Super Spider??

if you breed spider x spider do you get supers?

They're dominant genes, so no supers :(

Just lots of spiders

So far there is no documented "super" form of the spider morph. It has been tried several times, but so far nothing "different" has been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnabrams82

if you breed spider x spider do you get supers?

---

So far as I am aware...there are no documented, proven cases of homozygous spiders. This lack of certainty could be due to the fact that the homozygous form doesn't look any different than the heterozygous form and therefore no one is certain which might be homozygous and have yet to conclusively prove one out by producing ALL spider offpsring. OR....the homozygous version of the morph is "fatal"...meaning some other genetic issue is connected with the gene and in its homozygous form does not allow the embryo to mature into a hatchling.

Due to fact that no visual "supers" have been produced, people have pretty much stopped trying and use their spiders for other, more exciting projects. Therefore, the opportunities to prove out a homozygous spider aren't as prevelent as one might think, given the popularity of the morph.

That is my limited understanding of spider genetics and breeding. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

So far as I am aware...there are no documented, proven cases of homozygous spiders. This lack of certainty could be due to the fact that the homozygous form doesn't look any different than the heterozygous form and therefore no one is certain which might be homozygous and have yet to conclusively prove one out by producing ALL spider offpsring. OR....the homozygous version of the morph is "fatal"...meaning some other genetic issue is connected with the gene and in its homozygous form does not allow the embryo to mature into a hatchling.

Due to fact that no visual "supers" have been produced, people have pretty much stopped trying and use their spiders for other, more exciting projects. Therefore, the opportunities to prove out a homozygous spider aren't as prevelent as one might think, given the popularity of the morph.

That is my limited understanding of spider genetics and breeding. ;)

---

Awesome info!!! :salute:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

So far as I am aware...there are no documented, proven cases of homozygous spiders. This lack of certainty could be due to the fact that the homozygous form doesn't look any different than the heterozygous form and therefore no one is certain which might be homozygous and have yet to conclusively prove one out by producing ALL spider offpsring. OR....the homozygous version of the morph is "fatal"...meaning some other genetic issue is connected with the gene and in its homozygous form does not allow the embryo to mature into a hatchling.

Due to fact that no visual "supers" have been produced, people have pretty much stopped trying and use their spiders for other, more exciting projects. Therefore, the opportunities to prove out a homozygous spider aren't as prevelent as one might think, given the popularity of the morph.

That is my limited understanding of spider genetics and breeding. ;)

---

I haven't seen/heard/read any data of spider to spider clutches out there having a higher instance of eggs going bad to suggest that there is a "deadly" homozygous form of the spider gene. I don't think its necessarily a good thing to suggest that on a message board to new keepers with nothing, even some sliver of evidence, for that to be true.

With the sheer number of spiders and spider combos being produced, I think that if there were some deadly homozygous form, there would be some kind of buzz about it at this point in the game. All I know right now is that there are a lot of spider and spider combos being crossed, and no one mentioning a higher than normal instance of eggs going bad or death of offspring in spider breeding.

I've also seen threads with people posting repeat all-spider clutches from a spider x normal pairing...while unreliable at this point and certainly possible from a regular spider, the suggestion of the parent being a homozygous spider is certainly there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

I've also seen threads with people posting repeat all-spider clutches from a spider x normal pairing...while unreliable at this point and certainly possible from a regular spider, the suggestion of the parent being a homozygous spider is certainly there.

---

Brad, can you post up or PM me with links to these threads, as I have never seen anyone posting repeat clutches of all Spiders.

Thanks,

My male spider produced 100% spiders from his first sired clutch last year. There were 4 eggs, and all 4 were spiders. Not in any way conclusive or even remotely close, but I'm hoping this year those results follow him again.

There were a few on kingsnake a while back, and a couple other boards as well. I'll post them up on the main thread if I can find them.

To me, one or two clutches doesn't prove anything...all I meant was there was a suggestion of it. I just know that there's been a few outspoken people online that keep bringing up talk of "fatal" genes and secrecy...I don't think that's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

There were a few on kingsnake a while back, and a couple other boards as well. I'll post them up on the main thread if I can find them.

