spider x spider

[OhhWatALoser]

What's a bubblebee? Lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Did you mean bumblebee?

lmao guess i was typing too fast oops

[irishanaconda]

your mixing up 2 things. spiders and pinstripes

no i know what both are, was just stating that as a simmilar morph to the spider, and if a pin can "in theory" have a super then the punnett square should still work for the spider. i am getting a female spider from chris gibson (aka gib) that he has had for some time that has yet to throw a spider with wobbles. i believe even his offspring that have been bought off of other members to this site have had babbies that havent thrown wobblers or corkscrewing ones so this might be a better specimen to use for a project... i dont know. but i figure this year there is enough female bees of breeding weights that hopefully a couple of people will try a bee to a bee.

[OhhWatALoser]

[QUOTE=irishanaconda;1192208]no i know what both are, was just stating that as a simmilar morph to the spider, and if a pin can "in theory" have a super then the punnett square should still work for the spider. QUOTE]

not that you trying wouldn't aid to this investigation, but that statement is comparing apples to oranges, each gene is different. if spider is dominate, like it is stated on NERDs website, then the punnett square does not work. pin and spider are not simmilar gentically. just so you know. mix the 2 and you get a spinner.

but we need people to try, lets us know your results.

[irishanaconda]

have u called nerd and asked? maybe call ralph davis too... ask some opinions and post them here.

[Eventide]

I have to agree that it probably just isn't proven yet.

1. If there is a Super Spider that looks like a regular Spider, you would have to breed all Spiders from many clutches to normals several times to see if all the offspring of a particular Spider are Spiders. Even doing this several times would not prove there isn't a Super due to those annoying probabilities. You'd be able to say, "Well, it's highly unlikely there's a Super," but that's about it.

2. If Super Spiders die in the egg, then why aren't there pictures of those? I would think if a breeder were trying to produce a Super Spider, he would be checking those eggs that die during incubation to see if they look any different or not. Even if the Super dies before the pattern appears, we could still do some statistics of the number of dead eggs in Spider x Spider clutches and see if we get ~25% egg mortality rate. Again, it wouldn't be certain proof, but it would be good enough to come to a conclusion, at any rate. Again, if I were a breeder, I would want to be keeping track of this so I know when to stop wasting time on it.

3. If Super Spiders don't exist at all for some reason (or if the eggs get reabsorbed, etc.), there would be no way of proving that, either, unless we had some way of showing that every, single Spider offspring only has one Spider gene.

You're kidding, right? The proof is what makes it true.

Um, wow. o.O So...someone who is on trial for murder didn't actually kill the person until the jury reads the verdict? Who killed the person before it is "proven" that the murderer did it? No, that's not what proof is. Proof is showing evidence that something is true; the proof in and of itself does not make something true.

Well, except for quantum mechanics, but that's something completely different.

[OhhWatALoser]

I have to agree that it probably just isn't proven yet.

1. If there is a Super Spider that looks like a regular Spider, you would have to breed all Spiders from many clutches to normals several times to see if all the offspring of a particular Spider are Spiders. Even doing this several times would not prove there isn't a Super due to those annoying probabilities. You'd be able to say, "Well, it's highly unlikely there's a Super," but that's about it.

tho there are no numbers, this has already happened, between when spiders first hit the sceen and combo morphs dealing with spiders like bubble i mean bumblebees, we are at the "well, its highly unlikely" point.

2. If Super Spiders die in the egg, then why aren't there pictures of those? I would think if a breeder were trying to produce a Super Spider, he would be checking those eggs that die during incubation to see if they look any different or not. Even if the Super dies before the pattern appears, we could still do some statistics of the number of dead eggs in Spider x Spider clutches and see if we get ~25% egg mortality rate. Again, it wouldn't be certain proof, but it would be good enough to come to a conclusion, at any rate. Again, if I were a breeder, I would want to be keeping track of this so I know when to stop wasting time on it.

how many people do you know take pictures of dead things in eggs? and it would look just like a normal spider, so whats that prove anyways?

3. If Super Spiders don't exist at all for some reason (or if the eggs get reabsorbed, etc.), there would be no way of proving that, either, unless we had some way of showing that every, single Spider offspring only has one Spider gene.

it being dominate (which seems to be the most likly case at this point) is the reason they wouldn't exist. and your right there is no way of 100% proving it unless we dig into decoding snake DNA and testing unborn spiders and seeing what happens to them.

[Eventide]

how many people do you know take pictures of dead things in eggs? and it would look just like a normal spider, so whats that prove anyways?

Well, if I were trying to prove/disprove something like this, I would definitely be taking pictures! Or, at the very least, keeping track. I've had some leopard and fat-tail gecko eggs die during incubation, and I wanted to see why they died. Also, if you're trying to prove out a het and some eggs in the clutch die during incubation, I'd want to check them to see if the het proved or not.

If the Super Spider does not look like a normal Spider (and always dies in the egg), we might be able to see the difference in pattern between the Super and the Spider. But if no one is checking the dead eggs just in case, how would we know the Super form does or does not look different?

[AaronP]

Proof is showing evidence that something is true; the proof in and of itself does not make something true.

That...is a contradiction.

1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

We're not doing a Trial by Jury, juries can be wrong, we're talking cold hard facts.

[irishanaconda]

here is a pretty good lonk i found if anyone wants to check it out
http://www.ballpython.ca/genetics_101.html
from randy remington.

[JayCee]

Well, if I were trying to prove/disprove something like this, I would definitely be taking pictures! Or, at the very least, keeping track.

Do you assume the big breeders in the industry are complete morons and never thought to try and prove out the Spider gene ?? Do you assume the first to dabble into the Spider gene weren't in a race to try and create the first "Super Spider" ?? Do you assume these same breeders only bred 1 male spider to 1 female spider, didn't hit the Super and just gave up ??


Now, to try and step into the shoes of a "big breeder". I'd get a chuckle out of all the newcomers trying to reinvent the wheel. At best, it even helps sales of Spiders. Every 2-3 months there is a new thread on "super spider" and a handful that refuse to believe it until they do 100 Spider X Spider pairings themselves. I'll happily sell them as many Spiders as they want.