expect" people to understand what the implications of the idea (if it were proven true) would really mean. Without further explanation, some people are led to conclude wild things like homozygous spiders will drop dead at 6 or 10 years of age instead of realizing that all homozygous lethal would probably mean is that a super spider is just never produced.

Your quest for more information by posting open ended ideas without empirical data or responsible explanations of the true implications of those ideas (if they were to be proven true) actually do more harm than good in my opinion. By now you must realize that the people you want to answer won't and many of the people that are reading your posts are making incorrect assumptions about your ideas. I think that there are ways to go about promoting this hobby/business in a positive manner and at the same time have the discussions you desire, but obviously I don't feel that your ways are it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Actually Ralph Davis posts a huge amount of breeding data every year.

---

Yes, but not on a open forum. He posts them on a static web page that cannot be responded to. Ever wonder why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Perhaps time management and insecurity are the reasons other breeders don't share more in discussions of cutting edge morph genetics which is what I’m gathering from your post on the subject as opposed to my probably overly cynical take that secretive business concerns are often to blame.

---

Ya think? Do you have any idea how much crap big breeders take behind the scenes when they post anything even remotely controversial? It takes a lot of time and energy to keep up with all of the discussion boards, email, and phone calls ... and when you're taking care of 1000+ animals, working on sales, and packing/shipping all day long, at the end of the day you want to go home and be with your family ... not sit on a message board and respond to cheap shots from people that are jealous of what you've accomplished.

On that same note, I've never once called a "big breeder" on the phone and not had any of them graciously take the time to answer my questions one on one. If you're looking for discussion, direct communications may be a much better route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility but mainly about the discussion to get to weigh the credibility of the ideas.

---

Has this ever happened? How long have you been posting your ideas now? Maybe it's time for a new approach?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Here is a guess for you. I'm guessing that about 10 potential homozygous spiders have breed so far producing large enough sample sizes and/or some normals to have eliminated themselves as homozygous spiders. This guess is based on conservative extrapolating from the two posted examples of male possible homozygous spiders breeding last year for relatively small breeders, that these two cases had the relatively statistically rare probability of producing all spider first clutches (hence making them interesting enough to post), that more established (and traditionally more tight lipped concerning breeding data) breeders likely had an earlier opportunity to breed potential homozygous spiders, and on the assumption that if ANYONE would have statistically proven a homozygous spider they would post that positive info.

There is only a 1.7% chance of 10 RANDOM possible homozygous spiders (33% chance homozygous - the only kind until a homozygous is proven for 50% possible het homozygous from homo X het) in a row failing to prove. If me guess of 10 is good then either we where unlucky enough to miss the 98.3% chance that there would be a homozygous spider in the first 10 potentials to breed, the sample is not random (perhaps the homozygous take longer to reach breeding age or look slightly different and aren't being sold to people who breed them as young etc.), or there isn't going to be a homozygous spider (i.e. the homozygous lethal theory – perhaps “lethal” is an unfortunate word for this morph type due to the excessively negative connotation of the word).

---

The numbers are better even if they are a guess .... remember, not all spiders breed at 1, 2, or even 3 years of age ... sometimes it takes a male ball python to get the hang of it and females can be pokey too. You always hear the stories of the strong eaters and early breeders, but you never hear about the animals that grow slow or act like "normal" ball pythons with respect to eating and breeding timetables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

So, someone who can make a better informed guess than I as to how many potential homozygous spiders have been breed without one proving homozygous (and perhaps add if there are still any candidates that bred last year with small sample sizes, or perhaps even some they consider proven homozygous) PLEASE come forward with a better number so we can move on to discussing the possible explanations and the odds of each.

---

LOL ... good luck with that .... Get yourself a calling card and put in the work!

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

These genetic concepts being discussed are NOT NEW to the animal kingdom itself. These genetic concepts are new to the world of ball pythons because people in general are just getting involved with the species. Any "NEW" ball python theory that someone comes up with already exists in another part of the animal kingdom. I believe that over time the majority of genetic possibilities concerning ball pythons will be discovered and explained. How long this process will take, only god knows.

---

Daniel,

You are certainly correct. The concept of lethal alleles is not new to the animal kingdom. But, there is not a single documented case of a lethal allele in any reptile. For almost 50 years now, snakes have been observed and bred in captivity. There have been multitudes of corn, king, milk, boa, burm, retic, and other offspring produced from "wild type" animals as well as morphs without one hint of a lethal allele being present. (Not to mention alligators, bearded dragons, leopard geckos, etc)

If you remember your high school genetics and college biology then you'll also remember that scientific process dictates that when looking for explanations to a problem, the simplest answer is the best place to start. This idea is based on the basic rule of science known as Ockhams razor, which means:


Ock•ham's razor also Oc•cam's razor
n.
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

All I'm asking is what's more likely; .... that in this brand new world of ball python mutations, is the lack of a proven super spider due to the fact that we haven't exhausted the natural breeding timetables needed to prove one yet or is this one (particularly high dollar) mutation in one species of reptiles effected by a phenomenon that shows up for the first time in this class of the animal kingdom after 50 years of captive breedings?

