This is a complete misinterpretation of what I said. Obviously not everyone with spiders is dishonest. And I agree its pointless to mis-represent them now as they are $100 snakes. However it was not all that many years ago that these snakes were $15-18,000 each and that kind of money does provide sufficient motive.Originally Posted by Anatopism
So far 100% of the evidence supports that its a lethal gene and no evidence suggests its dominant. I will go with the preponderance of evidence on this one. You guys can remain optimistic if you want! Sure you can hold out forever I suppose, and demand some sort of impossible to attain proof, but really as has been pointed out, who cares.
You guys are also subjecting this morph to a higher standard of "proof" than any other. The statistical proof that you seek is conveniently impossible to obtain, yet you make no similar demands of statistical proof for any other morph.
I have a new morph (true story) that I proved out two years ago, I went for the super twice this year and in both cases there was no obvious homozygote, yet in each clutch (5 eggs and 6 eggs respectively) there were fertile eggs that died halfway through incubation, one in the first clutch and 2 in the second. I am well aware that its possible that I have a lethal gene here and am trying again with three females this season.
By your logic I should just sell the new morph as Dominant since I cant absolutely prove otherwise? If I get the same results this season (1 female just ovulated) and I lose roughly 25% of my fertile eggs at around 30 days of incubation (again), I still will not have "proven" anything, even though the answer becomes increasingly obvious.
By your logic, I cant say anything with certainty, yet to call it dominant when all the evidence suggests otherwise seems blatantly dishonest.
Nick
Reply With Quote