# Cross Breeding ???



## DETHCHEEZ (Jan 5, 2013)

Has anyone cross bred mantids???
Is it possible???

Just Curious...


----------



## aychen222 (Jan 5, 2013)

you just opened a whole can of worms. it has been done but there are many who feel that it shouldn't. apparently the differences in the offspring of crossbred mantids from purebreds are minimal and are usually sterile. you should search this topic, there are a bunch of (lengthy and heated) threads on it.


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 5, 2013)

If you can't find a mantis in its natural color, shape and size to your liking being there are so many maybe this hobby isnt for you.


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 5, 2013)

Bug Trader said:


> If you can't find a mantis in its natural color, shape and size to your liking being there are so many maybe this hobby isnt for you.


I think its more a matter of scientific interest than not being happy with a certain species of mantis. I love all of my babies, but I've wondered myself.


----------



## gripen (Jan 5, 2013)

Do a search.


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 5, 2013)

Scientific or not hybrids or outcrossed mantids would be mixed in and misidentified and it could muddy up what we have here. Its already a pain to keep everything here in culture why take from that&gt;?


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes. Pseudocreobotra wahlbergii x Pseudocreobotra ocellata hybrids.


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 5, 2013)

happy1892 said:


> Yes. Pseudocreobotra wahlbergii x Pseudocreobotra ocellata hybrids.


breeding two different Pseudocreobotra would not be hybridizing it would be outcrossing, Hybrids are the result of two unrelated species breeding.


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 5, 2013)

Bug Trader said:


> breeding two different Pseudocreobotra would not be hybridizing it would be outcrossing, Hybrids are the result of two unrelated species breeding.


From other genera? Is that unrelated? Then that is rare right? People call things like that "hybrids", crossbreeding two different species. People even call wolf and dog crosses hybrids. But correctly it would be other genera or a higher ranking right? DEATHCHEEZ I thought you said hybrids but you said cross breeding.


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 5, 2013)

I do not know of any hybrids....


----------



## psyconiko (Jan 5, 2013)

Hybrid is a general term.it has several meaning.So you can say Hybrid that is correct.


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 5, 2013)

But hybrid also means a scientific thing I guess and it is used for two different genera crossbreeding?... Is that right?


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 5, 2013)

Bug Trader said:


> breeding two different Pseudocreobotra would not be hybridizing it would be outcrossing, Hybrids are the result of two unrelated species breeding.


Wikipedia says that it's normally from the same genera.



> Interspecific hybrids are bred by mating two species, normally from within the same genus. The offspring display traits and characteristics of both parents. The offspring of an interspecific cross are very oftensterile; thus, hybrid sterility prevents the movement of genes from one species to the other, keeping both species distinct.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Types_of_hybrids


----------



## Termite48 (Jan 5, 2013)

There is a big mix up with Creobotra species. That is breeding within the genus. It has made it hard to tell what species is which. There is also the scientific definition of a species to keep in mind. Even with that in mind, it is known the a Tiger has successfully mated a Lion. Whether that makes it possible in the mantid world, is not related, but fuel for the fire.


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 6, 2013)

breeding two different Pseudocreobotra would not be hybridizing it would be outcrossing, look it up, hybridizing would be Hymenopus bred to Parymenopus. Two species that are not subspecies of a family.


----------



## fleurdejoo (Jan 6, 2013)

What's yr favorite animal?

Mines a Liger.


----------



## DETHCHEEZ (Jan 6, 2013)

Wasn't trying to start any issues

Just don't recall ever seeing one

&amp;

Was just wondering if it could be done

Like could you mate say a Chinese mantid with a Dead Leaf mantid

*Can't Help It*

*My Mind Works In Mysterious Ways*

Peace...


----------



## aNisip (Jan 6, 2013)

No...you can't cross chinese with dead leaf...however you can cross all the deroplatys species... d lobata x d dessicata x d truncata...as long as they are all same Genus...


