Proof on the Spider gene. OWAL take a look

Ok so here are the end results of every breeding from the start of the Spider x Spider breedings.
Step one was from Spider to Spider with a total of 194 offspring and 153 of them being Spider the rest
being normal which gives us 78% spiders and 22% normals. All were held back from this.

Next is the Spider offspring bred to normals there were a total of 1097 eggs laid that were Spider to normal.
Of those eggs there were 578 were spiders and all the rest were normal which leaves a ratio of 52% spiders and the gender
of them was pretty much split 50/50 as normal. So there is no fatal gene at play and no super spider or anything like that.

There is one thing that did happen that is note worthy. One of the normal female offspring from the original breedings
was bred to a pastel this year and I hatched out a bumble bee. She was a virgin girl so something odd is going on there and
I will replicate the breeding next year to see if it happens again. In the same clutch I had 2 pastels and one spider as well
as 1 normal.

So there you have it. Those are the end results. Let me know what you think.

wow I didn't know your numbers were so extensive, so if im reading it correctly, every single one of the 153 spider offspring from the spider x spider pairing was bred to see if they were homozygous? Also I saw a thread that claimed to produce an all white snake that died after hatching from a spider x spider pairing, you never saw anything like this?

the "normal" making spiders is quite interesting also, few explanations that come to mind right away. (can we get a picture of her for the heck of it?)
simple one would be she is a spider that pattern resembles normalish quailties (im sure you thought of it already),
she could be a paradox, having spider reproductive organs,
she is a spider, but also has a recessive trait that dominants over it, making her look normal
epigenetics is at play and the expression on the spider gene is turned down, or even off.

This is very interesting.. Picture of the 'Normal' Spider please?

Sounds like a good trial but I would like to know.... Out of the spider x spider pairings how many eggs went bad, slugs laid, and how many doa. I feel that info is pertinent also. And with that many spiders produced I would imagine that would explain the huge price drop this year on them lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

she is a spider, but also has a recessive trait that dominants over it, making her look normal

---

Not possible. Spider is a dominant gene. A recessive gene can't dominate a dominant gene.

H.o.F.R. there were 3 eggs that went bad out of the spider x spider pairings and one slug and there were zero that died soon after birth or in the egg. All the babies that hatched have bred.

As for the requests for pics I will need to get some of mom to post. There were no white snakes at all and yes every single offspring from the spider x spider breedings were kept and bred. I am sure she is some kind of paradox but she shows no sign of spider at all. Normal eyes and pattern. She is a little brighter than average but still well within the spectrum of normal. Like I said I will get pics up as soon as I can take some.

I would also like to see pictures of the bee offspring.

It just seems to me that with those kinds of numbers, strange things are going to happen! Not everything in living creatures is "by the book". We like to think we have a grasp on every possibility, but overall we only know what "should" happen. All of the wild caught morphs had to come from something that went wacky somewhere!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

I would also like to see pictures of the bee offspring.

---

Me too...how odd!?!

http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/...agv1990/wt.gif

Ok here are pics. First one is of mom and the other one is 3 of the babies. The babies are from left to right normal, bee, spider.


http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/v...normfemale.jpg

http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/v...001/babies.jpg

please forgive me if the pics don't post I suck at posting pics.

- - - Updated - - -

As you can see she is a little bright and reduced pattern but nothing special.

Thanks for the HUGE amount of work to raise up and breed that many animals.

The only explanation I can think of is that there is something we don't understand about ball python reproduction such that the homozygous spiders never get matched up with a follicle. Even that would require you had really good odds to get 78% spiders rather than 66%. I don't know...

Interesting. Did any of the spider X normal offspring produce clutches that were 100% spider? If not then there must be some prezygotic barrier between a spider sperm and egg, leaving the egg there waiting until a normal, or at least non-spider, sperm comes along and fertilizes it.

