Changing the face (and LOOK!) of TB's in the years to come!

Talk about equine color, markings, genetics, etc. Post pictures of flashy Thoroughbreds!

Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, Jorge, Sunday Silence

User avatar
Jorge
Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:48 pm

Postby Jorge » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:20 pm

I think it would be a good head start to make a list identifying
every single problem you have encountered. I would suggest not to mention specific names of horses in controversies or third parties but to merely identify the problem encountered, with specific details, save for the names. Let's identify each case or problem by number. Here is case number #1:

Case or Problem #1:

There are two kinds of white horses. Those that fashion a non-maculated white phenotype like Clarence Stewart, The White Fox, etc. Then there are those with such a maculated white phenotype that authorities refuse to call them "white" (quite understandable), in which case they are registered as "roans", "grays", or even as solid color equines. The registries should apply a uniform term that may permit us to keep in mind that these are basically white equines with a stained phenotype. I would suggest the use of the term: "Stained White. If the equine is far more "chestnut" than "white" then I would apply the term "Marked Chestnut". The same for a "Marked Bay", "Marked Dark Bay" and so on.

Now who wants to post Case or Problem #2?

User avatar
TrueColours
Grade I Winner
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:07 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby TrueColours » Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:08 pm

Problem #2????

Gosh - where to even START!!! :wink:

How about my perlino mare - Pearlescent. Double dilute of the bay gene. Along with her registration application went the UC Davis (the same lab that the Jockey Club themselves use) genetic report showing she is perlino.

What does the darned JC do? They register her as "palomino" instead. :roll: I would have preferred bay to be perfectly honest

I can only imagine what they are going to do when I push to register a smoky cream foal as "black" :roll:

I will be very very interested to see if they allow "black" for my smoky black Nightlight filly though
www.TrueColoursFarm.com

Breeders of unique coloured Thoroughbreds & Sport Horses - standing Guaranteed Gold - 16.1hh cremello TB stallion - CSHA and AQHA, APHA, ApHC listed

User avatar
RiddleMeThis
Allowance Winner
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:28 am

Postby RiddleMeThis » Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:12 pm

Jorge wrote:There are two kinds of white horses. Those that fashion a non-maculated white phenotype like Clarence Stewart, The White Fox, etc. Then there are those with such a maculated white phenotype that authorities refuse to call them "white" (quite understandable), in which case they are registered as "roans", "grays", or even as solid color equines. The registries should apply a uniform term that may permit us to keep in mind that these are basically white equines with a stained phenotype. I would suggest the use of the term: "Stained White. If the equine is far more "chestnut" than "white" then I would apply the term "Marked Chestnut". The same for a "Marked Bay", "Marked Dark Bay" and so on.

Personally I dont like this idea at all. Horses should be registered according to their genotype not phenotype.

If a horse tests Bay with dominant white than it should be registered Dominant White-Bay. If a horse tests black with frame overo it should be registered Frame Over-Bay. Et al.

There is no use for registering a horse based on the color it appears outside because it wont necessarily produced based on what it looks liek outside. For examples TCFs perlino mare thats registered palomino. She may KIND OF look like a palomino, but she is not going to produce the way a palomino would. And if they register Night Light as brown because she looks brown, they are going to run into problems when she starts foaling palominos.

color
Allowance Winner
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:28 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Postby color » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:25 pm

I totally agree with RMT and I am fighting for this in Germany since years for the WBs already. Actually I have been asked by the Association to put up all colors and all patterns should the FN agree to give the horse colors a three chiffre number instead of the two chiffres from 00-99 we have now and cannot add any more colors therefore.

@Blazing colours
Yes it was me that brought in the Palominos and made the German JC aware that there are more colors. The JC director is very co-operative and helps with all colors. I also demanded for the Cremello which was accepted for The Alchemist but it was Electrum who had it first in his passport changes as I have not had any of my papers changed to the true colors. Its in their files and that is enough for me, no need to change papers. I fight for those that are born and will then directly have the correct color in their papers, like my cremello colt and my all white colt and the recent Palomino filly. All of them will have the correct color in their passport once it comes finally.