I'm certainly not saying that the idea of super spiders being homozygous lethal is completely outside of the realm of possibilities, I'd just like to follow the most likely theory to it's logical conclusion one way or the other until we attempt to set a brand new precedent for the class Reptilia

-adam

I just wanted to pop in and say I'm so glad you're having this discussion here. It's interesting, informative, and educational, and I think it benefits all of our members to hear from those of you (Joe, Kara, Adam and Randy) who have taken our hobby to the next level (or 2 or 3). Thanks so much! And carry on!

Quote:

---

there is not a single documented case of a lethal allele in any reptile. For almost 50 years now, snakes have been observed and bred in captivity. There have been multitudes of corn, king, milk, boa, burm, retic, and other offspring produced from "wild type" animals as well as morphs without one hint of a lethal allele being present.

---

A homozygous lethal recessive mutation could easily be missed, especially if it dies too early to be seen. Who is going to spend years documenting that 1/4 of the eggs from their normal looking pair die?

Was tiger retic the first dominant type morph in the reptile industry? The first cb tiger retics where only 12 years ago. I don't know why dominant type ball python morphs now seem to be coming out of the woodwork but we have only just barely started working with dominant type morphs given the slow generation time for most reptiles.

However, I've seen several hints at homozygous lethal already. In addition to spider balls, how about woma/pearl balls and jaguar/leucistic carpet pythons? Disclaimer: none of these are proven homozygous lethal and even if they where the heterozygous forms (spider, woma, and jaguar) wouldn’t necessarily have any problems – you just wouldn’t bother to try for the homozygous form if they are eventually accepted to be homozygous lethal.

So, given that there may not have been enough possible homozygous spiders bred yet to support speculation that it's homozygous lethal (meaning that a homozygous spider might not be possible) how many breedings would you need to see to think that homozygous lethal is a likely explanation? If there are homozygous spiders randomly distributed at 33% of the spiders in spider X spider clutches and they are indistinguishable in appearance, health, growth, and breeding then the odds of having at least one homozygous spider in the first group of potential homozygous spiders to breed goes like this:

First 10 = 98.3%
First 20 = 99.97%
First 30 = 99.9996%

So it all comes back to the question of how many potential homozygous spiders have proven not to be homozygous through breeding and are there any candidates yet that have produced a fair number of only spiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

So it all comes back to the question of how many potential homozygous spiders have proven not to be homozygous through breeding and are there any candidates yet that have produced a fair number of only spiders.

---

Exactly, so why don't you do the work and get a sound approximate answer from the people that know? I'd think that talking to the people that have actually done spider x spider breedings and gathering the data first hand is a much more responsible approach to promoting your theory than pining away on internet forums with unsubstantiated guesses hoping that someone might respond. No?

-adam

Actually posting on open forums was my work to try to get information starting a couple years ago on how many spider X spider breedings have been done and more recently how many possible homozygous spiders have bred. I would agree with you though that it has failed miserably. Too darn any many secrets! What if I talked to a big breeder in person today and they told me a homozygous spider had already been proven but was being kept secret in an attempt to manipulate the market price - could I tell anyone? I'd rather get my info from the web and not have to worry about such questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Too darn any many secrets!

---

Just because breeders aren't willing to have open ended discussions with you on public forums doesn't mean that there are secrets. I've always been able to find out everything that I've needed to know via direct communication. You should try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

What if I talked to a big breeder in person today and they told me a homozygous spider had already been proven but was being kept secret in an attempt to manipulate the market price - could I tell anyone?

---

Wow, you must really think the "big breeders" are idiots huh? I mean to start earlier in the thread by saying "they wouldn't have even considered the possibility of a homozygous lethal morph" and then to think if a big breeder was skilled enough to hide a super spider in order to manipulate market prices they would then be dumb enough to tell you about it's existence, you must not think too highly of them?

Ya know, I'm not too bright (thank goodness I can lift heavy things) but the one thing that I do no is that there isn't a ball python breeder on this planet that can keep a secret. They all love to brag on and show off their balls. If there is a super spider out there and you don't know about it, it's not so much because it's a secret .... it's because you're wasting your time on public forums instead of really talking to people.

Everything you could ever want to know is out there ... you're just looking in the wrong place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I'd rather get my info from the web and not have to worry about such questions.

---

Must not want the answers all that bad then?