Ive been waiting for someone to put this much work into the Spider x Spider theories. Thanks for posting. Im not really great with genetics, so please be nice, but is it at all possible that the homozygous form of spider is simply not visual? or is that ridiculous?

-Riveran

The most puzzling aspect of this is the 78% spider result from spider X spider breedings. It suggests that the Homozygous spiders are there--you would expect, 50% spider, 25% homo spider, and 25% normal, right? You get 78% spider, and you figure 1/3 of those must surely be homozygous. But, they didn't prove to be homozygous in breedings.

How are what should be homozygous spiders winding up with a normal gene???

It's almost as though there's no pair there--just either the spider gene is present, or the normal gene is present, but there's no second gene to make a pair. Is that possible?

Is it possible mom is a spider. The way her pattern looks you can almost see spider in between the banding. You can see it in the middle baby as well. The blushing seems like it make wider spider markings then usual, apearing much more normal like?

My theory still stands that there is something going on with the spiders that only allows one spider gene to be present in one animal. There has to be some reason that no offspring from the spider x spider breedings produced 100% spiders. Maybe it is linked to the wobble... Think about it the wobble exists in every spider and that would have to be a genetic defect which is just on the surface. I am no genetics expert but maybe nothing can attach to the same locus as the spider gene leaving the gene incomplete. An example would be with the pastel, a pastel on the location in the DNA strand has one pastel gene and one normal gene, the spider may only have the one spider gene and no normal gene so in offspring it passes spider or nothing . It makes sense to me because of the wobble being present in all spiders which would indicate some sort of genetic fault that causes it. Just a thought I could be way off base and don't know if that is even possible. But one thing is for sure in my eyes there is no super spider at all and it is NOT lethal to do the breedings of spider x spider. Now can we put those 2 things to rest and cover possibilities of what could be going on with the spider gene that causes it to have the wobble and not have a super form? Also how do we classify this gene now? It can not be dominant, co-dominant, or recessive so what could it be now?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seth702

Is it possible mom is a spider. The way her pattern looks you can almost see spider in between the banding. You can see it in the middle baby as well. The blushing seems like it make wider spider markings then usual, apearing much more normal like?

---

The middle baby is a bee.................................. The mom is just a reduced pattern normal there are a ton of them all over this forum.............

If there is only one copy of the gene present in the snake's genome instead of 2, then the gene could still be called incomplete dominant, even though there's no way to create a super form, I would think.

I'm curious because I've always been told that spiderxspider breedings resulted in spiders that had severe head wobbles so my question to you is did you notice any offspring with really bad wobbles?

As for that "Normal" that is producing spiders, I can't wait to see you reproduce that pairing! That sounds really amazing and is definately something to explore some more. It kind of reminds me of the Hidden gene Womas and the Hidden Gene Lessers that NERD produced way back when. Do you think this girl could be doing a similar thing but she just throws spiders instead? Have any plans to test the offspring as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

Not possible. Spider is a dominant gene. A recessive gene can't dominate a dominant gene.

---

Dominate just means that when two genes are present on the same Loci the dominate one will show the phenotype. . . if a recessive gene was at a different loci it could conceal a dominate gene / be expressed think albino spider . . . So yes a recessive gene CAN dominate a dominant gene at a differnet loci for a different phenotypic (visual) result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tattlife2001

My theory still stands that there is something going on with the spiders that only allows one spider gene to be present in one animal. There has to be some reason that no offspring from the spider x spider breedings produced 100% spiders. Maybe it is linked to the wobble... Think about it the wobble exists in every spider and that would have to be a genetic defect which is just on the surface. I am no genetics expert but maybe nothing can attach to the same locus as the spider gene leaving the gene incomplete. An example would be with the pastel, a pastel on the location in the DNA strand has one pastel gene and one normal gene, the spider may only have the one spider gene and no normal gene so in offspring it passes spider or nothing . It makes sense to me because of the wobble being present in all spiders which would indicate some sort of genetic fault that causes it. Just a thought I could be way off base and don't know if that is even possible. But one thing is for sure in my eyes there is no super spider at all and it is NOT lethal to do the breedings of spider x spider. Now can we put those 2 things to rest and cover possibilities of what could be going on with the spider gene that causes it to have the wobble and not have a super form? Also how do we classify this gene now? It can not be dominant, co-dominant, or recessive so what could it be now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