And I applied for Buckskin as I have this GG filly that has still no papers because she left the USA without and they will be established now in Germany I hope, otherwise she may come back with bay too, but then I will have that change as the color demand is at the German JC together with the hair. Was sent long ago and should come back any moment now.
http://www.gestuet-falkenhorst.com
Exceptional colored German WBs, TBs and Arabs

User avatar
SouthernStar
Yearling
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: S. California
Contact:

Postby SouthernStar » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:17 am

Case or Problem #1:
Since "most" of these horses are maximum sabino's and actually have a base color that is not white...why not register the horse as it's base color and then the white markings. Many of the foals that I have seen listed lately as white are not what i would consider true white's so it's confusing.

Case or Problem #2:
I can see why the JC is reluctant to list these unusual colors. Heck they can't even get the roan part straight :roll:
I was wondering what happened with buckskin color as they did change palomino. I figured there might be some presure to correct bay to buckskin after you imported one to Germany.
www.FreedomSporthorses.com
Standing the Thoroughbred stallion Regal Regalia-chestnut frame overo

reedhill
Grade III Winner
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:08 am

Postby reedhill » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:31 am

I like stained white, almost sounds impossible, LOL but kind of classy.

I also like bay sabino, chestnut sabino...........but then people that have a baby with a regular stocking might want thier foal named chestnut sabino, and so on..........

What about:

BAY, CHESTNUT, BLACK, BROWN, GREY with EXCESSIVE WHITE ??

Kind of like the AQHA.........have the JC give a diagram of a horse body to register from, indicating where and how much white will make a foal elligible for EXCESSIVE WHITE to be placed on the registration papers after the obvious visible base coat color.

This way we know there is some major bling going on somewhere, but not all white, and they won't be missed as regular bays and chestnuts on
any given data base.

In the event that the foal offers only roaned hairs as chestnut say around the ears, and the rest is white, or they are pure white, then just call them white.

On foal watch :shock: , waiting, waiting, waiting... but that is my 2 cents :wink:

User avatar
Jorge
Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:48 pm

Postby Jorge » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:31 am

Thank you so much for your opinions. I earnestly appreciate it.

I have no problem with different views on Problem #1. What I would like to achieve is that we all come up with a consensus position in order to be effective. Can we reach positions rather than diverse opinions. Problem #1 is not a pet project of anybody but a proposition ready to be debated.

User avatar
TrueColours
Grade I Winner
Posts: 1635
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:07 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby TrueColours » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:10 am

She may KIND OF look like a palomino, but she is not going to produce the way a palomino would.


No - that is exactly the problem. If she was bred to a chestnut stallion down the road and out popped a buckskin, all sorts of red flags are going to be waived - right?! :roll: Its almost immaterial what pops out with GG - Hell - they cant get the basic colours right, let alone can they differentiate between cremello, perlino and smoky cream!!!

Since "most" of these horses are maximum sabino's and actually have a base color that is not white...why not register the horse as it's base color and then the white markings.


While I agree with you 100%, this is almost like the "grey" situation. Why not register THOSE horses as their base coat colour instead of what they become (grey) a few years down the road??? It would be confusing if you followed one set of rules for the greys and another for the maximally expressed sabino's ...

I can see why the JC is reluctant to list these unusual colors. Heck they can't even get the roan part straight


Agreed again. The Puchilingui mares Artic Color and Artic Squaw are registered as grey/roan simply because the JC never quite knew what else to do with them! The fact that neither had a grey dam or sire was immaterial. In their eyes anyhow :roll:

If a horse tests Bay with dominant white than it should be registered Dominant White-Bay. If a horse tests black with frame overo it should be registered Frame Over-Bay. Et al.


While a small group of us actually CARE about things like this, I dont hold out one shred of hope that the JC spends even one second a YEAR contemplating stuff like this :wink:

I think if we get buckskin, cremello and maybe even perlino added in, we are going to be MILES ahead of where we are today. To get into Dominant White or Frame or Splash or this-over-that or anything else is pointless IMO. They wont know or care about the specific colour patterns. A simple "large white spot on the abdomen" is about as far as they will go without classifying it further as a Frame characteristic. IMO anyhow ...

