PDA

View Full Version : An egg sac without the fun!! WHAT!!



Luv8legs
03-23-2008, 02:31 PM
Hi this is the first time iv posted a new thread so if it all goes wrong sorry, I'v got a rangoon mustard which has just magically produced an egg sac without the male! Does anyone know why and what am i going to do about it, if i have to take it out god help me, shes got a nasty character if u go near the tank! Any suggestions?

JayzunBoget
03-23-2008, 02:42 PM
Some tarantulas can retain sperm for a year, or until they molt again. Your little wad of eight angry legs got some action in the wild, before she was collected. My advice, as a first timer, let her take care of the sac and hope for the best. Keep the environment humid. Try to disturb her or the tank as little as possible. Watch feedings as she might eat little or nothing, and uneaten crix in the cage could pose a threat to her.
Good luck!!!:clap: :clap: :clap:

Luv8legs
03-23-2008, 02:48 PM
Thanks for replying, i had her for around 14 months, shes already molted once, no male has been near her, maybe shes just broody, although i'm pretty sure they dont feel that, ( i hope!!)

Talkenlate04
03-23-2008, 02:49 PM
shes already molted once
Because she molted the sac she made is going to be infertile. You can let her keep it for a while, but I would think about taking it soon before it spoils and causes trouble.

Luv8legs
03-23-2008, 02:52 PM
HA its gonna be fun getting it out!! thanks.

CjP
03-23-2008, 06:39 PM
HA its gonna be fun getting it out!! thanks.

These (http://www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2752620) are Beautiful Things.

AubZ
03-23-2008, 06:53 PM
Because she molted the sac she made is going to be infertile. You can let her keep it for a while, but I would think about taking it soon before it spoils and causes trouble.

This brings up a question I have been thinking about. What if the fem was gravid for months, then molted and was mated a week later? Chances of fertile sac?

I would take out the sac after 20-30 days if it is still ok by then. Then search for the tips on setting up a nice incubator system and hope that the eggs are viable. But as Ryan said, I doubt it will, but stranger things have happened.

AubZ
03-23-2008, 06:57 PM
These (http://www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2752620) are Beautiful Things.

:clap: Indeed they are. I got me a pair of 12"s. :D

JayzunBoget
03-23-2008, 07:44 PM
I once heard someone on this site infer that there was a certain amount of time after a molting that fems were infertile. Anyone else heard that from a more reliable source?
And is it true that after a molt, there is no real chance of retaining sperm from a mating before the molt? Again, I have heard this inferred in conversation, but does anyone actually know? Any verifiable sources?:? :? :?

JayzunBoget
03-23-2008, 07:53 PM
I have personally witnessed many reptiles that have never been bred lay infertile eggs, but I've never known any of the amphibians or invertebrates that I work with to do so. Again, anyone ever have this happen to them or have come across a documented case?

Snakeguybuffalo
03-23-2008, 07:55 PM
...And is it true that after a molt, there is no real chance of retaining sperm from a mating before the molt? Again, I have heard this inferred in conversation, but does anyone actually know? Any verifiable sources?:? :? :?

Not true. When females molt, they shed the spermathecae (sperm holding and storing organs) lining as well. Within this lining is where the male's sperm is kept. So if it is shed, then the sperm goes too, and the female needs to be re-mated.

JayzunBoget
03-23-2008, 08:21 PM
Not true. When females molt, they shed the spermathecae (sperm holding and storing organs) lining as well. Within this lining is where the male's sperm is kept. So if it is shed, then the sperm goes too, and the female needs to be re-mated.

That is the traditional, accepted logic. Also traditional, accepted logic used to be that a human female could not menstruate after impregnation. It turns out that this can happen even sometimes without losing the embryo, although this is rare. Add to that that there are a few minor differences between a human and a tarantula and who knows what could happen. I was wondering if anybody has had any more direct information. No sacs after a bred fem molted, miracle sacs (like this one) after a molt without being rebred.
A lot of people might tell this lady her eggs never had life, but I just got done reading a thread where a bunch of armchair experts were making snap judgments about a Cyriopagopus sac that, who knows, just might make it after all. These people had seen no or few eggs that young because almost noone pulls them and opens them that early. Not having done that themselves, how could they know?:?
I've never heard of a T laying a fertile sac after a molt without being bred again after the molt, but I have also never personally heard of a T laying a sac w/out being bred.
Ps the term "armchair experts" was used cuz I like the way that sounds and I tend to speak melodramatically. It was not meant to impune any knowledge or experience these people have, only to imply that this particular unique circumstance was not the same as their experiences and might not turn out the same as their own experiences. Hopefully I don't offend.;P

Drachenjager
03-23-2008, 08:30 PM
I have personally witnessed many reptiles that have never been bred lay infertile eggs, but I've never known any of the amphibians or invertebrates that I work with to do so. Again, anyone ever have this happen to them or have come across a documented case?

my female A. seemani laid an infertile sac about 2 years ago this year she was bred and produced a nice fertile one

