# bumble bee x bumble bee



## JDKREPS (May 16, 2007)

will the double spider trait affect the hatchlings
cheers james


----------



## nicole horsell (Aug 31, 2008)

JDKREPS said:


> will the double spider trait affect the hatchlings
> cheers james


 
only any super spider that would hatch would be effected by this, all others would be fine


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

You could lose the whole clutch if they were all "Super Spiders", not worth the risk :gasp:. I'd put the Bee to something else if you have something else you could use.


----------



## JDKREPS (May 16, 2007)

to late!!!! hope the super aint the killerbee


----------



## razor (Mar 22, 2009)

super spiders have never been pulled out have they? i thought spiders where dominate like pins, champagne, ect meaning there is no super or lesser form.


----------



## corny girl (Aug 30, 2009)

razor said:


> super spiders have never been pulled out have they? i thought spiders where dominate like pins, champagne, ect meaning there is no super or lesser form.



Only going by discussions on here, from what i gather it hasn't been proved so only assuming they are Dominant as nobody has come forward with a "Super Spider" as yet. That's the impression i get from what i've read on here.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 11, 2008)

razor said:


> i thought spiders where dominate like pins, champagne, ect meaning there is no super *or lesser form.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> eh ?...


----------



## Blackecho (Jun 30, 2008)

razor said:


> super spiders have never been pulled out have they? i thought spiders where dominate like pins, champagne, ect meaning there is no super or lesser form.


That's the problem with words like 'super', Homozygous would be better.

Just because a gene is Dominant does not mean it cannot be Homozygous.


----------



## RedGex (Dec 29, 2007)

i thought the reason there are no homozygous spiders is because it is a lethal trait meaning no "supers" will survive? if it wasn't you would expect there to be loads around because spiders have been about for a fair while.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 11, 2008)

RedGex said:


> i thought the reason there are no homozygous spiders is because it is a lethal trait meaning no "supers" will survive?


that's what i've always been led to believe...same as the super woma (pearl),
and how close are the spider and woma visually !?!


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

Blackecho said:


> That's the problem with words like 'super', Homozygous would be better.
> 
> Just because a gene is Dominant does not mean it cannot be Homozygous.


I think in theory a homozgous spider is possible, it wouldnt be a super coz it would look the same as both parents but coz it will hold two spider genes then it gives more % to producing more spiders and other morphs depending what its put with. But yes the fatal spider x spider is what everyone rants about. There is someone on the forum who said their friend is trying to disprove this theory and has lost two clutches so far....so is it really worth it!!!


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

I met a dealer (snake dealer) monday night who had a killerbee that had the typical spider trait of the head in the air swaying all over the place. He bred it himself. Couldnt work out why it hadnt sold, said it had lots of personality, but think its seen as a dysfunctional personality in snakes....dont think thats the most PC way of saying that :blush: could have been worse though:whistling2:


----------



## mojorising (Jan 4, 2010)

fantapants said:


> not as far as i know. I know of one person that "APPARENTLY" put two spiders together and just got a load of shockingly bad spiraling twitchers that preffered to be on their backs than their bellys. Same person that still believes that there is a super spider, much like the hidden gene woma and persists in trying to hit it without success.


Thought i read it somewhere


----------