Heck - Im still waiting to see what they do with Nightlight and am prepared to fight to get her done as a simple black and nothing else. I dont hold out ANY hope that they will ever add smoky black to the colour choices either
www.TrueColoursFarm.com



Breeders of unique coloured Thoroughbreds & Sport Horses - standing Guaranteed Gold - 16.1hh cremello TB stallion - CSHA and AQHA, APHA, ApHC listed

soft hearted
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:16 am

Postby soft hearted » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:26 am

I can see where all the issues are, and frankly many are created not so much by the simplicity of the JC rules, but by the complexities NOW shown through DNA testing.
Whereas *before* horses were classified by the colour they looked, now they are (or at least, can be) classified by the genotype.
So, back to one of the original suggestions.
Regular colours (as traditional) with a check box for one or two dilutions - then LIST them.
So if you have that lovely smokey cream - you mark black with two dilutions of cream.
Let whomever is reading the papers have to do the mental work on "what do I CALL this?"
If it's the genotype that we're trying to get recognized, why get hung up on the termininology that no one wants to wrap their minds around yet?


On a further note, I too, believe that the TB was produced, first and foremost as a performance host - and should be recognized that way.
I don't CARE if it's purple with green dots (dare you to try to come up with one! :lol: ). I just want to know that it can WORK. Preferrably on the track, but the extra colour does help if it's in the ring or the field instead. :)

BlazingColours
Allowance Winner
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:20 pm
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Postby BlazingColours » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:31 am

TrueColours wrote:

If a horse tests Bay with dominant white than it should be registered Dominant White-Bay. If a horse tests black with frame overo it should be registered Frame Over-Bay. Et al.


While a small group of us actually CARE about things like this, I dont hold out one shred of hope that the JC spends even one second a YEAR contemplating stuff like this :wink:

I think if we get buckskin, cremello and maybe even perlino added in, we are going to be MILES ahead of where we are today. To get into Dominant White or Frame or Splash or this-over-that or anything else is pointless IMO. They wont know or care about the specific colour patterns. A simple "large white spot on the abdomen" is about as far as they will go without classifying it further as a Frame characteristic. IMO anyhow ...



I completely agree. Just to have my cremello, perlino, and buckskin Thoroughbred listed with the "Real" colours would be a *HUGE* step. Listing all the colour patterns, not so important. If they have that much white then they will likely also be registered with APHA where the type of pattern can be listed. I think anyone who has a white foal *should* have to DNA test to find the underlying colour. That under lying colour *should* be put on the papers as "excessive white" But I think that is even a bit of a stretch.

Color... so you are saying that you have cremellos registered as such but it is not on the papers? Can you explain that? And do let us know what happens with any other *new* colours your horses registered as.


soft hearted wrote:I can see where all the issues are, and frankly many are created not so much by the simplicity of the JC rules, but by the complexities NOW shown through DNA testing.
Whereas *before* horses were classified by the colour they looked, now they are (or at least, can be) classified by the genotype.

True... So if they adopt the DNA testing to prove sire and dam, then why not adopt it as a way to prove colour?? Seems only logical as the DNA does not lie!
Living life for the journey, not the destination.
Join us on FACEBOOK

User avatar
Truly
Allowance Winner
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Just outside London, UK
Contact:

Postby Truly » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:14 am

True coat colours will eventually be added to the database I'm sure but it won't happen over night.
The reason palomino and cremello have now been excepted was due to horses being exported and the countries receiving them saying 'hey this horse does not match the colour it says on the passport.'...otherwise I don't think we would have got this far.
Each country has it's own TB studbook which is a member of the International Stud Book Commitee..they each form groups....eg. The US and Canada are seperate from Australia and New Zealand, and England and Germany come under the European group.
The International Stud Book Commitee make the rules but not every group decides to include a new rule (seems pointless I know!)...for instance The ISBC has said palomino and cremello can now be included in all TB registries but Australia has decided that they don't want to include them.
Germany's JC put forward the proposal for Palomino to the ISBC when Gwen imported one from the US and they granted it and England's JC Weatherby's put forward the proposal for cremello when I imported Electrum and it was granted.
Because Germany and England fall into the European group any of those colours will now be registered correctly BUT because the other groups in the World can decide whether they want to include the colours or not I don't know when that will happen.
One way would be for a cremello to import into the US or Canada and then they would arrive with the correct colour and the USJC would then have no choice as to register it correctly and add a new box on the colour chart lol......highly unlightly Europe would sell back TB dilutes but you can see what I'm saying :)
So I'm sure the correct colours will be registered eventually..it will just take time and I guess the USJC have other priorities at the moment.