To me, one or two clutches doesn't prove anything...all I meant was there was a suggestion of it. I just know that there's been a few outspoken people online that keep bringing up talk of "fatal" genes and secrecy...I don't think that's right.

---

If you can find them, that would be great. I have not discounted the "fatal" theory, as I believe it is quite possible. However, the lack of data on spider x spider breeding is why I haven't made a conclusive decision as of yet. I plan on doing a Spider to Spider breeding next year, so I can see the reults with my own eyes.

As for the threads I have seen about all Spiders in a clutch, I always recall seeing a Normal produced from those animals at some time in the future.

Well, I didn't (and never did) say anything about "secrets" or "conspiracies." I just state the possibilities as I understand them. If I ever see/hear compelling evidence of healthy, thriving homozygous spiders, I'll happily point it out to anyone who will listen. And I don't state these possibilities in any way that could be seen as some sort of scare-tactic or warning against trying to produce them. If anyone thinks I have, point it out to me and I'll correct my wording.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

I haven't seen/heard/read any data of spider to spider clutches out there having a higher instance of eggs going bad to suggest that there is a "deadly" homozygous form of the spider gene. I don't think its necessarily a good thing to suggest that on a message board to new keepers with nothing, even some sliver of evidence, for that to be true.

---

While I completely agree with where your going, I do think there may be something to what Judy had to say. It is possible, in theory, that the genetic "spinner" defect, when homozygous could prevent a viable egg from forming. However, I have no scientific data to support this, it is something that could be a possible effect in spider x spider crosses.

I also meant to add, that since Spider x Spider breedings are for the most part, rare, then the chance of someone having a Homozygous Spider is also rare. For anyone to have a Homozygous Spider, they would have to know that their Spider at least was a product of a Spider x Spider breeding, for it to even have a chance. All of that is also based on the fact that the Spider gene is a true Dominant mutation, with the Heterozygous form looking identical to the Homozygous form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddoc

If you can find them, that would be great. I have not discounted the "fatal" theory, as I believe it is quite possible. However, the lack of data on spider x spider breeding is why I haven't made a conclusive decision as of yet. I plan on doing a Spider to Spider breeding next year, so I can see the reults with my own eyes.

As for the threads I have seen about all Spiders in a clutch, I always recall seeing a Normal produced from those animals at some time in the future.

---

Just did a quick search on this forum and found one of the "breeders" producing these was none of other than Eddie C himself...he claimed he "bred" a spider x normal and got 7 out of 7 spiders and said he'd update after the next round of breeding to another female. Knowing what we know now, there's no credibility there anymore, if there ever was....

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...der+homozygous

That's cool that you'll try to figure it out for yourself, I guess time will tell.

I've just gotten back into herps after a hiatus, and super spiders are actually one of my primary goals, working with ball python morphs.

No, they won't look any different from normal spiders...but if I can verify a male/female pair of them, I can consistantly produce spiders that will always throw 100% spider offspring. I can see a LOT of uses for that in breeding projects.

The best means I can think of is simply to breed spider to spider, hold back all of the offspring, and then start proving them out...I think if I get 3 or more clutches of all spiders, and no normals from an animal, I can call it a super spider with reasonable certainty. One of the reasons I'm interested in doing it is because no one else really is (at least not openly).

It's going to be difficult, but hopefully rewarding, to produce 'super spider' combinations with other morphs. A super killer-bee, for example--producing a super pastel is easy, you know exactly which animal it is from the moment of hatching. Every single time you outcross a super-spider (say, to a killer bee), you will have to prove out the offspring the hard way all over again.

I see no reason to think it's not possible. With a 6 year wait to reasonably prove that a female hatchling is a super-spider, it's not suprising most people don't think it's worth spending so much effort on. (Statistically, a spider bred to a spider will produce 4 or 5 spiders out of a clutch of 6, but if both were bred to normals you would get 3 from each clutch of 6--so you miss out on at least one or more spider offspring by breeding 2 spiders together).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooseman

While I completely agree with where your going, I do think there may be something to what Judy had to say. It is possible, in theory, that the genetic "spinner" defect, when homozygous could prevent a viable egg from forming. However, I have no scientific data to support this, it is something that could be a possible effect in spider x spider crosses.