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 6, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> No...you can't cross chinese with dead leaf...however you can cross all the deroplatys species... d lobata x d dessicata x d truncata...as long as they are all same Genus...


Not necessarily. There can still be enough genetic difference within a genus to mutate the nymphs in an unsurvivable way. being in the same genus doesnt mean you can outcross them


----------



## psyconiko (Jan 6, 2013)

fleurdejoo said:


> What's yr favorite animal?
> 
> Mines a Liger.


Me too!!!

I wish I could ride it.

Did you know that Ligers grow in size all their life?Because the genes that control growth are not cancelled like they should.Amazing but that causes them lethal skeleton disability...so sad because it is really beautiful in size.


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 6, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> No...you can't cross chinese with dead leaf...however you can cross all the deroplatys species... d lobata x d dessicata x d truncata...as long as they are all same Genus...


Source? The definition of species is animals that can breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. It seems that you want to apply that definition to Genus, which would be



Bug Trader said:


> breeding two different Pseudocreobotra would not be hybridizing it would be outcrossing, look it up, hybridizing would be Hymenopus bred to Parymenopus. Two species that are not subspecies of a family.


I did look it up and it said that outcrossing was introducing unrelated stock "of the same breed" to increase genetic variability.

.



> out·cross (out
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. Hyde (Jan 6, 2013)

Always be cautious when meddling with nature. I'm not saying I'm against trying it, but a couple people mentioned the liger.... are you guys aware that this cross breeding (or hybridizing) leads ligers to be all sterile males who don't stop growing at the right time and never mature to adulthood. got something to do with the lion having a gene that the lioness is supposed to counteract to excel growth, but the tiger doesn't give them that gene. therefore they grow until they are too big to function. but also I guess they never go through puberty, which leaves them sterile. So whatever you do, do _not_ introduce these as a pure-bred of a similar looking species to an unknowing person... or anything else that could harm the hobby


----------



## Rick (Jan 6, 2013)

Please search on this topic. It has been discussed numerous times already.


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 6, 2013)

happy1892 said:


> From other genera? Is that unrelated?


Sorry Bug Trader. It sounds like an attack. I impulsively do that....



Bug Trader said:


> breeding two different Pseudocreobotra would not be hybridizing it would be outcrossing, look it up, hybridizing would be Hymenopus bred to Parymenopus. Two species that are not subspecies of a family.


I have been told by kmsgameboy that if the mantids are the same family then they can interbreed (that was several months ago). I would not be surprised if he is wrong. Bug Trader did you read that about like 5 years ago? My dad read about families, genera and species and stuff like that and when he read about species it said that species had to be unable to interbreed (that was a long time ago so things change).



Malakyoma said:


> Not necessarily. There can still be enough genetic difference within a genus to mutate the nymphs in an unsurvivable way. being in the same genus doesnt mean you can outcross them


I have read that people interbred Canis latrans (Coyote) with wolves (Canis lupus) and made offspring but after three generations they started getting problems and eventually sterile or something. I read that on wikipedia.


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 11, 2013)

I found this but I cannot read it. It is German.

http://www.terra-typica.ch/community/forum/forum-startseite.html?tx_mmforum_pi1%5Baction%5D=list_post&amp;tx_mmforum_pi1%5Btid%5D=146


----------



## Mr. Hyde (Jan 11, 2013)

happy1892 said:


> I found this but I cannot read it. It is German.
> 
> http://www.terra-typica.ch/community/forum/forum-startseite.html?tx_mmforum_pi1%5Baction%5D=list_post&amp;tx_mmforum_pi1%5Btid%5D=146


Get google Chrome. It will translate it for you. an interesting read


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 12, 2013)

who knows how much true meaning taxonomy has any way most of it is just assigning a word to a animal so who know what species is accually part of some larger families.


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 12, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> who knows how much true meaning taxonomy has any way most of it is just assigning a word to a animal so who know what species is accually part of some larger families.