The most puzzling aspect of this is the 78% spider result from spider X spider breedings. It suggests that the Homozygous spiders are there--you would expect, 50% spider, 25% homo spider, and 25% normal, right? You get 78% spider, and you figure 1/3 of those must surely be homozygous. But, they didn't prove to be homozygous in breedings.

How are what should be homozygous spiders winding up with a normal gene???

It's almost as though there's no pair there--just either the spider gene is present, or the normal gene is present, but there's no second gene to make a pair. Is that possible?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

If there is only one copy of the gene present in the snake's genome instead of 2, then the gene could still be called incomplete dominant, even though there's no way to create a super form, I would think.

---

I don't think it would have a classification we are used to, dominant, co-dom/in-com dom, and recessive are all based off of the phenotype in heterozygous and homozygous form. If there is only one copy of the gene present in the genome, i think it would be called haploid (just went googling for the term 2 minutes ago). someone please correct me if there is a better term.

Either that or we have a mystery force at work saying only one spider at a time, but I searched for something related to this before and came up empty handed.

say spider and spider get pair up and one spider gene for unknown reason is able to remove the other. we are left with a spider and empty space (yes back to he null theory). it would still pass the spider gene, or nothing and since we don't know of any other gene on the the spider locus, the empty spot would also act as normal, since it can only be paired up with a normal or spider gene. so you would still get the 75% 25% odds, and everything looking typical on the outside. I guess my point is, we don't need a normal gene present.

I still can't figure out if it is a haploid situation, how could it be inherited with the 75% odds? I mean the W chromosome in snakes is haploid, but that what makes them female and we know its not sex linked and we would be looking at 50% odds. If it's not paired with something else like Z and W and is a stand alone thing, I would assume breeding spider to spider would make 100% odds. I cant really think of a way to come up with the 75%.

I need to do more reading., those are my thoughts for now

This is one of the most impressive efforts I've ever run across, to try and prove/disprove some of the genetic theories we play with. I really think this experiment should be properly documented and written up. Not that I think it qualifies as some kind of peer-reviewable scientific experiment (I suppose it might, I have no idea how you actually went about it) but even an informal, but well-written document, with all the relevant data, and all the questions answered in one place, could be invaluable to current and future ball python enthusiasts.

If you'd like help putting something like that together, I'd be happy to partner up with you and work on it. Shoot me a PM, if interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

This is one of the most impressive efforts I've ever run across, to try and prove/disprove some of the genetic theories we play with. I really think this experiment should be properly documented and written up. Not that I think it qualifies as some kind of peer-reviewable scientific experiment (I suppose it might, I have no idea how you actually went about it) but even an informal, but well-written document, with all the relevant data, and all the questions answered in one place, could be invaluable to current and future ball python enthusiasts.

If you'd like help putting something like that together, I'd be happy to partner up with you and work on it. Shoot me a PM, if interested.

---

I agree 100% with this. I would like to see all the data from all the pairings. Im sure others would as well so they can analyze it and make their own interpretations on the data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

Not possible. Spider is a dominant gene. A recessive gene can't dominate a dominant gene.

---

you read too much into the meaning of dominant, look at a spider super mojave. the post you quoted may be iffy but so is your reply, it isn't dominating if it is just masking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

The most puzzling aspect of this is the 78% spider result from spider X spider breedings. It suggests that the Homozygous spiders are there--you would expect, 50% spider, 25% homo spider, and 25% normal, right?

---

Dom X Dom = 75% dom, why is 78% unusual?