---

I hear you, I suppose then it is just an uncertain to say that homozygous spiders could exist as well. I think the only breeder who has worked with them enough to have a truely valid opinion on the whole deal would be Kevin from NERD. And even then, like Tim said, how many Spider x Spider crosses are really being done anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

No, they won't look any different from normal spiders...but

---

Where did you get the evidence to support that claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

(Statistically, a spider bred to a spider will produce 4 or 5 spiders out of a clutch of 6, but if both were bred to normals you would get 3 from each clutch of 6--so you miss out on at least one or more spider offspring by breeding 2 spiders together).

---

While close, this statement is not necessarily accurate... in a spider x spider crossing, you'd have a 75% chance of each EGG being a spider, with 33% of those (25% of the total clutch) potentially being homozygous for the trait. That doesn't mean that 75% of your eggs will be a spider, though. You still have to hit your odds, and while your odds are better that is in no way a guarantee that you'll be happy with the results.

with the killer bee combo, who cares about super spiders?:D



vaughn

I hadn't mentioned it here, but I bred my spider male Sam this year.
The clutches were as follows.
Clutch 1: 4 eggs, 4 formed spider babies. 1 died in egg. 3 live hatchlings.
Clutch 2: 3 eggs, 2 molded, 1 formed spider baby - died in egg. No live babys.
Clutch 3: 3 eggs, 1 molded, 2 formed spider babies - both died in egg. No live babies.

All "formed babies" were virtually ready to climb out of the egg, but simply died without emerging(or died right after emerging). This is not early fetuses, only fully formed baby snakes. No normals were hatched OR seen in eggs cut open.
ALL hatchlings produced(live or dead) in 3 clutches were spiders out of Sam. There was a HIGH mortality rate in the eggs. Was this the incubation? Was it due to care of females? Was it the father? I don't know. I will be breeding him to other females this coming season, and will be looking forward to seeing what hatches.
I feel that 3 clutches in one season, from 3 unrelated normal females all having all spiders with no normals is UNUSUAL at least.
I'm not claiming anything on Sam. I am wondering if there is some problem with the genetics, since I had a high rate of mortaility on otherwise good looking hatchings. The three live babies were poor eaters, and I will be keeping them until I am certain they are healthy before they will be offered for sale or trade.
I spoke with a few people about Sam and the odds. I just didn't post anything here yet, but seeing as the conversation is about the same idea, here is my personal info.

What were your incubation temperatures and humidity level, particularly in the last month?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

I hadn't mentioned it here, but I bred my spider male Sam this year.
The clutches were as follows.
Clutch 1: 4 eggs, 4 formed spider babies. 1 died in egg. 3 live hatchlings.
Clutch 2: 3 eggs, 2 molded, 1 formed spider baby - died in egg. No live babys.
Clutch 3: 3 eggs, 1 molded, 2 formed spider babies - both died in egg. No live babies.

All "formed babies" were virtually ready to climb out of the egg, but simply died without emerging(or died right after emerging). This is not early fetuses, only fully formed baby snakes. No normals were hatched OR seen in eggs cut open.
ALL hatchlings produced(live or dead) in 3 clutches were spiders out of Sam. There was a HIGH mortality rate in the eggs. Was this the incubation? Was it due to care of females? Was it the father? I don't know. I will be breeding him to other females this coming season, and will be looking forward to seeing what hatches.
I feel that 3 clutches in one season, from 3 unrelated normal females all having all spiders with no normals is UNUSUAL at least.
I'm not claiming anything on Sam. I am wondering if there is some problem with the genetics, since I had a high rate of mortaility on otherwise good looking hatchings. The three live babies were poor eaters, and I will be keeping them until I am certain they are healthy before they will be offered for sale or trade.
I spoke with a few people about Sam and the odds. I just didn't post anything here yet, but seeing as the conversation is about the same idea, here is my personal info.