That would be the entire point of taxonomy. Placing different types of animals into groups based on how closely related they are. Randomly assigning a name to a species wont cut it.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 12, 2013)

Malakyoma said:


> That would be the entire point of taxonomy. Placing different types of animals into groups based on how closely related they are. Randomly assigning a name to a species wont cut it.


is it really any different than the more cultural common names. i dont think so they dont give you information on what the animal actually is. the only way to get that information is by observing organisms in their complete natural enviorment. each animal (including yourself) has the most amazing story/history behind it and all its previous actions no matter how big or how small determents where and what it is. biology let alone all science is to extensive to even classify and by doing so the whole marvelous/mysterious thing get flatten down and makes it less unifying and harder for more people to appreciate it thats why not many people actually do and more just taking it for granted. I do see taxonomy position in history and how it helps nations discuss specific domains of biology a step beyond cultural and more straght to the point.


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 12, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> is it really any different than the more cultural common names. i dont think so they dont give you information on what the animal actually is. the only way to get that information is by observing organisms in their complete natural enviorment. each animal (including yourself) has the most amazing story/history behind it and all its previous actions no matter how big or how small determents where and what it is. biology let alone all science is to extensive to even classify and by doing so the whole marvelous/mysterious thing get flatten down and makes it less unifying and harder for more people to appreciate it thats why not many people actually do and more just taking it for granted. I do see taxonomy position in history and how it helps nations discuss specific domains of biology a step beyond cultural and more straght to the point.


species aren't grouped by their story, or their habitat, or anything similar. They're grouped by physical characteristics and genetic similarity. species in the same genus have all evolved from one common ancestor very recently, whereas species in the same order share an ancestor from much longer ago. Taxonomy means sorting method in greek, and scientists have chosen to sort animals into groups based on similarity. Just because one lives in the desert and the other a rainforest doesn't mean they're not structurally and genetically similar. Behaviour and habitat have no affect on how an animal is sorted.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 12, 2013)

Malakyoma said:


> species aren't grouped by their story, or their habitat, or anything similar. They're grouped by physical characteristics and genetic similarity. species in the same genus have all evolved from one common ancestor very recently, whereas species in the same order share an ancestor from much longer ago. Taxonomy means sorting method in greek, and scientists have chosen to sort animals into groups based on similarity. Just because one lives in the desert and the other a rainforest doesn't mean they're not structurally and genetically similar. Behaviour and habitat have no affect on how an animal is sorted.


i just dont see the authentic in alot of taxonomy and its because we guess to much. im saying its close to impossible to group them thats why simply observing the animal in nature is the closest classification you will get, instead of believing other peoples wraps on how the tree of life is organized. nature has endless complex domains not just in biology and each domain has its contribution in how the universe unfolds. dont get me wrong i think taxanomy is very interesting and kinda fun but i dont take it to seriously we are in too low of a dimension to understand we will only get bits and pieces to far away from the whole. this is just my wrap


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 12, 2013)

Ever notice how species are continuously regrouped over the years, families split into multiple families as well as renamed. This subject is always evolving and short of DNA work being done on them all I wouldnt hold my breathe that everything is correctly placed now.


----------



## gripen (Jan 12, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> i just dont see the authentic in alot of taxonomy and its because we guess to much. im saying its close to impossible to group them thats why simply observing the animal in nature is the closest classification you will get, instead of believing other peoples wraps on how the tree of life is organized. nature has endless complex domains not just in biology and each domain has its contribution in how the universe unfolds. dont get me wrong i think taxanomy is very interesting and kinda fun but i dont take it to seriously we are in too low of a dimension to understand we will only get bits and pieces to far away from the whole. this is just my wrap


Ugh interesting theory... Any facts to back it up?


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 12, 2013)

gripen said:


> Ugh interesting theory... Any facts to back it up?


+1


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 12, 2013)

Mr. Hyde said:


> Get google Chrome. It will translate it for you. an interesting read


  . Thank you.



AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> is it really any different than the more cultural common names. i dont think so they dont give you information on what the animal actually is. the only way to get that information is by observing organisms in their complete natural enviorment. each animal (including yourself) has the most amazing story/history behind it and all its previous actions no matter how big or how small determents where and what it is. biology let alone all science is to extensive to even classify and by doing so the whole marvelous/mysterious thing get flatten down and makes it less unifying and harder for more people to appreciate it thats why not many people actually do and more just taking it for granted. I do see taxonomy position in history and how it helps nations discuss specific domains of biology a step beyond cultural and more straght to the point.


I think the common names are not so good for telling which animal is more similar to which and many common names say do not anything about either. The taxonomy was made to show which animal was more closely related and stuff. People are trying to get them in the right ranking but I read about many mistakes. I have read that people now know how to look at the genetics (in this case should I say genes not genetics?). LOL! Of course it is very complicated! People are trying there (I guess) best to do it. It is amazing that there are many different animals. I do not think the taxonomy makes people like the animals less.



AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> i just dont see the authentic in alot of taxonomy and its because we guess to much. im saying its close to impossible to group them thats why simply observing the animal in nature is the closest classification you will get, instead of believing other peoples wraps on how the tree of life is organized. nature has endless complex domains not just in biology and each domain has its contribution in how the universe unfolds. dont get me wrong i think taxanomy is very interesting and kinda fun but i dont take it to seriously we are in too low of a dimension to understand we will only get bits and pieces to far away from the whole. this is just my wrap


Yeah I guess, I guess a lot. You mean true stuff about the animal, and do not say why they do it if you are certain or whatever. Mantodea.speciesfile.org I think is more updated than Tree of Life. I do not know much about the universe stuff. I do not understand, what do you mean too low of a dimension to understand?


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 12, 2013)

gripen said:


> Ugh interesting theory... Any facts to back it up?


facts to back it up would be the the phenomenon of ever increasing complexity build upon previous achievement and the acceleration such as electrons forming atomic structures to molecular to chemical, to biological, to human being using spoken language and other forms of epigenetics each leap takes shorter amount of time to achieve hence time is accelerating and the cosmos is increasing novelty.



happy1892 said:


> . Thank you.
> 
> I think the common names are not so good for telling which animal is more similar to which and many common names say do not anything about either. The taxonomy was made to show which animal was more closely related and stuff. People are trying to get them in the right ranking but I read about many mistakes. I have read that people now know how to look at the genetics (in this case should I say genes not genetics?). LOL! Of course it is very complicated! People are trying there (I guess) best to do it. It is amazing that there are many different animals. I do not think the taxonomy makes people like the animals less.
> 
> Yeah I guess, I guess a lot. You mean true stuff about the animal, and do not say why they do it if you are certain or whatever. Mantodea.speciesfile.org I think is more updated than Tree of Life. I do not know much about the universe stuff. I do not understand, what do you mean too low of a dimension to understand?


what i mean about dimension is that we are on a lower frequency. If people could experience different relationships with the information present it would create a more *unifying *model for classification of all things and beyond.


----------



## patrickfraser (Jan 12, 2013)

http://youtu.be/Z6E98ZRaU1s


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 13, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> what i mean about dimension is that we are on a lower frequency. If people could experience different relationships with the information present it would create a more *unifying *model for classification of all things and beyond.


I thought demension is a things in space. You mean another sense that is better for learning than sight, hearing or a different way of receiving the stuff like a different brain? Women and man think differently, it is interesting.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

happy1892 said:


> I thought demension is a things in space. You mean another sense that is better for learning than sight, hearing or a different way of receiving the stuff like a different brain? Women and man think differently, it is interesting.


you are thinking of a spacial dimension i think of a dimension as a separate domain in relationship with information present. yes women and men are in different dimensions or just how every individual is as well. but we are also united by humanities subconscious that is in a separate domain. Or how notes can be on separate octaves or over tones can be split to separate domains or even how quantum mechanics are curled up beyond sub nuclear. they are all separate levels but using the same information to process some type of reality. science is so far into defining matter and energy but what i think holds a key to a unify fielld theory is space and time. who knows maybe space and time have a structure not a god particle but a fundamental structure that allows them to radiate on many level. some people just think im crazy when i talk like this but im just a rationalist that is willing to go to the edge.


