Family # 1???

Ruffian · Postby **Ruffian** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:29 pm

Okay- looking at a yearling to buy- and at the very end of the ped- I know most of you all know quite a bit about this type of stuff- it says FAMILY NUMBER ONE- now is #1 the best? Or just the first recorded? :?:

Jessi P · Postby **Jessi P** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:32 pm

Ruffian the families were divided up and numbered by Bruce Lowe early on to sort of keep track of which descendants came from which female family... (I am a novice at this, other folks know MUCH more, Bill and Mahubah for example). For more info you can check out http://www.bloodlines.net/amfam.htm

Ruffian · Postby **Ruffian** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:34 pm

Thanks Jessi - at least you know more than me!!! lol

stancaris · Postby **stancaris** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:32 pm

family #1 has gottenthe most kentucky derby winners in the last 44 years. this family has accounted for 9 of 40 winners and has a strong impact value of 1.53 to win and also to place which also has 9 winners. smarty jones is a member of family 1. My book on the derby goes into this in more detail.

ZiaLand · Postby **ZiaLand** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:17 pm

Stan, can you state the title and publisher of your book again. I'm putting together a library of reference materials.

Mahubah · Postby **Mahubah** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:23 pm

I suspect family #1 also has more members than any others, though I don't doubt the overall quality as well; breeders are much more apt to persevere with strains that have produced good winners and to quit bothering with those that don't.

Bill from WA · Postby **Bill from WA** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:13 pm

As Mahubah pointed out, family #1 has, by far, the most members, and branches, of any of the female families. Family #1 has also been the most productive in producing classic winners, just as they were when Lowe, and others, first devised the family numbering system. The broad spectrum covered by all of these families, and the distance between some of the members of the same family, from a pedigree perspective, is one of the reasons I came up with the conduit mare scenerio. Twelve different branches of family #1 have produced "Classic" winners since 1960, with family 1s leading the way with at least 17. Some of the other branches of family #1 are so distantly related that you might have to go back 100 years or more to find a common ancestor, tail female. Doesn't make sense to me, especially since DNA testing questions the roots of some of the families. That's why I moved it all forward to 1900. For an explanation see:

http://www.dimarpublishing.citymaker.com

Bill

stancaris · Postby **stancaris** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:04 pm

the title of my book on the derby is--"Impact values lead to derby, preakness, and belmont winners" and it is published by American turf monthly. you can contact them at 1-800-645-2240

Ruffian · Postby **Ruffian** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:24 am

One of the mares in the tail line is Bonny Lass, going to CONJURE (1895), AND THIRD TRICK(1906)... Dont know if that helps.

stancaris · Postby **stancaris** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:29 am

Bill from WA; i have a question regarding your post above--why does a move to the year 1900 make your study more accurate? lets look at maid of the glen, a horse of 1858 who was discovered to have a different mt-dna sequence (F haplotype) and had been thought to be a member of family 1 but now will not be in that family. any horse who traces to maid of the glen is now not in family 1. so, if your study looks at a horse who just happens to trace to maid of the glen in tail female, then that horse is not a member of family 1. how does starting the study in 1900 correct this error?

Bill from WA · Postby **Bill from WA** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:31 am

Stan

This to continue a short reply to your question that I posted above. What you stated regarding the inaccuracies found in the GSB, pertinent to the origins of the female families (ie: Maid Of The Glen, etc) is exactly why I created the conduit mare application. I am not trying to prove, or validate the family numbers, or the accuracy of their placements. By moving The STARTING POINT to the year 1900, the old family numbers become unnesscessary. I use the family numbers only as a reference point to compare conduit mares. It is unlikely that there have been many errors in family history moving forward from the year 1900, so I don't have to worry about Maid Of The Glen, etc. What the conduit mare application does, is determine aptitudinal proclivities that may be transferred through the conduit mares of each individual, male or female, within a four generation pedigree. The establishment of these aptitudes is based on years of study involving significant data. When examining a pedigree, I do look behind the conduit mare to establish breeding patterns and other familial influences, but the starting point is always the conduit mare.

Bill

Bill from WA · Postby **Bill from WA** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:42 am

Hi Ruffian

Third Trick is the conduit mare of this branch of 1p. St Leger Stakes winner Sodium traces to her. The racing tendencies of her descendants place her in the Classic/Stout category as far as her aptitudinal contribution goes. Some of the stallions, past and present, who trace to her are, Amerigo, Bon Point, Horse Chestnut, and Tomorrow's Cat.

Bill

Jeff · Postby **Jeff** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:33 am

An old thread, but since it's family #1, this mating http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.php? ... lor=000000

would result in 12 of the 32 ancestors in generation five belonging to various branches of family #1, or 3/8ths of all ancestors in fifth generation. Would this be considered an unusually high convergence of family #1?
Jeff

Pedigree Query

Family # 1???

Family # 1???

Families

Stan

To Ruffian