---

Were all three of these clutches spider x spider breedings? That's the only way to possibly produce a homozygous spider. The high mortality rate in your clutches if they were from spider x normal breeding doesn't have anything to do with the spider gene.

The question is if Sam was produced from a spider X spider breeding. Do you know?

7 for 7 spiders from a heterozygous spider would be a 1 in 128 chance. So it's possible he is only heterozygous and you are just lucky (well, except on the live baby count). But, keep breeding him and let us know, especially if you can confirm he is from spider X spider so even has a chance to be homozygous.

To me, every dominant type mutation has a chance to be homozygous lethal until evidence is presented to prove it's not. I believe woma/pearl fits the definition as the pearls apparently don't survive to breeding. I will not be surprised if there are several others. I don't think it's any less responsible to mention the possibility than to not mention it. One possibly errors on the side of protecting the sellers and the other possibly errors on the side of protecting the buyers.

It's also important to remember what it would mean IF spider is homozygous lethal. It would NOT mean that regular spiders or spider crosses would necessarily be any more likely to not hatch or to die early than any other ball python. It would only mean that homozygous spiders from spider X spider breedings would not survive to breed (perhaps not even hatch).

Because people are long since no longer buying spiders with speculation of producing an awesome super whether or not spider is homozygous lethal (or even dominant vs. co dominant) really doesn't matter much. It’s mainly an academic question that we should probably have an answer to by now. People buy spiders to make spiders and awesome combinations which are proven and if spider is homozygous lethal it will not effect that at all.

By the way, if it where homozygous lethal and the homozygous didn't hatch then spider X spider breedings would produce 66% spiders from 3/4 sized clutches – so the same number as 50% from a full sized spider X normal clutch. The 75% spider ratio from spider X spider assumes that homozygous spiders hatch and look like regular heterozygous spiders.

Temps were 88F and humidity stayed right at about 70%, sometimes higher or lwoer(but that could have been flucuating readings from opening the incubator too).
I do not know what produced Sam. I stated in the post, the breedings were Spider x NORMAL females.
I only stated the facts from my breedings, and make no claims as to anything yet. I put the facts up here due to the fact that if Sam is a homozygous spider, then it COULD be some issues with his genetic offspring.
No one can say that it has nothing to do with it since the offspring aren't spider x spider, since no one has proved to have a homozygous spider. When someone proves a homozygous spider and breeds it without any issues with the offspring, then you could say the mortality has nothing to do with the spider gene.
I'm hoping it was not genetics that killed the hatchlings, since that means it's something *I* did, and something *I* can correct. If it is Sam's genetics causing high mortality then I have to find a different spider male, and Sam is an incrediable snake.
Thanks for the gentics numbers Randy, I get confused after a couple pudits, so I can't lay it all out that way. Great to be able to just read it.

Boy, do *I* feel silly. Here I thought this thread was about this guy...
http://www.superiorserpents.com/PubPics/superspider.jpg

:giggle:

But speaking of supers, has anyone heard anything about the Super Pin lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

Boy, do *I* feel silly. Here I thought this thread was about this guy...
http://www.superiorserpents.com/PubPics/superspider.jpg

:giggle:

But speaking of supers, has anyone heard anything about the Super Pin lately?

---

LOL>.. sweet, the only super spider we will see! :)

Spidey!! Doing things only a spider can!!!

Hm, my only suggestions for that would be possibly try lowering the temperature a couple of degrees the last few days of incubation, and make sure they get more air than usual.
Apparently brooding females loosen their coils at this time and expose the eggs to the air, and the eggs' temperature drops. So if you have the problem with several clutches, it's worth a try.

Also, do you have any references for the Pearls not surviving? The only note I can find on them is one from NERD stating they've been produced twice from Woma X Woma and that the genetics were still being studied.