Dominant traits in rats work like this also, why would it be different in snakes?

i can only guess at the ideal of 2000 snacks being ket/raise. that a lot of rodents and time(figure 3 yerars for females) ( i understand most are from this year breeding. but still that a lot of work. effort, resources put out. great job man
( now i will take several female spider of breedig weight to see if crossing them to other morphs produce higher spider gene carring offspring lol.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakesRkewl

Dom X Dom = 75% dom, why is 78% unusual?

Dominant traits in rats work like this also, why would it be different in snakes?

---

referring to purely phenotype you are correct.

how ever genetically 25% homozygous dom, 50% heterozygous dom, 25% Wild type is the expected outcome. We did not see evidence of a homozygous spider, so something else is going on.

referring to my first comment, to dominate over something just referrers to the phenotype compared to to something else. We classify morphs based off their dominance comparing them to wild type. Albino is recessive compared to wild type, pastel is incomplete dom compared to wild type, pinstripe is dominant compared to wild type. I was just throwing out theories on how it could happen, hence a recessive trait could dominate over the spider and make it look normal. Iffy... sure, all it is is just theory.

Seriously, this was an insane project, and an insane # of spiders. And by "insane" I mean "totally awesome".

And that bee from a normal x pastel pairing is just amazing. Yeah, I see the spider-y pattern in her mid-section... but I would never call her a spider. I mean, just compare her pattern to her offspring.

The fact that it's a bumblebee indicates the pastel HAS to be the sire---she couldn't have retained sperm from a prior breeding the previous year and produced a mixed-sired clutch. I can't wait to see if you can replicate it next year.

Far out.

ok another idea.

what if the spider lays on an extra chromosome? 50% chance of passing the extra chromosome, if a spider x spider breeding occurs you have a 75% chance of getting the extra chromosome and no way of getting a homozygous. input?

also since people above pointed out, the "normal" does have pretty spiderish parts to her, paradox seems like most likely case. cool animal regardless

I thought of that too, but then, why couldn't both snakes pass on the extra chromosome? (I figured out why my own idea wouldn't work). So, it still wouldn't cause this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

I thought of that too, but then, why couldn't both snakes pass on the extra chromosome? (I figured out why my own idea wouldn't work). So, it still wouldn't cause this.

---

not enough material to make it?

I just read something that said people with the extra chromosome sometimes don't pass it fully due to not having enough material... i donno? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

This is one of the most impressive efforts I've ever run across, to try and prove/disprove some of the genetic theories we play with. I really think this experiment should be properly documented and written up. Not that I think it qualifies as some kind of peer-reviewable scientific experiment (I suppose it might, I have no idea how you actually went about it) but even an informal, but well-written document, with all the relevant data, and all the questions answered in one place, could be invaluable to current and future ball python enthusiasts.

If you'd like help putting something like that together, I'd be happy to partner up with you and work on it. Shoot me a PM, if interested.

---

Yes! This kind of research should be a sticky :gj:. Whatever document you guys come up with, I'm excited to read it.

Spider as being inherited as an extra chromosomal disorder would actually make perfect since, and could easily explain the presence of the neurological issues given better as well (spider wobble). The reason that you couldn't transfer two copies of the chromosome is perhaps it only exists in a single chromotid state, and when two copies of the chromosone present itself one just deteriates... It would then agree with the 75% odds, and not the 67% odds expected if it was lethal in its "super form". I think this is probably the best understanding we can make of it, and if a geneticist put a LITTLE bit of work on it, could easily be proven IMO.

I am focusing mostly on down syndrome sites, since its about the only thing that seems to have anything close to the data i'm looking for. down syndrome is cause by having an extra chromosome 21. While there seems to be very conflicting numbers, many of them say, that if the parent has down syndrome, you basically have a 50% chance of passing it and if both parents have it, the chances are even higher (75% would make sense). what I still fail to find is why that 2nd extra chromosome doesn't get passed. I keep reading basically that it doesn't just don't know why.