By the way 'I was Framed' was imported to England and he is registered as 'Bay Overo' in Weatherby's stud book...so the ISBC must have approved that colour combo too.

User avatar
Truly
Allowance Winner
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Just outside London, UK
Contact:

Postby Truly » Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:37 am

BlazingColours wrote:

Color... so you are saying that you have cremellos registered as such but it is not on the papers? Can you explain that? And do let us know what happens with any other *new* colours your horses registered as.


I'll answer if that's ok?
Only the foals born since the colour was approved will be added to the studbook at registration like any other foal colour.
The horses previously registered as the wrong colour will need their passports sent in for amendment..this probably will mean they have to have another DNA test and ID form confirmed matches by a vet.

Electrum's DNA for colour and blood was taken by my vet so Weatherby's could present the evidence to the ISBC...because he'd already had these taken I just had to send his passport in for amendment (I paid vets fees and lab fee's but no charge for amendment of colour)
My palomino TB foal born here last year just was registered the same as any other TB foal because palomino has already been approved.

So Gwens horses that were previously incorrectly registered will remain so until she sends passports in for amendment...not a problem as there is no rush..and their foals can be correctly registered.

With Buckskin , either Gwen or myself will need to ask our countries JC's to put forward that colour (or any other colour we have) to the ISBC for approval..when we next want to register a foal of that color.

color
Allowance Winner
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:28 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Postby color » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:03 am

Thanks Truly, that is what I wanted to say. I have my horses colours recognized with the German JC correctly but I do not see a hurry to send in the passports for the changes right now. There are other priorities in my life. They have the DNA test so whenever I send in the passports - if ever - the change can be done immediately.

But I have sent in the hairs for Shew O Gold GF to confirm the buckskin and to have it on her papers as she still needs her set. US has still not established papers for her and as far as I can recall Donna sent in the paperwork for her and I sent in the pictures and I paid the fees. So if she comes back buckskin in some weeks, then the next color will be put up in the European JCs. Frame Overo, Palomino and Cremello we already have now. Have also asked for Maximum Sabino + the base color as I have three whites now with the colt born last year that is a Palomino in addition.
http://www.gestuet-falkenhorst.com

Exceptional colored German WBs, TBs and Arabs

User avatar
RiddleMeThis
Allowance Winner
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:28 am

Postby RiddleMeThis » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:06 am

soft hearted wrote:Let whomever is reading the papers have to do the mental work on "what do I CALL this?"
If it's the genotype that we're trying to get recognized, why get hung up on the termininology that no one wants to wrap their minds around yet?
Because its only the JC who seems to have a problem "wrapping their minds around it."

UC Davis, UK, Animal Genetics, etc has wrapped their minds around it. AQHA has wrapped their minds around it, and they have TONS more colors than the JC does (though the dont have ALL of them accepted yet they are working on it.)

The JC wouldnt be making up names for these colors they would be using already established names.

User avatar
Jorge
Moderator
Posts: 6234
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:48 pm

Postby Jorge » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:53 pm

I. CASE OR PROBLEM #1:

There are two kinds of white horses. Those that fashion a non-maculated white phenotype like Clarence Stewart, The White Fox, etc. Then there are those with such a maculated white phenotype that authorities refuse to call them "white" (quite understandable), in which case they are registered as "roans", "grays", or even as solid color equines. The registries should apply a uniform term that may permit us to keep in mind that these are basically white equines with a stained phenotype. I would suggest the use of the term: "Stained White. If the equine is far more "chestnut" than "white" then I would apply the term "Marked Chestnut". The same for a "Marked Bay", "Marked Dark Bay" and so on.


II. HERE ARE YOUR SUGGESTIONS:


(A) RIDDLE ME THIS:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I dont like this idea at all. Horses should be registered according to their genotype not phenotype.

If a horse tests Bay with dominant white than it should be registered Dominant White-Bay. If a horse tests black with frame overo it should be registered Frame Over-Bay. Et al.