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 13, 2013)

Could we stick to hard facts when talking about things like this please? Things actually backed up by data and evidence?


----------



## gripen (Jan 13, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> you are thinking of a spacial dimension i think of a dimension as a separate domain in relationship with information present. yes women and men are in different dimensions or just how every individual is as well. but we are also united by humanities subconscious that is in a separate domain. Or how notes can be on separate octaves or over tones can be split to separate domains or even how quantum mechanics are curled up beyond sub nuclear. they are all separate levels but using the same information to process some type of reality. science is so far into defining matter and energy but what i think holds a key to a unify fielld theory is space and time. who knows maybe space and time have a structure not a god particle but a fundamental structure that allows them to radiate on many level. some people just think im crazy when i talk like this but im just a rationalist that is willing to go to the edge.


Sounds to me more like a religion than science.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

gripen said:


> Sounds to me more like a religion than science.


to be honest the is no line between ritual and science.


----------



## gripen (Jan 13, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> to be honest the is no line between ritual and science.


We must not be thinking of the same science.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

Malakyoma said:


> Could we stick to hard facts when talking about things like this please? Things actually backed up by data and evidence?


i listed models and evidence that supports my claims


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

gripen said:


> We must not be thinking of the same science.


the difference is my science isnt limited and encompasses a larger pucture


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm done with this conversation. Believe what you want but keep it out of my face and away from my mantids.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

Malakyoma said:


> I'm done with this conversation. Believe what you want but keep it out of my face and away from my mantids.


no need for the hostility dont forget were all apart of this world together :yinyang:


----------



## gripen (Jan 13, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> no need for the hostility dont forget were all apart of this world together :yinyang:


What if we are in different dimensions?


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 13, 2013)

Is dimension just another word for category or is it more specific?


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

gripen said:


> What if we are in different dimensions?


we can be in different dimensions but still be in the same world and my prove for that is how our collective subconscious will always have an effect on how we progress and evolve.


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 13, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> we can be in different dimensions but still be in the same world and my prove for that is how our collective subconscious will always have an effect on how we progress and evolve.


we would progress and evolve faster easier and better if people would stop arguing against hard evidence and accept facts as facts.


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 13, 2013)

Lets write about this in a PM.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

Malakyoma said:


> we would progress and evolve faster easier and better if people would stop arguing against hard evidence and accept facts as facts.


what hard fact are you even supporting sounds like your just attacking me you dont even have you own opinon you just accept whats put in front of you with out looking deeper at your self


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 13, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> what hard fact are you even supporting sounds like your just attacking me you dont even have you own opinon you just accept whats put in front of you with out looking deeper at your self


He is saying this is too silly to use our time. Lets write in the PM.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 13, 2013)

happy1892 said:


> He is saying this is too silly to use our time. Lets write in the PM.


maybe we can talk about it later but those two just make fun of people who are different


----------



## gripen (Jan 14, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> maybe we can talk about it later but those two just make fun of people who are different


I know science is not like math. There is not always a write and a wrong answer. In this instance though the facts support one side.

Let me give you a hint "you are on the other side".

It is not that I do not like you as a person. I do not care that you are different. What makes me very angry though is the misinformation you spread.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 14, 2013)

gripen said:


> I know science is not like math. There is not always a write and a wrong answer. In this instance though the facts support one side.
> 
> Let me give you a hint "you are on the other side".
> 
> It is not that I do not like you as a person. I do not care that you are different. What makes me very angry though is the misinformation you spread.


but you two arent even supporting a side or facts or anything you have nothing, you claim nothing but saying im wrong. you just accept what is closest to your face and what makes you the most comfortable. you are too ignorant and linear to even touch the surface of what i speak of. its good to be a skeptic like your self but what has made your models so complete. once i discovered the vast information that was out there i didnt just call it nonsense i looked to see how it can be organized.


