The elusive homozygous spider...?

Okay I know this topic comes up from time to time with no definite answers. No one I know of has ever produced a homozygous spider.

My question is, has anyone here ever bred two snakes together that carried the spider gene? Perhaps a bee to a bee looking in an attempt for killerbees?

I just wanted to know if anyone has a theory as to what happens to an egg that recieves the spider gene from both parents. Is it fatal? If so I'd imagine that bee x bee pairings might have a higher likelihood for slugs, bad eggs, etc..

Part of the issue that we don't know a ton about it I assume is that it seems not many people breed spider carriers to other spider carriers, except back in the day when they were first determined to be a dominant morph.

I cannot give names, as I do not know the names... but I have never thought it was lethal (no one has ever been able to convince me), and there is a person on the board that knows of a spider that always throws 100% spider offspring, perhaps this individual will contribute... :)

Bruce

It's just that we have been waiting a long time for someone to convince us spider is not homozygous lethal. There have been rumors of a hidden homozygous spider for years so if it's really possible one should eventually be proven by someone willing to share that info. I can see why there isn't a lot of interest in breeding spider X spider at this point so maybe there just haven't been enough possible homozygous spiders made yet. I have a pair of spiders and I would much rather use the female to try to make bumblebees but suppose after years of pointing out the possibility of spider being homozygous lethal I'll have to breed them together when ready and spend years more trying to confirm a homozygous offspring which might not even be possible. If I fail to confirm a homozygous spider I can never be sure if my odds where just bad or they really don't survive.

Assuming that a significant number of breeders would be willing to share their data from any pairings where both animals carry the spider gene AND any pairings where one or both animals do not carry the spider gene, would we not be able to statistically prove that there is a higher rate of bad eggs (or no difference) in the spider pairings?

It would still take time, but would not need to rely on one person's breeding experiences. I understand how unlikely this is to happen, both motivation and the desire to keep pairings secret would likely make this project fall short of the needed data. Theoretically it should work though, right?

I believe Spiderman was a homozygote.....

I believe TSK did some spider X spider breeding in 2007 and planned to do it again in 2008 but I haven't asked if they did. They seem like the type that would be willing to share their results so could be a good first step toward figuring this out.

I heard that a group of corn snake breeders did the same to finally prove the allele nature of stripped and motley proposed way back in the original Color Guide to Corn Snakes (1990 or so) so it can be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clurin

Assuming that a significant number of breeders would be willing to share their data from any pairings where both animals carry the spider gene AND any pairings where one or both animals do not carry the spider gene, would we not be able to statistically prove that there is a higher rate of bad eggs (or no difference) in the spider pairings?

It would still take time, but would not need to rely on one person's breeding experiences. I understand how unlikely this is to happen, both motivation and the desire to keep pairings secret would likely make this project fall short of the needed data. Theoretically it should work though, right?

---

With accurate data on enough spiderx spider breedings we should be able to determine whether there is a homozygenous form or it is a lethal combination just from hatch rate vs hatch rate of spiderx (anything else).
If it is a lethal combination we would see a 25% lower hatch rate in spider x spider breedings.

This is an excellent project; Does anyone know someone working in the field of genetics??? this would be a great thesis for a paper on the genetics of ball python morphs.:bow:

I'm not sure if this relates, but I think BHB may have what Brian thinks is a homozygous pinstripe. I might be wrong, but I thought he said that on Reptile Radio.

I'm the person with the possible homozgous spider, but I only state that because every formed fetus so far has been spider out of him(bred to normal females).
HOWEVER.. it has not been enough clutches so far to say anything definitive. I will of course, continue to report any clutchs out of him. I bred him to my pastel female this year.. and she was definitely gravid.. but died in the heater malfunction(curses), so that one is out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

I'm the person with the possible homozgous spider, but I only state that because every formed fetus so far has been spider out of him(bred to normal females).
HOWEVER.. it has not been enough clutches so far to say anything definitive. I will of course, continue to report any clutchs out of him. I bred him to my pastel female this year.. and she was definitely gravid.. but died in the heater malfunction(curses), so that one is out.

---

Keep us posted!!!!!!
Sorry about your loss man. losing snakes sucks

isnt normal a dominent morph? wouldnt the same apply as breeding two normals?

"normal" isn't a morph.

When we reference "morphs" for BPs, we are talking about genetic mutations which visible physical changes. These changes are the cause of single mutated genes.

A "normal" ball python has none of these genes, there is no single gene that causes the look of a normal ball python. Therefore it is not a morph, and cannot be considered dominant or recessive or anything, since those terms only apply to how genes interact.

Is it just me, or have they been around long enough that the probability is that there isn't an homozygous spider?

