Rare Or Not Recognsed Colours

[Maddy]

I am wondering if the dun in Greyhounds might have been a spontaneous mutation, as apparently they all trace back to one dog. It seems unlikely to me that the Grey people would have cross bred with anything as it was all purpose breeding and nothing else did the job better (unless perhaps a bit of Whippet - seems unlikely still). Perhaps one of the Greyhound enthusiasts will know.

Have to get Greytmate or GapVic to answer this one. It's quite rare and does not, AFAIK, exsist in the showbred lines.

Dun in Australia is supposed to all come from the one dog. In other countries, it could come from other dogs- it's just that the author of the piece that mentions dun is interested only in dun in Australia.

Bobniak is a confirmed carrier from Rocket Jet- in the pedigree of Fresh Fantasy, there's Bobniak recently on one side and then Rocket Jet is on the other- remembering that Rocket Jet is 1950ish and so the gene has been carried for more than 50 years without being lost. While it's true that Rocket Jet is a confirmed carrier of dun, every one of his pups has the chance of also being a carrier. And their pups had a chance. And so on down the line. He's not the only carrier, he's the first known carrier.

Really, it's surprising that dun doesn't show up more often. The pedigrees of my own greyhounds look like they belong in a West Virginia mountain town (both also contains doubles of Rocket Jet)

[Sheridan]

any idea why we didn't include the other colours?

No idea to be honest, no one has been able to give me a straight answer.

Some old biddy didn't like them.

Yep. And I bet she had them and didn't win so the colours had to go.

[sheena]

Are pure white BC's rare?

I don't know if these are working line, or just random, but they are probably selling the white for a ridicious amount as it's POA - http://www.doggish.com.au/for-sale/1317/rare-litter-of-border-collie-purebred-puppies

Pure white BCs should be avoided at all cost as they are most likely deaf

[WoofnHoof]

any idea why we didn't include the other colours?

No idea to be honest, no one has been able to give me a straight answer.

Some old biddy didn't like them.

Yep. And I bet she had them and didn't win so the colours had to go.

Lol sounds like the show world :)

[becks]

Are pure white BC's rare?

I don't know if these are working line, or just random, but they are probably selling the white for a ridicious amount as it's POA - http://www.doggish.com.au/for-sale/1317/rare-litter-of-border-collie-purebred-puppies

Pure white BCs should be avoided at all cost as they are most likely deaf

I see they also have a few more litters at the same time, including bordoodles!!!

[cali]

don't know if these are working line, or just random, but they are probably selling the white for a ridicious amount as it's POA - http://www.doggish.c...urebred-puppies

SOLID white is pretty rare. lack of pigment inside the ear can cause deafness, so generally white ears are a risk(inside the ear, white on top but pigmented inside is fine) white with a few patterns spots is common and perfectly acceptable(well not in the show ring, but that's for a BS reason)

[minimax]

don't know if these are working line, or just random, but they are probably selling the white for a ridicious amount as it's POA - http://www.doggish.c...urebred-puppies

SOLID white is pretty rare. lack of pigment inside the ear can cause deafness, so generally white ears are a risk(inside the ear, white on top but pigmented inside is fine) white with a few patterns spots is common and perfectly acceptable(well not in the show ring, but that's for a BS reason)

That's what I thought, but they said "this puppy is not a lethal white as neither parent is a merle".

Does sound like they are cashing in on the "rare white" though, and their other dogs for sale make me sad.

[cali]

possibly they are presuming that because it isn't lethal white there cant be anything wrong, but lethal white or not, lack of pigment inside the ears can still cause deafness lol

[BlackJaq]

Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses!

Edited January 31, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Kavik]

Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses!

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Kavik

[Roseclipt]

Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses!

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision.

Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them ....

[puglvr]

I find it interesting to read about "some old biddies not liking" or not allowing the colour on the whim

of the founders. Isn't allowing "colours" into a standard because they crop up or used to be around before the standard was written the same thing. The whim of people who have or like the colour.

Isn't this a double standard?

I'm not singling out anyone at all just the general vibe.

[WoofnHoof]

I find it interesting to read about "some old biddies not liking" or not allowing the colour on the whim

of the founders. Isn't allowing "colours" into a standard because they crop up or used to be around before the standard was written the same thing. The whim of people who have or like the colour.

Isn't this a double standard?

I'm not singling out anyone at all just the general vibe.

It depends, in most cases colour is an arbitrary thing which rarely seems to have an impact on the ability of the dog to do the job it was bred to do. In cases where colour does impact on the function of the animal or is closely linked to a trait that impacts on the function then it is easy to understand why certain colours are excluded. However where there appears to be no impact on function the prejudice against certain colours does seem a little nonsensical, and of course in the modern era where rare colours are coveted such exclusion can prove detrimental to the breed as a whole.

Of course all breeds were developed on the whim of humans you are right about that, but most people can agree on the original purpose or function for most of the traits that make a breed, colour seems to be one of the things that not everyone agrees on and I'd say that is because of the nature of the trait as not impacting as much on the function of the breed. That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else.

[puglvr]

That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else

Couldn't agree more. But we cannot say that the writers/developers of the standards did not have this in mind as well. In many cases they did not have the advantages that we have with DNA testing and scientific understanding of diseases. How or why do we feel the need or right to dismiss the knowledge that they used when developing these standards? We may not know the reason for the decisions and we should not dismiss so easliy.