JayzunBoget
03-23-2008, 08:37 PM
my female A. seemani laid an infertile sac about 2 years ago this year she was bred and produced a nice fertile one

Do you mind me asking how long you had her before the first sac? Had she molted for you during that time? How long did it take before you knew the sac was infertile? How did you know the sac was infertile?
Thank you, this is just what I was hoping for.

moose35
03-23-2008, 10:38 PM
p. irminia are good at laying "phantom sacks". (i believe this is the right term).

it means though the female is unbreed, she is being kept at optimal conditions. and she could help herself. it was just soo tempting to lay a sack.






moose

AzJohn
03-23-2008, 10:53 PM
p. irminia are good at laying "phantom sacks". (i believe this is the right term).

it means though the female is unbreed, she is being kept at optimal conditions. and she could help herself. it was just soo tempting to lay a sack.

moose

My P cambridgei did the same thing this year. It's probably not that uncommon.

John

DrAce
03-24-2008, 11:34 AM
I once heard someone on this site infer that there was a certain amount of time after a molting that fems were infertile. Anyone else heard that from a more reliable source?
And is it true that after a molt, there is no real chance of retaining sperm from a mating before the molt? Again, I have heard this inferred in conversation, but does anyone actually know? Any verifiable sources?:? :? :?

You've heard one explaination. The only way this would not be true would be if the spermacathae would be damaged in moulting. This is unlikely, but a theoretical possibility.


I have personally witnessed many reptiles that have never been bred lay infertile eggs, but I've never known any of the amphibians or invertebrates that I work with to do so. Again, anyone ever have this happen to them or have come across a documented case?

Reptiles are capable of parthenogenetic reproduction. They can activate an egg to produce a viable embryo with no loss of a polar body on the MII stage oocyte. That means the embryo resulting will have a complete set of DNA, and will form into a complete organism. I am unaware of anything similar in invertebrates. Parthenogenic activation of spider oocytes is possible, but they will not give viable offspring, to my knowledge, because that activation will result in a polarbody and an incomplete set of DNA.


That is the traditional, accepted logic. Also traditional, accepted logic used to be that a human female could not menstruate after impregnation. It turns out that this can happen even sometimes without losing the embryo, although this is rare. Add to that that there are a few minor differences between a human and a tarantula and who knows what could happen. I was wondering if anybody has had any more direct information. No sacs after a bred fem molted, miracle sacs (like this one) after a molt without being rebred.
A lot of people might tell this lady her eggs never had life, but I just got done reading a thread where a bunch of armchair experts were making snap judgments about a Cyriopagopus sac that, who knows, just might make it after all. These people had seen no or few eggs that young because almost noone pulls them and opens them that early. Not having done that themselves, how could they know?:?
I've never heard of a T laying a fertile sac after a molt without being bred again after the molt, but I have also never personally heard of a T laying a sac w/out being bred.
Ps the term "armchair experts" was used cuz I like the way that sounds and I tend to speak melodramatically. It was not meant to impune any knowledge or experience these people have, only to imply that this particular unique circumstance was not the same as their experiences and might not turn out the same as their own experiences. Hopefully I don't offend.;P

There are some cases of incomplete menstruation in women, however this normally occurs before implantation, or is only a half menstrual cycle, with deminished shedding of the epithelial lining of the uterus. As a result, the pre-implantation or implanted blastocyst can retain at the base of the fallopian tube or similar area, and continue to develop.

The reason the 'armchair experts' are making 'snap judgements' is simple. They're not there to personally inspect the situation. As discussed, the chances of that sac being a viable one are vanishinly small, at best.

Furthermore, the statistical odds, while non-zero, are so small as to be negligable.

The Armchair has spoken.

JayzunBoget
03-24-2008, 02:48 PM
The reason the 'armchair experts' are making 'snap judgements' is simple. They're not there to personally inspect the situation. As discussed, the chances of that sac being a viable one are vanishinly small, at best.

Furthermore, the statistical odds, while non-zero, are so small as to be negligable.

The Armchair has spoken.

:worship: :worship: :worship:
I just wanted to question that non-zero but minute scenario. I also wanted to sound out whether these are "accepted norms" like the pre-Wright Bros. impossibility of flight or was this something verified by professional academics.
I have seen an awful lot of very authentic sounding snap judgments from some very intelligent sounding people that were way off in retrospect.

DrAce
03-24-2008, 02:56 PM
:worship: :worship: :worship:
I just wanted to question that non-zero but minute scenario. I also wanted to sound out whether these are "accepted norms" like the pre-Wright Bros. impossibility of flight or was this something verified by professional academics.
I have seen an awful lot of very authentic sounding snap judgments from some very intelligent sounding people that were way off in retrospect.

Flight was an academically accepted impossibility. As was travelling faster than 32 miles an hour, and using coal to power a ship from London to New York.

WRT the original question, it's not known to occur. There are good reasons for this to be true.