Brandonsballs

If spider was Dominant then when bred with a female all offspring would have to be "spider" in appearance, assuming that spider being dominant that it is also homozygous in that sense.

But if a spider is paired with a normal and normals are hatched from the clutch then one would assume that by these results that the spider is in fact co-dominant and merely heterozygous.

I need a spider so I can breed with a normal and see results. This sounds very intriguing. Good luck on your pairings. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbo Serpent

If spider was Dominant then when bred with a female all offspring would have to be "spider" in appearance, assuming that spider being dominant that it is also homozygous in that sense.

But if a spider is paired with a normal and normals are hatched from the clutch then one would assume that by these results that the spider is in fact co-dominant and merely heterozygous.

I need a spider so I can breed with a normal and see results. This sounds very intriguing. Good luck on your pairings. :gj:

---

Actually no this is not the case....

A Dominant mutation still can only pass on one copy of the gene to the offspring.

Dominant mutations are visually identical wether they are heterozygous or homozygous carriers of the gene

If the parent is a Heterozygous Dominant gene carrier bred to normal Statistically 50% of the offspring will be Heterozygous carriers (Visual) and 50% will not be carriers (completely normal)

If the parent is a Homozygous Dominant gene carrier bred to normal
All offspring will be Heterozygous cariers of the gene. Thus they will look identical to the Parent Homozygous carrier but only be heterozygous carriers themselves (1 copy of the gene)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrandonsBalls

Is it just me, or have they been around long enough that the probability is that there isn't an homozygous spider?

Brandonsballs

---

Actually, the fact that they have been around for a while makes the probability that there IS quite a few homozygous spiders out there, unless it is homozygous lethal, but since I have seen nothing other than speculation on that point, I'm inclined to believe it is not lethal.

I think what you meant is that the homozygous form is probably not visually different from the heterozygous form, and yes, no one is expecting a visually different homo form to turn up. If it had one, it would have been seen by now.

Don't mean to give you a hard time, but: isn't it just as much speculation that there might be a homozygous spider as that spider might be homozygous lethal? No one seems to have any good proof of either so why would one opinion be more likely than the other.

Also, if homozygous spider is possible then the difference between seeing the first one and proving it through breeding should be a limited number of years. What I'm getting at is why should everyone have given up on ever seeing a visually different homozygous spider years and years ago yet still hold out so much hope for proving a non-visually different homozygous spider through breeding? I realize every spider doesn't get bred at two years, especially the females but when was spider declared dominant anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Don't mean to give you a hard time, but: isn't it just as much speculation that there might be a homozygous spider as that spider might be homozygous lethal? No one seems to have any good proof of either so why would one opinion be more likely than the other.

Also, if homozygous spider is possible then the difference between seeing the first one and proving it through breeding should be a limited number of years. What I'm getting at is why should everyone have given up on ever seeing a visually different homozygous spider years and years ago yet still hold out so much hope for proving a non-visually different homozygous spider through breeding? I realize every spider doesn't get bred at two years, especially the females but when was spider declared dominant anyway?

---

someone correct me if im wrong, but i think the spider was declared dominant because there is not a visual super form. its the same as the pinstripe. The date this was "agreed" on, i have no idea :(

I dont think hom spyders are a lethal combination, but i do think we need more information on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyRemington

Don't mean to give you a hard time, but: isn't it just as much speculation that there might be a homozygous spider as that spider might be homozygous lethal? No one seems to have any good proof of either so why would one opinion be more likely than the other.

Also, if homozygous spider is possible then the difference between seeing the first one and proving it through breeding should be a limited number of years. What I'm getting at is why should everyone have given up on ever seeing a visually different homozygous spider years and years ago yet still hold out so much hope for proving a non-visually different homozygous spider through breeding? I realize every spider doesn't get bred at two years, especially the females but when was spider declared dominant anyway?

---

Well, the reason I think it is more likely that homozygous spiders exist than that homozygous spider is lethal is because I've heard credible rumors of the first, and nothing but speculation of the 2nd. There is a member on this forum who claims to own a spider that has only been bred a fairly limited number of times, but so far has produced 100% spider offspring. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that claim. I've also heard 2nd or 3rd hand of some others who have been bred quite a bit more and still throw 100% spiders. Now, I realize this proves nothing, which is why I said I believe this possibility over the other one, rather than saying this is a fact.

It would be an easy enough thing to get pretty convincing proof if either one big breeder or a group of smaller breeders would pair known het spider to known het spider (or spider combos would work as well of course), and document the offspring ratios. 3/4 spider means it is non-lethal dominant with no visible homozygous form, 2/3 spider means it is co-dominant with a lethal homozygous form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinderbird

someone correct me if im wrong, but i think the spider was declared dominant because there is not a visual super form. its the same as the pinstripe. ...

