Quote Originally Posted by bunnykit View Post

Also there was talk about a 'super pin' but that sounds wrong to me as well, since pin is dominant, and I've never heard about a super pin before. This talk about "super spiders" and "super pins" looking just like the 'one gene' animals....really? How many super version morphs are there that looks JUST like the one gene one? Why would pin and spider be the ONLY super that doesn't have a super look to them? That isn't logical at all.
For a gene to be classified as dominant the homozygous form (or "super" ) must have an identical appearance to the heterozygous form. Thats literally the definition of a dominant gene. All genes have homozygous forms. We classify genes as dominant, co dominant, incomplete dominant, or recessive by looking at the appearance of the normal, heterozygous, and homozygous forms.

Your thoughts about taking homozygous spiders as a sunk cost and doing the pairing anyway is 100% spot on. If the homozygous form is lethal you will see fewer hatchlings total and a higher ratio of spiders to normals then expected. There are some breeders of the jag mutation in carpet pythons that do exactly this, because they feel normals are really undesirable, and homozygous jags are lethal.

Its funny because I have the exact opposite feeling about this based on similar reasoning. If the homozygous spider was a perfectly healthy, normal animal, then why hasnt one ever shown up after all this time? If its possible to produce as a viable healthy animal surely someone would have shown evidence that it exists.




Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk 2