I think I stumbled on the new NERD website a few weeks ago and you are looking at the old site which I suspect is a little dated. NERD’s first pearl predated all other public white ball pythons. Graziani’s site puts the first pearl at 2000, a year after Spider was proven genetic. Before the pearl a white ball python was a mythical creature of legend. There were stories of babies in bottles at exporters and of one passing through the states on the way to Asia but no pictures to convince the doubters. I suspect NERD has produced pearl more than twice now. To put the amount of ball python morph world change of the last 7 years into perspective it’s now gotten to the point that people say things like “not another white snake” (which seems more than a little silly to me) when we used to say things like “do you think there really was or ever will be a leucistic ball python?” But I wax nostalgic; don’t get me started on rec.pet.herps. Funny the feuds and scandals are about the same even if the technology and morphs have increased exponentially.

The new NERD site gives a little more information on pearl here:

http://www.newenglandreptile.com/ner...d=79&Itemid=58

There was a report a few years ago of an adult imported animal that looked to be a pearl which would tend to give some hope but I never heard if it reproduced and was proven to be the same thing or not.

Of course actual breeding results would be best for being sure about anything but if a homozygous spider does exist I wouldn't expect it's offspring to have any problems that the spider offspring of a normal heterozygous spider don't have. The only difference from the offspring standpoint should be 100% rather than 50% spider offspring, if there could be a breeding homozygous spider to start with regardless of what it would be like. It's not like a homozygous spider could give two copies of the spider gene to the same offspring. Any genetics a homozygous spider could pass on a heterozygous one could also pass on, just in different ratios. I could maybe see a mutation where a female might not be able to lay good eggs but if the male could hatch with a mutation so should the offspring he passes a single copy on to.

I've had my share of bad luck hatching eggs over the years and we always try to figure out something to do better so keep at it and better luck next year.

I got an idea... just breed two bumblebees together... any "spiders" would have to be homozygous....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooseman

I got an idea... just breed two bumblebees together... any "spiders" would have to be homozygous....

---

Thats something I was thinking of but only backwards. Get a super pastel and a possible homo spider and all the offspring should be bumblebees.

Also homozygous lethality isn't uncommon or out of the question. Take in humans. Dwarfism is a dominant gene that is homozygous lethal. If 2 dwarfs make a baby there is a 50% chance to make another dwarf, 25% chance for a death due to the gene, and a 25% chance for a normal baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooseman

I got an idea... just breed two bumblebees together... any "spiders" would have to be homozygous....

---

Two bees together would have the same chance of throwing heterozygous spider offspring as breeding two spiders.

...how would you get a spider from a bumblebee pairing that was NOT homozygous for spider? because anything het in a bumblebee pairing is another bumblebee.... your other possible results is a super pastel and a "super" spider....???

Actually, draw the punnett square, and you'll ba amazed to see that you can hatch a normal Ball python by pairing a Bumblebee to a Bumblebee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooseman

...how would you get a spider from a bumblebee pairing that was NOT homozygous for spider?

---

Bumblebees are heterozygous for pastel and can be either heterozygous or homozygous for spider. The reason we don't know whether they are heterozygous or homozygous is because both forms are identical visually.

The possible results (each with varying odds) of breeding two bumblebees are normals, pastels, spiders, bumblebees, and killer bees -- unless one or both are homozygous for spider. If that is the case, normals and pastels would not be possible, but whether the offspring are homo or hetero for spider would be unknown without extensive breeding, each time only producing spider offspring.

But we don't know if there has ever been a homozygous spider or what they look like.

You’re pretty safe assuming your bumblebees are only het for spider.

I think the confusion here is coming from the relationship between spider and pastel. There apparently is none. The production of killer bees proves that spider and pastel are two different genes and as early and often as killer bees have been produced it sure doesn't look like the two genes are near each other.

So a bumblebee has the spider mutant gene paired with a normal copy of the spider gene and the pastel mutant gene paired with a normal copy of the pastel gene and it passes or doesn't pass those to its offspring independently. So, just as both parents could give the normal for spider version of that gene they could also both give the normal for pastel version of the separate pastel locus and produce a complete normal.