Daniel Reed

Has anyone noticed this on all of his ads?

"***Spider gene free lineage. If you don't want spider neurological disorders in your stock, You shouldn't use snakes that have spider in there lineage.
An example of this, A breeder breeds a spider clown to a normal and produces spider het clowns and het clowns.
The normal het clowns can and do at times carry the negative neurological genes. I have seen the same neurological disorders in these snakes as I have seen in spider and spider morphs.
I have discussed this with other breeders that have seen and/or had this in their collections also.
I would be happy to discuss this with anyone by phone who has witnessed this or who would like more information."

What is this? I've never heard of this, or spoken to anyone who's ever heard of it.

Is this just some sales gimmick?

Never heard of which part.....You've never heard of the spider gene and the neurological defects that come along with it?

i thought the spider potential neoro issues in the bp world were nearly as infamous as the jaguar neuro issues in the cp world....i dont do bp,s and even i am fully aware of it....
nothing new at all

Originally Posted by Black Adder

i thought the spider potential neoro issues in the bp world were nearly as infamous as the jaguar neuro issues in the cp world....i dont do bp,s and even i am fully aware of it....
nothing new at all

They're much more so infamous seeing as how the spider ball gene preceded the jaguar carpet by close to a decade (I think) lol.

The claim made in the quoted portion seems specious. If the claimed observations are legitimate for some reason, the explanation in that quoted portion is not biologically sound.

Of course I know of the spider "issue", I own several animals with the spider gene.

I have never once heard of a "spider sibling" having nuero defects, and I've never spoken to anyone who has.

I should have been more specific, sorry.

I understood what you meant.

I'm NOT a Ball Python geneticist, so excuse me if this is a dumb question.... but I presume that there is at least an outside possibility that a spider sibling carrying recessive genetics for the neurological defects but not expressing them, breeds with another the same, there is at least a chance that a certain percentage of offspring (possibly a very low one) could express the wobble?

Or is it certain that no wobble means no gene?

If the neurological dysfunction is due to the presence and expression of the spider gene, the siblings not having any copies of the gene present at all should not exhibit neurological dysfunction from that source.

Instead of no dysfunction meaning no gene, the order should be thought of as gene first and expression second.

I can think of something else, but I want to see the person making the claim of the spider-gene-lacking animals having the same neurological dysfunction defend his statements.