Quote Originally Posted by Nick Mutton View Post
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.
Even when they were $15,000 what benefit is there to be gained from "hiding the truth" about a possible homozygous lethal spider (or any other perceived dominant) trait? If you are not of the mindset that anybody involved in a spider project is dishonest, then who are you accusing specifically of being dishonest? Is this something you'd feel comfortable posting about on fauna BOI, or is it speculation only? Regardless of any paranoia and suspicions on the topic, it's still no proof, or even can be remotely considered evidence, towards the conclusion of a homozygous spider.

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.
I'm sorry, I guess I got confused and figured since you are so adamant that you KNOW something as fact, that it would be appropriate to request proof... but you're right. Lets remove the word proof entirely, as it really has no place in this conversation. Instead, please show me evidence that supports your theory(and pointing fingers at breeders for telling lies or keeping secrets doesn't count as evidence).

You guys are also subjecting this morph to a higher standard of "proof" than any other.
No, it's that the topic comes up time and time again, and most people are willing to accept that LOTS of morphs are unknown for certain. Most people call spider 'dominant' because it's simply easier, and seems to be the most suitable conlusion at the time, until enough evidence is compiled and presented, pointing towards a different conclusion. People don't have a specific agenda to "defend" the dominant status of the spider gene, it just happens to be topic that attracts quite a few people that claim theory as fact.

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 think you missed my bolded sentence previously. The one that said nobody is arguing it isn't lethal. We're all arguing semantics. The argument is that you claim to KNOW that which cannot be known. To KNOW for a fact requires PROOF. But you're right, proof is hard to come by, and since you claim to have lots of evidence pointing towards an incontrovertible conclusion, I ask you again. Please provide this evidence, that does not include the words "dishonest" and does not include stories of a friend who knew a guy, who knows some breeders in canada, who told him about some other guy in Kansas, who bred a spider to a champagne that died.

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.
No, you have evidence pointing towards possible lethal homo, and market it as such. More evidence points towards a more probable conclusion. There is very little actual proof in this world, so you label with the most likely answer for the evidence you have, and provide honest information. If more evidence points towards a different conclusion, then you change your theory, and you change your label.


Quote Originally Posted by tattlife2001 View Post
Just to show some numbers on this that I have produced myself. I have bred Spider to Spider 25 times in total, the last time was 4 years ago. Out of all of them I had 1 slug and 3 eggs go bad during incubation. I did use ultra sound and every number is the exact same for follicle count vs eggs/slugs. I was very lucky and hatched 5 males the first year and they were breeding normal females the next year and were not homo spiders. The females that were raised up that were spider and bred to normal males produced the standard outcome. This year is the last year I will be doing these breedings and currently have 91 eggs incubating from those pairings. So we will see. But so far nothing at all has shown any form of lethality or a super form at all. So with the amount of breedings done on this is a decent amount for a base case study and more can be done to add to it. As a side note there were no multi gene animals used through the entire process it was only spider to spider and then offspring to normals.
Very interesting, Tat! Thank you for sharing this information. I would love to be updated on your results