-adam

i think you stand a better chance of just asking them for the information. Like it has been said there are no secrets, just not enough information to make claims. If you simply called(or talked to in person) as many spider breeders that you know of and asked them some simple questions (i.e. how many spider x spider breedings have you had, how many eggs went bad in each clutch, how many of the breedings resulted in all spiders, etc), they would probably be glad to answer(although some may not want their names referenced). If a big breeder posts info on the web, questions will be asked and all the BS that KLG mentioned will arise. Thats why no one is going to do so. If I had the time and the connections, I would do this myself just to find out the info (because I like to know things). I do this kinda stuff all day, everyday. Gather data, analyze, draw conclusions.

My suggestion: Make a simple survey of the information that you need (leave out all the BS about theories, ideas and such.... just ask simple yes or no...and number questions). E-mail, mail or conduct by phone this survey to as many breeders as possible. And wait to see how many responces you get. If you get more than 75% responce to your survey and a wide data range, your good. Send me the data and I will perform all the statistical analysis you want or you can do it yourself.

Ahhh ... Now that's what I'm talking about ... REAL science! .... great post Daniel!

-adam

Quote:

---

Wow, you must really think the "big breeders" are idiots huh?

---

I think that big breeders are just like any other group of people. Just like some newbies can understand challenging theories and apparently some don't I think there are some big breeders out there with little interest or understanding of the finer points of genetics. Sure there may be a bias for intelligence allowing them to become "big breeders" but hard work, persistence, starting early in the industry, funding, and just plain luck are also important factors in who the big breeders are today. I think you put too much distance between your potential customers who can't understand the implications of homozygous lethal (which I think I have spelled out in all or almost all threads) and your big breeder peers. People are people and some of today's newbie customers will be tomorrow’s big breeders. Sure they will have more experience by then and no doubt have learned a lot but they will not have all become geniuses along the way and that isn't a requirement to become a big breeder either.

I'll have to think about the survey idea. Somehow I doubt I would get more answers from people in the know than on the forums but perhaps the anonymity angle would improve participation (but would it hurt accuracy?). However, unless they where willing to let me then share the totals publicly (with no names) I wouldn't really want to know. I've already made up my mind that I'll get a spider as soon as I can afford one regardless of if they are homozygous lethal or not. I want to either prove or disprove the homozygous lethal theory as a mater of public record for all potential spider breeders, not just for my own information.

The explanation I was offered for why the breeder with the alleged proven homozygous spider (not the breeder I was talking to – and that breeder called me by the way, I don’t make a habit of calling breeders when I don’t have money to buy something) wasn’t disclosing its existence publicly was that if it was know that a breeder had a homozygous spider the estimates of that breeder’s for sale stock would increase and they would be offered lower prices with the assumption that they would take it due to the volume they needed to sell. Perhaps this thinking is why many breeders don’t list numbers of individual snakes for sale but only the types (I was never sure if it was a secrecy issue or just the mechanics of keeping an up to date available list). While I trust the breeder I was talking to and that breeder considered the information from a reliable (but not disclosed to me) source I’m not sure I can buy into it. I have trouble understanding the thinking in not disclosing the existence of a homozygous spider if it had been proven by producing say 30 only spider offspring. You could have produced just as many spiders from two spider males to twice as many normal females (or perhaps you wouldn’t even need two males). The confirmation of a homozygous spider should help the relative price of female spiders since they are essential to create the homozygous spider. And it would totally put to rest the lethal homozygous theory which apparently is confusing newbies (potential spider customers) into thinking spiders will drop dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I think that big breeders are just like any other group of people.

---

I couldn’t disagree more. I speak with a small handful of big breeders on a regular basis, and I’m even fortunate enough to consider some of them friends. I can tell you unequivocally that I would not consider a single one “just like any other group of people” …. Almost all of them are very sharp, highly motivated individuals that seem almost desperate to learn everything they can about the animals that they dedicate their lives to as well as graciously willing to share that information with anyone that will listen. Most can quote Klug and Cummings verbatim and keep dog eared, highlighted stacks of genetics texts at arms reach in their offices (or next to the porcelain throne in at least one instance ;)). Caring for 500, 800, or 1000+ ball pythons as well as an additional 500 – 700 hatchlings each season is not a regular 9 – 5 job like someone from any other group of people would have. It’s a commitment to a passion that fuels a person from somewhere that many people will never know … I think you do them an incredible disservice by assuming that they are “just like any other group of people” or need you to help them consider the notion of homozygous lethal as being a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Just like some newbies can understand challenging theories and apparently some don't I think there are some big breeders out there with little interest or understanding of the finer points of genetics.

