Color genetics

[terzo corso]

Ok, then there's the a gene set. a[SUP]y[/SUP] is "fawn" (may appear anything from red to pale gold controlled by a variety of genes not all of which are understood). a[SUP]w[/SUP] is "wolf sable" sometimes called "wild sable". a[SUP]t[/SUP] produces the black & tan color set. a is recessive black. And they are dominant in the order I listed them. A dog who's AyAt is "fawn" but can produce black and tan pups. A dog who's a[SUP]y[/SUP]a is "fawn" but can produce recessive black pups.

Those are the basics of canine coat color. From there on out pretty much everything else is cause by modifier genes.

X


=



Ruthcatrin you really did explain that well enough to where I even now have a rudimentary understanding of even the concept of color genetics...thank ya kindly

 

[ruthcatrin]

Ruthcatrin you really did explain that well enough to where I even now have a rudimentary understanding of even the concept of color genetics...thank ya kindly

Welcome! Like I said it was hard won knowledge, but I'm getting there! Glad that I can help explain it to someone else!

you would be better off to pair with a complimentary male regardless of color. Once of course your female has proven to be breed quality and passed health screenings. Breeding for color will not produce quality dogs although I am sure makes them "easier" to sell.

Amen!

 

[E1kpo]

Amen to this...

you would be better off to pair with a complimentary male regardless of color. Once of course your female has proven to be breed quality and passed health screenings. Breeding for color will not produce quality dogs although I am sure makes them "easier" to sell.

funny how this thoughts ruined many breeds..Well the cane was ruined by the research of other "qualities" without thinking about keeping the breed genes..Ahahahh ..So sad.

 

[ruthcatrin]

funny how this thoughts ruined many breeds..Well the cane was ruined by the research of other "qualities" without thinking about keeping the breed genes..Ahahahh ..So sad.

Cody's not saying that color can't be a factor, but it should only be A factor. The overall health and to standard physical structure should be more important. Otherwise you get dogs with colors to standard who can't work worth shit.

 

[terzo corso]

Cody you would be better off to pair with a complimentary male regardless of color. Once of course your female has proven to be breed quality and passed health screenings

funny how this thoughts ruined many breeds.

Yes, it can/has ruined many breeds.

But, this formula still produces good working dogs.


complimentary : can be a number of things, need more 'wind'? maybe add a dash of Greyhound/Saluki. need more 'nose'? maybe a dash of beagle/bloodhound. etc,etc...

health screenings : 150 years ago, before hip x-rays.....'health screening' could be simply knowing a dogs bloodline and whether or not HE or his relatives lived to be able to WORK past the age of 5....or did they tend to peak at 2 years, then break down by 4.5 years?

(great informational thread(S) recently)

 

[E1kpo]

Yes, it can/has ruined many breeds.

But, this formula still produces good working dogs.


complimentary : can be a number of things, need more 'wind'? maybe add a dash of Greyhound/Saluki. need more 'nose'? maybe a dash of beagle/bloodhound. etc,etc...

health screenings : 150 years ago, before hip x-rays.....'health screening' could be simply knowing a dogs bloodline and whether or not HE or his relatives lived to be able to WORK past the age of 5....or did they tend to peak at 2 years, then break down by 4.5 years?

(great informational thread(S) recently)

Need marked undershot,shortened muzzle?Add bull mastiff , boxer ecc.. Ahahahahah
Well if you change color to working attitude..You make working dogs

 

[terzo corso]

E1kpo

I'm referring to a time when there were no dogs named bullmastiff or boxer.

At one time dogs had functions, not fancy 'breed' names. I could be wrong.......but you sound like you're putting form, above & before....... function. A.k.a-fastest way to ruin a breed



Sent from my PM23300 using Tapatalk

 

[E1kpo]

E1kpo

I'm referring to a time when there were no dogs named bullmastiff or boxer.

At one time dogs had functions, not fancy 'breed' names. I could be wrong.......but you sound like you're putting form, above & before....... function. A.k.a-fastest way to ruin a breed



Sent from my PM23300 using Tapatalk

As i've said other times,my english can give some problems of understanding
We have the same thoughts about the breed selection,the function does the dog,not vice-versa.The cane corso breed never existed,it was ''invented'' by some extremists..Thinking too much about the type,without thinking about the work-ability of the dog..In another thread,like in many other,i read too much times ''show quality'',and cane corso is seen as the good boy,a rare alternative to the golden retreiver or the boxer..The cane corso is THE working dog..The most versatile,and even one of the best guardians that the history has seen on our world.The breed is approx. 2 thousands years old,and as always been used as war dog and for protection..When I look at a dog,I want to see the temperament first,the attitude to work of the dog,and then i see the qualities of it.
Hope this time I was clear enough.

 

[E1kpo]

You aren't talking with the fancier who discovered the race on internet,or watching expos..
For me C.C. is a tradition first,than a dog.And ,as tradition, he had to work to get his food..He had to deserve his food ;.)