Bumblebee's

[ctrlfreq]

While I agree with your thought process I disagree that we should use the Homo Spider assumption in genetic calculations. This would be assuming a genetic makeup that so far has not been proven.

I agree completely, the default position without having proven SS in either animal should be that the animal only has a single spider allele. I just think if breeder are lead to believe that is the only possible outcome, we are much more likely to pass over a homozygous version if one does come about and is, as we are led to believe now, visually identical to a heterozygous animal.

[lord jackel]

I agree completely, the default position without having proven SS in either animal should be that the animal only has a single spider allele. I just think if breeder are lead to believe that is the only possible outcome, we are much more likely to pass over a homozygous version if one does come about and is, as we are led to believe now, visually identical to a heterozygous animal.

I agree...but how many generations or outcrossing of a particular animal would need to be "watched" to verify if the underlying gene set is Het or Homo. While perhaps academically interesting I am not sure (given the constant price declines for these animals) that it would make good business sense to do so.

[ctrlfreq]

but how many generations or outcrossing of a particular animal would need to be "watched" to verify if the underlying gene set is Het or Homo.

I don't think it's a question of generations as much as it is the number of Ss offspring before reaching statistical improbability. Assuming an average clutch size of 6 eggs, and using only S? x ss crossings (50/50 per fertilization), I would expect an animal could be inferred to be homozygous in as few as 5 clutches, as that would statistically-speaking, only have a 1 in 2^30 chance.