----------



## patrickfraser (Jan 14, 2013)

At least my Cher video was entertaining. I say you're all wrong. :tt2: Now get over yourselves and back ON topic. :lol:


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 14, 2013)

All this talk of cross breeding but you forget in nature that species, even subspecies do not just mix, they are often seperate by means of geographic barriers, size, pheromone production as well as other physical characteristics and their environmental needs where they evolve in many ways such as natural disasters causing an opening where species can mix if genetics allow it as well as the evolution through inbreeding and random traits popping up. You seem to want to push a scientifc approach but I find no scientific reason to cross breed these bugs. Evolution, Scientific research and any other idea are long term and you cant control or predict the mess you could create with both the bugs and the hobby. We havent mastered the captive breeding of any of these species here and noone has a library of knowledge that supports we are ready to play "god" with them. Why bother muddying up bloodlines when half these species become impossible to find every few years when their not saught after and respected in their natural form?


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 14, 2013)

Why is it so dangerous to make hybrids? And he just wanted to know if it was possible. AxolotIsarecooltoo you should know that it is nonsense!


----------



## Bug Trader (Jan 14, 2013)

Can you guarantee the lines your using to create mixed species will not go lost because correct me if Im wrong but short of just a few species noone seems to want I must have missed where these mantids are so plentifull we can just do whatever we want with them? Can you guarantee that your new mantids do not get mis identified as new species, mis identified and cross bred with pure blood species? Tell me this what are you getting out of crossing them? Anything? I'm finished on this topic but whatever do as you wish your hobby is not my hobby and to those who do cross the natural barrier with created their own please make it public so I know who to avoid and make sure none of my own mantids are sent your way and abused in this manor.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 14, 2013)

to get back on topic dont ever cross mantid species. we have messed up the natural world enough and some mistakes cannot be reversed. keep the blood lines as true as possible and what ever you do dont let and captive breed mantids in the wild. sorry for ranting and going off topic but i was provoked and encouraged. Happy mantid keeping! :cowboy:


----------



## happy1892 (Jan 14, 2013)

I do not see any problem in crossbreeding except if that hurts any animals in the wild but that would not happen I guess. I have read that wolfdogs are not good for pure wolves in the wild because they crossbreed. I like animals that are pure (not a hybrid) much more than hybrids.


----------



## TheOtherSpecies (Feb 17, 2013)

aychen222 said:


> you just opened a whole can of worms. it has been done but there are many who feel that it shouldn't. apparently the differences in the offspring of crossbred mantids from purebreds are minimal and are usually sterile. you should search this topic, there are a bunch of (lengthy and heated) threads on it.


A can of worms is right after everything I have read! PLEASE! Keep It natural people!


----------



## happy1892 (Feb 17, 2013)

Natural.... is that a new word? I mean new meaning. I have not heard it before.


----------



## mantiseater (Aug 7, 2013)

At a park a few years ago i found a male chinese mantis mating with a female european. I kept the female for a long time. i thought it was going to lay an egg because it was super fat, but a few days later i was suprised to find that its abdomen had burst spilling everything out. I wish i had gotten to see what the babies would be like.


----------



## psyconiko (Aug 7, 2013)

mantiseater said:


> At a park a few years ago i found a male chinese mantis mating with a female european. I kept the female for a long time. i thought it was going to lay an egg because it was super fat, but a few days later i was suprised to find that its abdomen had burst spilling everything out. I wish i had gotten to see what the babies would be like.


You did not miss much.Tenodera+Mantis religiosa would give nothing.Have you read the whole thread?


----------



## agent A (Aug 7, 2013)

mantiseater said:


> At a park a few years ago i found a male chinese mantis mating with a female european. I kept the female for a long time. i thought it was going to lay an egg because it was super fat, but a few days later i was suprised to find that its abdomen had burst spilling everything out. I wish i had gotten to see what the babies would be like.


she probably had her insides ruptured from such a large male

I've heard of this happening to saturniids who mate with the wrong species


----------