---

I guess my point was that there are only a few more years of breedings failing to produce a visual super spider than breedings failing to prove a homozygous spider. Just seems odd to me that so many people take it as a fact that there isn't a different looking super spider but still consider the idea that there isn't a homozygous spider at all very unlikely when they are almost exactly the same thing, the very difficult task of trying to prove something through it's absence.

I bred a spider x spider and got this somehow.:8::8::O:D:rofl:

http://www.spiderman-3-trailer.com/spiderman_6.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

Well, the reason I think it is more likely that homozygous spiders exist than that homozygous spider is lethal is because I've heard credible rumors of the first, and nothing but speculation of the 2nd. There is a member on this forum who claims to own a spider that has only been bred a fairly limited number of times, but so far has produced 100% spider offspring. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that claim. I've also heard 2nd or 3rd hand of some others who have been bred quite a bit more and still throw 100% spiders. Now, I realize this proves nothing, which is why I said I believe this possibility over the other one, rather than saying this is a fact.

It would be an easy enough thing to get pretty convincing proof if either one big breeder or a group of smaller breeders would pair known het spider to known het spider (or spider combos would work as well of course), and document the offspring ratios. 3/4 spider means it is non-lethal dominant with no visible homozygous form, 2/3 spider means it is co-dominant with a lethal homozygous form.

---

The nature of the problem of proving a mutation homozygous lethal is that it's much harder to produce credible evidence of something not existing than that it might exist.

I'll have to find and re-read the evidence from the keeper here. I didn't doubt at all that the info was accurate; my only question was if it was enough to be very significant. I remember when I first read it just didn't seem like enough spiders in a row. I also remember there where a lot of dead eggs which should be randomly distributed between spiders and non spider offspring so really shouldn't matter but it did make me wonder if somehow the dead eggs tainted even the streak of spiders that was presented. It would have also been nice to know if that male spider even had the chance to be homozygous by having both spider parents. Hopefully that male will be able to produce some more full term eggs this year.

I think I've only heard detailed results from a single spider x spider breeding so too small to be significant that 1/4 of the eggs where undersized and didn't hatch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrandonsBalls

Is it just me, or have they been around long enough that the probability is that there isn't an homozygous spider?

---

The real issue is the absence of a BP genome map and the genetic tests such a map would allow for. Since there is no documented super form, it's assumed the homozygous and heterozygous forms are visually identical, and thus, a particular animal can only be suspected of being homozygous.

While you can suspect an animal bearing a dominant trait of being homozygous, the only "proving" you can do is when it's shown to be heterozygous by throwing even a single non-spider offspring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlfreq

While you can suspect an animal bearing a dominant trait of being homozygous, the only "proving" you can do is when it's shown to be heterozygous by throwing even a single non-spider offspring.

---

I've heard of albino x albino pairings producing normal offspring before though :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

3/4 spider means it is non-lethal dominant with no visible homozygous form, 2/3 spider means it is co-dominant with a lethal homozygous form.

---

To get some preliminary data for a study, it would be a good idea to conduct a poll, either online or by querying reputable breeders. The question would be something like: "Not counting slugs or dead eggs, what were the spider ratios in every clutch ever produced from two parents each carrying the spider mutation?"

1) Data should be compiled from trusted breeders who keep meticulous records. 2) There must be enough data to compile a statistically significant sample population. 3) Unfortunately, slugs/bad eggs can not be counted because the genetics of the dead embryos are unknown, and unfertilized eggs can't count. It would be helpful to know, however, if the 2/3 ratio clutches also produce an overwhelming number of dead eggs. So, although they can't be counted, they might help support a conclusion in a large population study.

Regardless of whether the breeder was breeding... spider x spider... or spider desert ghost woma x spider woma axanthic, the other genes do not have to be revealed, so "secret" crosses can be protected. However, this may affect the data if other combinations prove to produce lethalities. So, double woma crosses obviously must be left out.

If any herp folks out there think this type of study would be worthwhile, please post your ideas, suggestions, caveats, etc. And, if there's a stats guru out there, wanna volunteer your expertise?

I've done a lot of thinking on this one recently, and will probably be producing a homozygous spider line (long term goal) to see what comes from it.

my thoughts are a dominant trait that is passed on easily to offspring has been bred so because of how easy it is to produce more of the same morph. wanna make spiders? get a spider and a normal, problem solved.....

too many people out there like to take the cheap route. many are much more particular, but also much more reclusive. i'm sure there will be more on this in the next few years.

