This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jenni78 on 19 May 2013 - 16:05
Martina, it's not "my" statement. I gathered it from the argument on one of the threads I linked to. Any statement I made about genetically was anecdotal, involving my own experience breeding them, and that of others I've seen, hence I used the term "apparently." It was Molly and Daryl that were going back and forth about the genetics involved.
by mfh27 on 19 May 2013 - 17:05
Dawulf, that dog you posted looks a lot like my girl. I've had a hard time deciding what she is, but I'm thinking bi color.
.jpg)
by Dawulf on 19 May 2013 - 19:05
Wow, you're right! They even have a similar expression (though I found her on your site and they don't look related - closely, anyway).
I'd agree that she looks bicolor! The dog in my pics has very light pencilling on his toes, and tarheels, but it IS all there. I would think that that color would be about the lightest type of bicolor there is.
I'd agree that she looks bicolor! The dog in my pics has very light pencilling on his toes, and tarheels, but it IS all there. I would think that that color would be about the lightest type of bicolor there is.
by Dawulf on 19 May 2013 - 19:05
This dog is a half-brother to the one above I posted... Their markings are very close to eachother's, and I'm guessing this guy is also a bicolor/black, genetically.
by Jenni78 on 19 May 2013 - 19:05
Without really detailed photos or seeing the dog in person, it's hard to say. MFH, your dog doesn't appear to have toe penciling, has tan by/in/around her ears, appears to have tan on her underbelly, etc. I would not call her a bicolor, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE FROM THESE PICS. Dawulf, I just see way too much tan. It looks like there is tan or at least tan shading behind the ears. I also see tan underneath, like on MFH's dog.
by Dawulf on 19 May 2013 - 20:05
See, that is what I thought too. But, the dam on the first dog I posted is sable/black (her sire was sable, dam was black, she herself is a fairly dark colored sable), and his sire is sable (with a sable sire and a bicolor dam), who is marked with the bicolor type markings... like Apache is from your first litter. It really is difficult to tell, but I believe that *genetically* he is bicolor. On him, there is no tan behind the ears.
Normally I would agree, but he is a funny case, for sure.
Normally I would agree, but he is a funny case, for sure.
by Jenni78 on 19 May 2013 - 20:05
You're positive the grand sire is bicolor and not melanistic b&t?
by Dawulf on 19 May 2013 - 20:05
Looks it to me.
by GSDPACK on 19 May 2013 - 21:05
Are you talking a form of incomplete dominant? WTH is melanistic black and tan.. seriously!? Please refer me someone to the genetics of this crap not just assumptions taken form other assumptions because apparently no one knows.
Joan's answer is the only one who makes any sense to me right now...
Joan's answer is the only one who makes any sense to me right now...
by kitkat3478 on 19 May 2013 - 21:05
Dawulf- I think the half brother is def blk&tan.
Way too much tan
Way too much tan
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