If you think of it like down syndrome, the extra chromosome is linked onto the 21 chromosme pair making it have 3 chromotids instead of 2. If there is one already being passed on, the chances of hitting all 4 together is extremely unlikely and the 4th copy would like deteriate. I studied downsyndrom scans, and even had to do "mock diagnoses" in my coursework at the univeristy based on this stuff, and the inheritance patterns of people with down syndrome. . . The difference is, downsyndrom is a random occurance, and not a gene that is continually being passed on. It's a disorder, that becomes heritable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reptileexperts

and the 4th copy would like deteriate.

---

I just couldn't find that bit of information

it seems not much has gone into when 2 people with extra chromosomes reproduce what happens, but from everything I could find, I think we got a descent theory.

You know, as much as I'd love to have two humans with Downs unite and see what their offsprings DNA looks like, It's a strong grey area in our knowledge of the matter since Human reproduction is not so simple to study in situations like this. Now, if someone were to confirm spider being an extra chromosome disorder, they could use spider BP as a case study in a medical field to exam the possible side effects of human reproduction with extra chromosomes. . . just a thought

- - - Updated - - -

Here we go - trisomy in chromotids will self heal themsevles be deletion of the extra chromosome in MANY cases by either transfering 100% of the single parental chromotid, or breaking the bond and forming a new bond with the other parent chromotid to form a natural bond. . . . case study out of the UK, I'll see if I can find the paper, just found a quote from it,.

This is why the hobby is so exciting, because no matter how much back and forth goes on about genetics, YOU NEVER KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE OUTCOME OF ANY CLUTCH WILL BE, there will always be a chance for something "weird" to pop up. Great work though.

Wow, very cool work everyone! Especially the OP for raising up so many snakes to get the data to spawn this new theory (lethal seemed much more likely) AND proving a chimera along the way.

I swear I remember a post from Kevin of NERD referring to spiders as "special" snakes. I know my one spider combo hold back this year is a unique eating machine and my favorite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

This is one of the most impressive efforts I've ever run across, to try and prove/disprove some of the genetic theories we play with. I really think this experiment should be properly documented and written up. Not that I think it qualifies as some kind of peer-reviewable scientific experiment (I suppose it might, I have no idea how you actually went about it) but even an informal, but well-written document, with all the relevant data, and all the questions answered in one place, could be invaluable to current and future ball python enthusiasts.

---

It would be an amazing read for sure and there are several of us where I am who would love to read it.

In your first Spider x Spider cross what was the sex ratio of the offspring exhibiting the Spider trait from that initial cross? Was the spider offspring mostly male or female or equal numbers? Did you get about 100 males exhibiting spider or equal numbers of 75 males and 75 females exhibiting spider? Conversely, was the normal offspring mostly male or female or equal numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by critta

In your first Spider x Spider cross what was the sex ratio of the offspring exhibiting the Spider trait from that initial cross? Was the spider offspring mostly male or female or equal numbers? Did you get about 100 males exhibiting spider or equal numbers of 75 males and 75 females exhibiting spider? Conversely, was the normal offspring mostly male or female or equal numbers?

---

All through out the breedings from beginning to the end the sex ratio was pretty much 50/50 per clutch. some a few more males some a few more females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragoon

you read too much into the meaning of dominant, look at a spider super mojave. the post you quoted may be iffy but so is your reply, it isn't dominating if it is just masking

---

I don't see how a super Mojave spider is a relevant example here. Mojave is an incomplete dominant, not a recessive. What do you mean by "it isn't dominating if it is just masking"?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reptileexperts

Dominate just means that when two genes are present on the same Loci the dominate one will show the phenotype. . . if a recessive gene was at a different loci it could conceal a dominate gene / be expressed think albino spider . . . So yes a recessive gene CAN dominate a dominant gene at a differnet loci for a different phenotypic (visual) result.

---

A recessive gene being expressed (such as an albino spider) is not the same thing as a recessive gene completely masking a dominant gene, which is not possible.

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm sorry to be the only nay-sayer here, but I just can't take this at face value. A normal laying eggs containing spider and bumblebee hatchlings? This is really a bit too far-fetched. I have no idea who tattlife2001 is. He could be some random person who decided to troll the ball python community by posting fake breeding results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meowmeowkazoo

I don't see how a super Mojave spider is a relevant example here. Mojave is an incomplete dominant, not a recessive. What do you mean by "it isn't dominating if it is just masking"?

- - - Updated - - -



A recessive gene being expressed (such as an albino spider) is not the same thing as a recessive gene completely masking a dominant gene, which is not possible.

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm sorry to be the only nay-sayer here, but I just can't take this at face value. A normal laying eggs containing spider and bumblebee hatchlings? This is really a bit too far-fetched. I have no idea who tattlife2001 is. He could be some random person who decided to troll the ball python community by posting fake breeding results.

---

how could it not be possible for a recessive gene to mask a dominant one? if the phenotype of the dominant isnt shown because of the recessive phenotype.... recessive albinism masks over dominant traits in other species, why not snakes? it was just an idea and not even likely, dont worry about it.

on the other hand paradoxs pop up quite a bit and the mom even looks like a paradox, i dont see any reason to doubt. everything (besides the more than likely paradox) reported falls right in line with what kevin has been saying all along. while it would if been nice to get data like this from him a long time ago... he still said not lethal and no super.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsarchie

Interesting. Did any of the spider X normal offspring produce clutches that were 100% spider? If not then there must be some prezygotic barrier between a spider sperm and egg, leaving the egg there waiting until a normal, or at least non-spider, sperm comes along and fertilizes it.

---

Was this ever answered? I didnt see it.

I read this whole thread and the Super Mojave thing got me thinking. Woma and Spider look very close, and in some instances it would take a well trained eye to tell them apart. I havent seen or heard of too many woma x spider breedings (probly cause the cross wouldn't be to extravagant) but a thought came to my mind. We all know that woma x woma makes a fail for a snake. A sweet looking baby that doesnt make it. Also we know that womas have wobble as well as spiders. Perhaps the woma is acting on the same locus as spider? Does anyone know if a Woma Spider acts as a super? Producing all either spiders and womas. Or does it act like a Bumblebee, producing spiders, pastels, and normals. Food for thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat160

Was this ever answered? I didnt see it.

---

it was in the first post, OP said there was no super spiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

I read this whole thread and the Super Mojave thing got me thinking. Woma and Spider look very close, and in some instances it would take a well trained eye to tell them apart. I havent seen or heard of too many woma x spider breedings (probly cause the cross wouldn't be to extravagant) but a thought came to my mind. We all know that woma x woma makes a fail for a snake. A sweet looking baby that doesnt make it. Also we know that womas have wobble as well as spiders. Perhaps the woma is acting on the same locus as spider? Does anyone know if a Woma Spider acts as a super? Producing all either spiders and womas. Or does it act like a Bumblebee, producing spiders, pastels, and normals. Food for thought?

---

you might be mixing up hidden gene woma with woma. HG woma makes the pearl which is the fail snake. There is no known homozygous woma. I do know quite a few woma x spider have been made, heck ive seen a few in real life, but honestly I've never herd of breeding results from a spider woma parent. hm....

Oh ok. The HG woma makes the pearl and the plain jane woma acts like a spider then with no super? Interesting.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interloc

Oh ok. The HG woma makes the pearl and the plain jane woma acts like a spider then with no super? Interesting.

---

no the woma doesn't have a proven homozygous, we don't know how it acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

no the woma doesn't have a proven homozygous, we don't know how it acts.

---

Ah ok.

To the op, do the same thing again with womas. Lol. Just kiddin. I guess time will tell.


Sent from my poo fone using Tapatalk