I'm fairly new to ball python genetics and I believe it's safe to say it far more complicated than I expected lol!

Anyway, on the topic of homozygous spiders... I've played around with just percentage points on potential genetic outcomes and can never seem to get more than a 25% overall chance of producing any spider morph that is homozygous. Granted this 25% is theoretical and simply on paper things seem to change a fair bit in real life practice though. I have however found a coupling that produces potential for many awesome spiders if it worked. If I had 2 mahogany cinnabees you even have chances of homozygous super cinnamon spiders. I'd like to see that since super cinnamon is solid black and I'm not certain what spider would do to that.

I've torn through many different pairings but this seems to be one of my favorites as far as high variance in offspring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven86

I'm fairly new to ball python genetics and I believe it's safe to say it far more complicated than I expected lol!

Anyway, on the topic of homozygous spiders... I've played around with just percentage points on potential genetic outcomes and can never seem to get more than a 25% overall chance of producing any spider morph that is homozygous. Granted this 25% is theoretical and simply on paper things seem to change a fair bit in real life practice though. I have however found a coupling that produces potential for many awesome spiders if it worked. If I had 2 mahogany cinnabees you even have chances of homozygous super cinnamon spiders. I'd like to see that since super cinnamon is solid black and I'm not certain what spider would do to that.

I've torn through many different pairings but this seems to be one of my favorites as far as high variance in offspring.

---

And for your first trick (and first post), you will bring a 3.5 year old thread back to life! Much discussion has been done since then - still no such thing as a homozygous spider. No concrete reason why, but there are many theories. ;)

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/...necromancy.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven86

I'm fairly new to ball python genetics and I believe it's safe to say it far more complicated than I expected lol!

Anyway, on the topic of homozygous spiders... I've played around with just percentage points on potential genetic outcomes and can never seem to get more than a 25% overall chance of producing any spider morph that is homozygous. Granted this 25% is theoretical and simply on paper things seem to change a fair bit in real life practice though. I have however found a coupling that produces potential for many awesome spiders if it worked. If I had 2 mahogany cinnabees you even have chances of homozygous super cinnamon spiders. I'd like to see that since super cinnamon is solid black and I'm not certain what spider would do to that.

I've torn through many different pairings but this seems to be one of my favorites as far as high variance in offspring.

---

I hereby anoint thee Thread Necromancer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Alan

And for your first trick (and first post), you will bring a 3.5 year old thread back to life! Much discussion has been done since then - still no such thing as a homozygous spider. No concrete reason why, but there are many theories.

---

I think that the person with the "dominant" spider should breed the babies back to it, even though it's in-breeding and incest, but it will also help determine the answers. Don't know whether that particular ball python is left but the thing is that most of these spiders have a genetic head wobble and we don't have the answers to that yet either. The spider morph is beautiful alone and is great for creativity and it would be great if we knew more about them so its actually a great thing that Raven86 has re-sparked this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tjohn310

I think that the person with the "dominant" spider should breed the babies back to it, even though it's in-breeding and incest, but it will also help determine the answers. Don't know whether that particular ball python is left but the thing is that most of these spiders have a genetic head wobble and we don't have the answers to that yet either. The spider morph is beautiful alone and is great for creativity and it would be great if we knew more about them so its actually a great thing that Raven86 has re-sparked this conversation.

---

Then we will agree to disagree on this one.

Since this post died in April 2009, there are no less than 9 pages of results when you type "homozygous spider" into the search bar. Granted, not every single one of those posts are on this exact topic, but more than a handful of them are. Most recently, there is a 13 page thread on the topic that has its last contributing post dated August 1, 2013 (and it's first on September 17, 2012). Shouldn't you be able to find the relevant conversation you're seeking regarding this topic there instead of pulling for a 3.5 year old three page thread to be revisited?

Just sayin'...

Why not start it up again,
your using it aren't you? It got your attention right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tjohn310

Why not start it up again,
your using it aren't you? It got your attention right?

---

Because unless your mapping the bp genome, there is nothing more to be said on the topic, its been beaten to death, and nothing new has been discovered.

What's the saying about beating a dead horse?

Wow, sorry everyone I really didn't even notice the post being severely outdated. It's just something that came up through a google search and it led to me joining this forum... Didn't mean to aggravate anyone by posting.

:please: I pray your forgiveness for my clearly foolish behavior as my forgiveness has been given for your sarcastic response. :P

Forgiveness is given to those who ask for it.

New or Old. I don't discriminate when I give out my Thread Necro awards.

Welcome to the forum.

I bred a bee to a bee, got the clutch shown below. No fatalities.

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/x...e/IMG_2625.jpg