---

Each week on average when I’m not promoting animals for sale, I speak with roughly 6 – 10 new “ball python people” that have questions about availability, morphs, breeding, etc. When I’m actively selling animals, it can easily be 5 times that number. My experience in dealing with those people is that the concepts of Punnets square and Mendelian theory is brand spanking new to 85% of them. One of the most common questions that I get is “Will I get albinos if I breed my 50% het albino male to a … “ [inserted the word normal or the morph of your choice here]. Now obviously, eventually these people will get a handle on the basics and then may or may not move on to more advanced genetic concepts. Until then, reading words like “homozygous lethal spiders” strikes a fear into them that you obviously don’t see for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I think you put too much distance between your potential customers who can't understand the implications of homozygous lethal (which I think I have spelled out in all or almost all threads) and your big breeder peers.

---

And I think that you spend way too much time in the great big vacuum of society that it the Internet and less time talking with real people one on one to determine where any given groups level of understanding actually is. There are real people out there reading forums, interested in ball pythons that have jobs, kids, lawns, taxes, oil changes, and very little time to spend actually researching things on their own. They have a hard time checking in on an Internet forum each week and figuring out who’s credible and who’s not as well as what’s factual, what’s theory, and what’s complete garbage. For these people sometimes all of that crap (can I say that here??) gets blurred together and lost in a sea of Internet fonts and when they decide that they want to invest in a ball python breeding project to pick up some cool animals and possibly score a few extra bucks a year for Christmas presents; words like “homozygous lethal” and “genetic defects” always seem to be the ones that they remember the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Somehow I doubt I would get more answers from people in the know than on the forums but perhaps the anonymity angle would improve participation (but would it hurt accuracy?).

---

Well, seems to me that you haven’t made any progress at all in your quest for real numbers over the last couple of years … so how could it hurt? I would think that if you’re passionate about your convictions, it would at least be worth a shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

However, unless they where willing to let me then share the totals publicly (with no names) I wouldn't really want to know.

---

Well, you’ll never know unless you ask …. right?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

I've already made up my mind that I'll get a spider as soon as I can afford one regardless of if they are homozygous lethal or not. I want to either prove or disprove the homozygous lethal theory as a mater of public record for all potential spider breeders, not just for my own information.

---

I look forward to reading your findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

The explanation I was offered for why the breeder with the alleged proven homozygous spider (not the breeder I was talking to – and that breeder called me by the way, I don’t make a habit of calling breeders when I don’t have money to buy something) wasn’t disclosing its existence publicly was that if it was know that a breeder had a homozygous spider the estimates of that breeder’s for sale stock would increase and they would be offered lower prices with the assumption that they would take it due to the volume they needed to sell.

---

Poppy-****! …. There are so many things wrong with that statement. First of all, you sell animals for what you want. If the offers you get are too low, breeders will say “Thanks but no thanks” (trust me on that one) …. Second, you need inventory to make money. Personally, I’d kill to have “too many spiders”. The idea of a super spider hurting sales is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Perhaps this thinking is why many breeders don’t list numbers of individual snakes for sale but only the types (I was never sure if it was a secrecy issue or just the mechanics of keeping an up to date available list).

---

Do you have any idea what it takes to care for 1000+ snakes, 500 – 700 hatchlings, work on sales/marketing/shipping/export permits, and after all that attempt to keep a website current?

EDIT:
Randy, I originally ended my post with "To even suspect that it’s a secrecy issue shows a level of paranoia that you may want to talk to someone about ;)" in an attempt at a fun poke at your "secrecy theory" comment ... I know you realize that I meant no disrespect, but because of moderator objection I am now making that perfectly clear. I figure it makes better sense to explain that it was in good fun and not personal rather than delete it since others had already read it.

-adam

I also don't see the logic in keeping a proven homozygous spider secret and assumed that since one wasn't public there must not be one. The "secret for pricing reasons" theory was offered to me as a possible explanation by the breeder passing on their own trusted source information that there was a proven homozygous. I've seen rumors on forums before of a homozygous spider and tended to discount them but since this was from an upstanding big breeder in person I can't completely discount it (seeing as that method is so much more reliable than the Internet ;) even though it wasn’t a first hand account.

So, Adam, with all your personal connections and the inability of big breeders to keep secrets, are you ready to tell us if you are aware that there is a potential homozygous spider that has produced, say, more than 10 spiders bred to a normal and no normals? The odds of that happening with a het are around 1 in 1,000 so I would consider such an animal pretty darn close to proven homozygous spider. The odds of a het spider producing 30 spiders and no normals with normals is around 1 in 1 billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

So, Adam, with all your personal connections and the inability of big breeders to keep secrets, are you ready to tell us if you are aware that there is a potential homozygous spider that has produced, say, more than 10 spiders bred to a normal and no normals?

---

I would say if I knew, but it's a question that I've never asked. ;)

-adam