There is no use for registering a horse based on the color it appears outside because it wont necessarily produced based on what it looks liek outside. For examples TCFs perlino mare thats registered palomino. She may KIND OF look like a palomino, but she is not going to produce the way a palomino would. And if they register Night Light as brown because she looks brown, they are going to run into problems when she starts foaling palominos.

(B) COLOR:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I totally agree with RMT and I am fighting for this in Germany since years for the WBs already. Actually I have been asked by the Association to put up all colors and all patterns should the FN agree to give the horse colors a three chiffre number instead of the two chiffres from 00-99 we have now and cannot add any more colors therefore.

(C) SOUTHERN STAR:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case or Problem #1:
Since "most" of these horses are maximum sabino's and actually have a base color that is not white...why not register the horse as it's base color and then the white markings. Many of the foals that I have seen listed lately as white are not what i would consider true white's so it's confusing.

(D) REEDHILL:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like stained white, almost sounds impossible, LOL but kind of classy.

I also like bay sabino, chestnut sabino...........but then people that have a baby with a regular stocking might want thier foal named chestnut sabino, and so on..........

What about:

BAY, CHESTNUT, BLACK, BROWN, GREY with EXCESSIVE WHITE ??

Kind of like the AQHA.........have the JC give a diagram of a horse body to register from, indicating where and how much white will make a foal elligible for EXCESSIVE WHITE to be placed on the registration papers after the obvious visible base coat color.

This way we know there is some major bling going on somewhere, but not all white, and they won't be missed as regular bays and chestnuts on
any given data base.

In the event that the foal offers only roaned hairs as chestnut say around the ears, and the rest is white, or they are pure white, then just call them white.

On foal watch, waiting, waiting, waiting... but that is my 2 cents

(E) SOFT HEARTED:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see where all the issues are, and frankly many are created not so much by the simplicity of the JC rules, but by the complexities NOW shown through DNA testing.
Whereas *before* horses were classified by the colour they looked, now they are (or at least, can be) classified by the genotype.
So, back to one of the original suggestions.
Regular colours (as traditional) with a check box for one or two dilutions - then LIST them.

III. HERE IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND POSSIBLE SOLUTION:

Since the coat color description of an equine is precisely, by definition, a visual description,
I think that trying to convoy into its description the DNA aspect of it, perhaps for purposes of predicting “Punnet Squares” scenarios, etcetera, is entering into un-pragmatic complications. Remember the self-made Gordian knot that many so-called“ connoisseurs” weaved to themselves by trying to unfold, dissect and describe the astronomical odds behind the appearance of White Beauty and War Colors in 1963, and how less-impossible from one standpoint, yet more DNA intricated from the other, the picture has become. It is better to guide ourselves by the notion of phenotypical descriptions without genetic dictums, than trying to adhere to the intrinsic strait-jacket mold that represents genetic-based nomenclatures. When I think of all the different fashions of white phenotypes I have encountered (just take a look to the story of “PPQ Spirit of Romance” (page 148) and many other variables as described in the following article:
http://www.painthorsejournal.com/archiv ... -Mar04.pdf , I come to the conclusion that it is safe not to complicate matters even more. For that reason, I have no other choice than to go with the phenotype-based nomenclature. (opinions A & B)

In my opinion, going for the base color is a more complicated exercise, as well as more prone to erroneous abbreviations due to the lack of space or lack of interest in completing a full description. (Opinion C).

The term “sabino” (opinion D) looks appropriate since all our reported white Thoroughbreds seems to be “sabino-based”. But if we pledge allegiance to the sabino pattern today, we are shutting the door to cases coming from a genetic mutation, from a one-of-a-kind Overo case, or even another “PPQ Spirit of Romance” type of horse. For that reason, I have no other choice than to go with a generic phenotypical-based nomenclature, that is, “white”. As per solving the complication behind the two versions of the white phenotype, I would simply specify that the “white” color has different shades and stains.

I agree with “Soft Hearted”, lets try to simplify these definitions and not complicate it with DNA protocols. That doesn’t mean not to serve from DNA tests in order to mark the limits between extremely hard to define dilutes and bi-dilutes. But let us permit visual common sense to play its role.

IV. MY REQUEST TO YOU:

Please vote in favor or against this proposition #1. Or submit another alternative to our voters:

Thanks in advance for your valuable assistance.

(p.s. Next we will continue examining #2)