[JulesP]

That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else

Couldn't agree more. But we cannot say that the writers/developers of the standards did not have this in mind as well. In many cases they did not have the advantages that we have with DNA testing and scientific understanding of diseases. How or why do we feel the need or right to dismiss the knowledge that they used when developing these standards? We may not know the reason for the decisions and we should not dismiss so easliy.

I can dismiss lightly because in the case of my breed it is just plain stupid.

If you can come up with a good reason that a blue merle is ok but not a chocolate merle then we can talk.

[WoofnHoof]

That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else

Couldn't agree more. But we cannot say that the writers/developers of the standards did not have this in mind as well. In many cases they did not have the advantages that we have with DNA testing and scientific understanding of diseases. How or why do we feel the need or right to dismiss the knowledge that they used when developing these standards? We may not know the reason for the decisions and we should not dismiss so easliy.

Possibly not but I would still maintain that colour is largely an arbitrary consideration in many cases, and while that may have been fine back in the days standards were written (remember that some human colours were also prejudiced against back then) these days if there is no good reason to exclude them and there is enough support to include them then a revision of some of these standards might be a reasonable thing to consider.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread many colours have persisted in breeds despite no active selection for them so they must be considered intrinsic and in many instances it appears that there is no logical reason for the exclusion other than personal preference, and preferences are subject to change especially over such long periods of time.

[Greytmate]

That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else

Couldn't agree more. But we cannot say that the writers/developers of the standards did not have this in mind as well. In many cases they did not have the advantages that we have with DNA testing and scientific understanding of diseases. How or why do we feel the need or right to dismiss the knowledge that they used when developing these standards? We may not know the reason for the decisions and we should not dismiss so easliy.

Possibly not but I would still maintain that colour is largely an arbitrary consideration in many cases, and while that may have been fine back in the days standards were written (remember that some human colours were also prejudiced against back then) these days if there is no good reason to exclude them and there is enough support to include them then a revision of some of these standards might be a reasonable thing to consider.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread many colours have persisted in breeds despite no active selection for them so they must be considered intrinsic and in many instances it appears that there is no logical reason for the exclusion other than personal preference, and preferences are subject to change especially over such long periods of time.

I think each breed needs to be looked at separately, because each will have it's own history and reasons for colour. I'm not in favour of breeding for colour at all, but I think it's fair enough to want to breed for strong pigment (really dark noses) and away from too much depigmentation, because there are pretty good reasons for pigment beyond the aesthetic.

I think there is a lot of waste happening in breeds where a colour gene is allowed to be expressed in some dogs and not others. Even if these mismarked dogs are popular as pets, they are mostly removed from the gene pool of breeding dogs, and that is to the detriment of the breed. I don't think it is always personal preference that leads to decisions being made. Parti poodles are very pretty dogs, but there are still good arguments for not breeding piebald dogs to each other. I tend to agree with puglver, old decisions shouldn't be overturned on a whim, because there are long-term consequences which will affect different breeds in different ways.

[WoofnHoof]

That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else

Couldn't agree more. But we cannot say that the writers/developers of the standards did not have this in mind as well. In many cases they did not have the advantages that we have with DNA testing and scientific understanding of diseases. How or why do we feel the need or right to dismiss the knowledge that they used when developing these standards? We may not know the reason for the decisions and we should not dismiss so easliy.

Possibly not but I would still maintain that colour is largely an arbitrary consideration in many cases, and while that may have been fine back in the days standards were written (remember that some human colours were also prejudiced against back then) these days if there is no good reason to exclude them and there is enough support to include them then a revision of some of these standards might be a reasonable thing to consider.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread many colours have persisted in breeds despite no active selection for them so they must be considered intrinsic and in many instances it appears that there is no logical reason for the exclusion other than personal preference, and preferences are subject to change especially over such long periods of time.

I think each breed needs to be looked at separately, because each will have it's own history and reasons for colour. I'm not in favour of breeding for colour at all, but I think it's fair enough to want to breed for strong pigment (really dark noses) and away from too much depigmentation, because there are pretty good reasons for pigment beyond the aesthetic.

I think there is a lot of waste happening in breeds where a colour gene is allowed to be expressed in some dogs and not others. Even if these mismarked dogs are popular as pets, they are mostly removed from the gene pool of breeding dogs, and that is to the detriment of the breed. I don't think it is always personal preference that leads to decisions being made. Parti poodles are very pretty dogs, but there are still good arguments for not breeding piebald dogs to each other. I tend to agree with puglver, old decisions shouldn't be overturned on a whim, because there are long-term consequences which will affect different breeds in different ways.

I totally agree each breed and colour needs to be assessed on it's merits, I don't know much about the pied genetics so it would come down to those who do. But in the case of the breed I am interested in, the white shep, there appears to be no detrimental effects of the cream colour (apparently it is the same gene that is found in yellow labs from memory?) and it does appear to be pure preference which has resulted in a signficant split and ultimately the necessity of a second breed simply because of the colour issue, thus narrowing the gene pool (and options for buyers) on both sides of the fence.

[wuffles]

Here's my little Aussie Shepherd mismark. It's not really an uncommon colour but is a disqualification in the show ring due to risk of hearing/sight problems (Ava has no issues as her skin is quite pigmented). Both her parents have the typical irish spotting pattern (one blue merle and one black tricolour).

Aussies come in heaps of colours - including dilute blue and red merles, merles with dilute "patches", ee reds, bi colours... rainbows!

Edited January 31, 2013 by wuffles

[BlackJaq]

Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses!

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision.

Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them ....

Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....)

Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus?