Back to Pedigree Query
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:00 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:36 pm
Posts: 1149
Location: New England & Florida
On another thread TJ wrote: "Uncle Mo is one of the most amazing young sires to come around in a long time. He returned a long dead sire line to the TC races...Nasrullah, who in the last 76 years has had just 3 Derby winners. Forward Pass in 1968, Winning Colors in 1988 and now Nyquist 28 years later. I really can't remember a sire's first crop, with so many top class runners in the TC races...has to be one for the record books?'

Not to take anything away from Uncle Mo, but to put his achievement in some kind of historical context, we should remember that he started out with the advantage of an astronomical 213 foals in his initial crop. For the sake of comparison, Bold Ruler, from the same now "long dead" sire line of Nasrullah (he was in fact a son), sired a mere 17 foals in his first crop, 14 of which were winners and 8 were stakes winners. Bold Ruler went on to average 35 foals/crop and 22% SWs to foals.

Bold Ruler's first Derby starter was Bold Lad, CH2YO-colt, which injured himself in the 1965 running and came 10th of 11. He was followed by Bold Ruler's sons Stupendous (4th in the 1966 Derby) and Successor (6th in the 1967 edition). Thus from roughly his first 150 foals Bold Ruler sired 3 Derby starters vs. 3 for Uncle Mo from 213 foals. And of course Bold Ruler would eventually go on to sire that Derby winner of Derby winners, Secretariat.

The Nasrullah sire line has actually accounted for several more Derby winners than the three cited by TJ. Overlooked were: Dust Commander, Secretariat, Cannonade, What A Pleasure, Bold Forbes, Seattle Slew, Spectacular Bid and Swale.

Personally I abhor the commercial lurch toward humongous stallion books. This has led to the devaluation of classically talented and genetically diverse stallions and their sale and dispersal to far flung countries. A diminished gene pool does not bode well for the future of our sport.

Allison

_________________
"He is pure air and fire and the dull elements of earth and water never appear in him; he is indeed a horse ..." Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 6:02 am 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
Patuxet wrote:
On another thread TJ wrote: "Uncle Mo is one of the most amazing young sires to come around in a long time. He returned a long dead sire line to the TC races...Nasrullah, who in the last 76 years has had just 3 Derby winners. Forward Pass in 1968, Winning Colors in 1988 and now Nyquist 28 years later. I really can't remember a sire's first crop, with so many top class runners in the TC races...has to be one for the record books?'

Not to take anything away from Uncle Mo, but to put his achievement in some kind of historical context, we should remember that he started out with the advantage of an astronomical 213 foals in his initial crop. For the sake of comparison, Bold Ruler, from the same now "long dead" sire line of Nasrullah (he was in fact a son), sired a mere 17 foals in his first crop, 14 of which were winners and 8 were stakes winners. Bold Ruler went on to average 35 foals/crop and 22% SWs to foals.

Bold Ruler's first Derby starter was Bold Lad, CH2YO-colt, which injured himself in the 1965 running and came 10th of 11. He was followed by Bold Ruler's sons Stupendous (4th in the 1966 Derby) and Successor (6th in the 1967 edition). Thus from roughly his first 150 foals Bold Ruler sired 3 Derby starters vs. 3 for Uncle Mo from 213 foals. And of course Bold Ruler would eventually go on to sire that Derby winner of Derby winners, Secretariat.

The Nasrullah sire line has actually accounted for several more Derby winners than the three cited by TJ. Overlooked were: Dust Commander, Secretariat, Cannonade, What A Pleasure, Bold Forbes, Seattle Slew, Spectacular Bid and Swale.

Personally I abhor the commercial lurch toward humongous stallion books. This has led to the devaluation of classically talented and genetically diverse stallions and their sale and dispersal to far flung countries. A diminished gene pool does not bode well for the future of our sport.

Allison

Hi Allison,
I agree Bold Ruler was a great sire and I spoke of his resurgence in an earlier post:

(April, 2015) When the Raise A Native and Bold Ruler sire line came on the Derby scene (1969 and 1970 respectively), the Bold Ruler line was dominant from 1969-1980 winning 8 against Raise A Native's 3. Then Raise A Native took charge and remained the top Derby sire line till present day. The Bold Ruler sire line hadn't been heard from since 1984 (Swale)....then in 2013 the Bold Ruler sire line mysteriously emerged with back to back sire line wins (Orb, 2013 and California Chrome, 2014).

I bring this earlier post up because the Bold Ruler sire line, as the Nasrullah sire line made a recent resurgence after being long gone. I'm also sure you meant Foolish Pleasure not What A Pleasure in the eight you mentioned as attributed to the Nasrullah sire line. But they are actually attributed to the Bold Ruler sire line, not the Nasrullah sire line. Only the three I mentioned are attributed to the Nasrullah sire line.
My quote which you cited was in reference to a question concerning one sire having as many as 4 entries in a single TC race as Uncle Mo did in the Preakness. Uncle Mo is an exciting young sire, but by no means as accomplished as the great Bold Ruler. Yet Uncle Mo is starting off on the right foot with a Derby winner in his first try with 3 of his progeny in the Derby and 4 in the Preakness. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 6:52 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:53 pm
Posts: 9513
Location: Louisville, KY
I actually wrote something very similar in response to the thread on Derby Stallions however according to the JC fact book Uncle Mo had 167 live foals from 211 mares covered.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?s ... 2&letter=U

These are still astronomical numbers compared to stallions like Bold Ruler. I am also NOT a fan of these massive books but then I'm not a shareholder in the stallions that are raking in massive quantities of money like that. I prefer to deal with stud farms that are more selective about the mares for their stallions. The old rule of thumb was that a mare should be worth four times the stud fee you spent on breeding her and I find it hard to believe that there were 211 mares worth $300K each for that first book.

_________________
So Run for the Roses, as fast as you can.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 11:33 am 
Offline
Allowance Winner

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:29 am
Posts: 326
It doesn't seem like it was that long ago that a top stallion would cover 40 or 50 mares each year. Now, over 200!?
It's almost disgusting in my opinion. Of course I am not a breeder, but it just reeks of greed. (like most everything else in our world these days, I suppose.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 1:01 pm 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
Imagine if he gets on the Australian shuttle and covers another 100 over there. His stud fee is set to go up quite a bit next season. Here's a recent article about Uncle Mo's current value as a stallion. TJ
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... e-mo-worth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 8:08 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:36 pm
Posts: 1149
Location: New England & Florida
TJ:

You're right. This addled old man wrote What A Pleasure instead of the name of his son, Foolish Pleasure.

As for the Nasrullah sire line vs. the Bold Ruler sire line, it's really a distinction without a difference, at least genetically. Sire lines can certainly be a convenient way to categorize pedigrees, but, aside from the presence of a constant Y chromosome which goes all the way back through Phalaris and Eclipse to the Darley Arabian, sire lines are genetically meaningless.

The following comment, under the title “Sireline Hangup”, was posted on this forum some years back and IMO says it all:

“Why do folks have this mindless obsession with sirelines?. Even the most rudimentary knowledge of genetics reveals that the direct sireline, manifested in the Y chromosome, is of extremely limited inheritable influence — about all it does is make a male a male. Beyond that any stallion’s influence becomes part of the genetic soup wherein chromosomes are as likely to come from any horse in the same generation as they are from the tail-male ancestor. Why can’t people get beyond this patriarchal hangup?”

Cheers!
Allison

_________________
"He is pure air and fire and the dull elements of earth and water never appear in him; he is indeed a horse ..." Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 8:14 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:36 pm
Posts: 1149
Location: New England & Florida
Madelyn:

Yes, the Jockey Club lists 167 foals of 2013, 98 foals of 2014 and 132 foals of 2015. I found the figure of 213 foals in 2013 at brisnet.com, along with 128 for 2014 and 135 for 2015.

https://www.brisnet.com/secure-bin/bris ... 0MO%202008

I thought 213 might include Uncle Mo's Australian foals but the Equineline numbers for southern and northern hemisphere foals don't add up to 213.
Northern Hemisphere
3 crops 380 foals
2 crops of racing age
261 foals of racing age
96 current 2 year old foals
119 yearlings

Southern Hemisphere
3 crops 206 foals
1 crops of racing age
62 foals of racing age
62 current 2 year old foals
76 yearlings
68 weanlings

'Tis a mystery.

Best,
Allison

_________________
"He is pure air and fire and the dull elements of earth and water never appear in him; he is indeed a horse ..." Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 9:26 pm 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
Patuxet wrote:
TJ:

You're right. This addled old man wrote What A Pleasure instead of the name of his son, Foolish Pleasure.

As for the Nasrullah sire line vs. the Bold Ruler sire line, it's really a distinction without a difference, at least genetically. Sire lines can certainly be a convenient way to categorize pedigrees, but, aside from the presence of a constant Y chromosome which goes all the way back through Phalaris and Eclipse to the Darley Arabian, sire lines are genetically meaningless.

The following comment, under the title “Sireline Hangup”, was posted on this forum some years back and IMO says it all:

“Why do folks have this mindless obsession with sirelines?. Even the most rudimentary knowledge of genetics reveals that the direct sireline, manifested in the Y chromosome, is of extremely limited inheritable influence — about all it does is make a male a male. Beyond that any stallion’s influence becomes part of the genetic soup wherein chromosomes are as likely to come from any horse in the same generation as they are from the tail-male ancestor. Why can’t people get beyond this patriarchal hangup?”

Cheers!
Allison

Hi Allison,
A distinction without a difference, maybe so as it sometimes seems illogical the way sire lines are determined and not knowing myself how it is done?....I can only assume Bold Ruler was such a strong influence he overshadowed the Nasrullah sire line and was himself added as the Nasrullah sire line replacement, even though he was sired by Nasrullah? Yet somehow "this mindless obsession" or "distinction without a difference" find many doing endless hours of research in attempting to prove there is a distinction between sire lines relating to the Derby. One researcher in particular, where I found the Derby winner's sire lines, was Dr. Romans sire line information. He lists all the Derby winners from 1940-2016 along with the Derby winners sire and sire line as well as the dam's sire and dam's sire line.
http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/clas ... dosage.htm
What I found most interesting was the Bold Ruler sire line showing up after 29 years, through Malibu Moon and Lucky Pulpit then the Nasrullah sire line appearing again 28 years later through Uncle Mo....just 2 years after Bold Ruler's sire line resurgence.
As I said my post which you quoted was not in reference to who is a better sire, but maybe since you might have the statistics, you could answer the question if Bold Ruler had more than 4 horses sired by himself in any one Triple Crown race....or any other great sires of the past for that matter? That was what we were actually talking about. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 8:20 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:36 pm
Posts: 1149
Location: New England & Florida
TJ wrote: “... maybe since you might have the statistics, you could answer the question if Bold Ruler had more than 4 horses sired by himself in any one Triple Crown race....or any other great sires of the past for that matter?"

Of course he didn't! Bold Ruler only averaged about 36 foals per crop and it's beyond doubtful that 11% of his foals could ever show up in a classic. Perhaps, if he'd been able to sire a crop 4.75 times that size – or 167 foals as Uncle Mo did -- it might have been within the realm of possibility. As pointed out, Bold Ruler did sire three Derby starters from some 160 foals, albeit in his first five crops on the ground.

I want to see Uncle Mo sire a Belmont winner!

Cheers!
Allison

_________________
"He is pure air and fire and the dull elements of earth and water never appear in him; he is indeed a horse ..." Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2016 2:37 am 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
Patuxet wrote:
TJ wrote: “... maybe since you might have the statistics, you could answer the question if Bold Ruler had more than 4 horses sired by himself in any one Triple Crown race....or any other great sires of the past for that matter?"

Of course he didn't! Bold Ruler only averaged about 36 foals per crop and it's beyond doubtful that 11% of his foals could ever show up in a classic. Perhaps, if he'd been able to sire a crop 4.75 times that size – or 167 foals as Uncle Mo did -- it might have been within the realm of possibility. As pointed out, Bold Ruler did sire three Derby starters from some 160 foals, albeit in his first five crops on the ground.

I want to see Uncle Mo sire a Belmont winner!

Cheers!
Allison

Hi Allison,
In this day and age, to produce 167 foals isn't unheard of...but what is, would be from Uncle Mo's 1st crop, 4 of his progeny were found in a single TC race. That is a feat which should be recognized in any stallion's first crop in this modern era. As well as the fact Uncle Mo is the only US stallion to ever have 2YO progeny earnings over $3 million in one crop. No matter how you look at it that is impressive.
It was also directly related to the question that prompted my response which you quoted at the top of your thread. Since you posed this thread on my answer to this question from Aug.27 in our Preakness discussion in the handicapping section:
Aug27 wrote:
Can anybody recall when we last had a Classic where four entrants were from the same Sire?
(2-3-8-9)

My response:
TJ wrote:
Uncle Mo is one of the most amazing young sires to come around in a long time. He returned a long dead sire line to the TC races...Nasrullah, who in the last 76 years has had just 3 Derby winners. Forward Pass in 1968, Winning Colors in 1988 and now Nyquist 28 years later. I really can't remember a sires first crop, with so many top class runners in the TC races...has to be one for the record books? TJ
My question was legitimate and I was hoping you had some actual statistics if Bold Ruler even had more then one of his foals in any single TC race during his reign? Considering his small foal crop that would still be noteworthy and I would think he very well could have? I was expecting an answer a little more in depth other then "of course he didn't"?
I do wonder why you didn't respond to my answer, which you quoted in the beginning of your post, within the thread you took it from? Unless you felt it was irrelevant and you just wanted to get an unrelated point across about Bold Ruler? If so, then there was no need to quote me in responding to Aug.27's query above?. I have no problem being corrected when I'm wrong, I appreciate it and would be the first to thank you for the correction. On the other hand, in your original post you also wrote:
Patuxet wrote:
The Nasrullah sire line has actually accounted for several more Derby winners than the three cited by TJ. Overlooked were: Dust Commander, Secretariat, Cannonade, What A Pleasure, Bold Forbes, Seattle Slew, Spectacular Bid and Swale.
Allison
I didn't overlooked 8 of the Nasrullah sire line Derby winners as you stated since all 8 were attributed to the Bold Ruler sire line. TJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 1:07 pm 
Offline
Grade III Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:36 pm
Posts: 1149
Location: New England & Florida
TJ:

With stallion crops 5 times larger and G1 purses grossly inflated, the likelihood exponentially increased that stallions would set records for monies won and classic performers produced per crop. It was only a matter of time and Uncle Mo has done it early and in spades. What I take exception to is the notion that Nasrullah, six generations back on the top line, somehow played a significant part in the scenario. Genetic science proves otherwise or, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a Bold Ruler sire line is a Nasrullah sireline is a Nearco sireline and so on. As Rommy Faversham puts it, “Sirelines provide simple standardized pathways in the navigation of equine ancestries.”

I think a stronger case for Uncle Mo's success could be made for the fact that his top line (In Excess x Siberian Summer) provides a welcome outcross -- six generations free of Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector and In Reality.

The idea of sirelines has a long and sentimental history. Devotees indulge in the fantasy that what made a horse great continues to flourish on the sire line long after the genetic components of the stallion's greatness have halved multiple times and the remaining remnants melded into the shared genetic pool.

I remember an extreme example in the late 1960s when a vocal group of equine “preservationists” seized on the fact that the male line of the great Lexington had dwindled down to a singe stallion. “The Blood-Horse” and “Thoroughbred Record” were awash with letters suggesting ways to “save” the line. The most bizarre was to have each of the great stables donate the services of one or two of their significant broodmares to be bred to the last remaining Lexington line stallion. Of course it came to nothing and the last known Lexington descendant, named Conquering Elk, seems to have vanished into anonymity.

Speaking of broodmares, in order for Uncle Mo to come up with all those classic contenders, someone did one hell of a job assembling a crack band of broodmares for him. Half the credit for the horse must always go to the mare.

Cheers!

Allison

_________________
"He is pure air and fire and the dull elements of earth and water never appear in him; he is indeed a horse ..." Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 3:27 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Posts: 2212
Yes and No on the sire line being important. On a genetic level, All equine Y's are very similar. Ponies, Draft horses, and TB's. Last paper on the subject indicates that there are three minor differences on the Y. However that paper was several years ago, so things might have changed quite a bit.

However every TB has "extra" genetic influences. In humans last names are "extra" genetic. They follow the male lines, but may or not follow the Y chromosome. In TB's where every breeding is arranged by some human, this selection process is "extra" genetic. Tesio comes to mind. Every breeding from his stud reflected his selection of how the genes had a chance to combine. This process can produce a continuation of racing success in the next generation, or a failure. Selecting the mares can make or break a stallion. Secretariat and Man O'War come to mind. Man O'War seceded despite his limited access to quality mares. Seth Hancock is on record admitting to breeding the wrong kind of mares to Secretariat. Apparently he selected distance type mares like Bold Ruler favored instead of speed type mares like his damsire Discovery needed.

It would be very interesting to add the name of the person who actually arranged the breeding. Which may or may not be the listed breeder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 5:21 am 
Offline
Darley line
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 5936
Location: FL, NY
Patuxet wrote:
TJ:

With stallion crops 5 times larger and G1 purses grossly inflated, the likelihood exponentially increased that stallions would set records for monies won and classic performers produced per crop. It was only a matter of time and Uncle Mo has done it early and in spades. What I take exception to is the notion that Nasrullah, six generations back on the top line, somehow played a significant part in the scenario. Genetic science proves otherwise or, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a Bold Ruler sire line is a Nasrullah sireline is a Nearco sireline and so on. As Rommy Faversham puts it, “Sirelines provide simple standardized pathways in the navigation of equine ancestries.”

I think a stronger case for Uncle Mo's success could be made for the fact that his top line (In Excess x Siberian Summer) provides a welcome outcross -- six generations free of Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector and In Reality.

The idea of sirelines has a long and sentimental history. Devotees indulge in the fantasy that what made a horse great continues to flourish on the sire line long after the genetic components of the stallion's greatness have halved multiple times and the remaining remnants melded into the shared genetic pool.

I remember an extreme example in the late 1960s when a vocal group of equine “preservationists” seized on the fact that the male line of the great Lexington had dwindled down to a singe stallion. “The Blood-Horse” and “Thoroughbred Record” were awash with letters suggesting ways to “save” the line. The most bizarre was to have each of the great stables donate the services of one or two of their significant broodmares to be bred to the last remaining Lexington line stallion. Of course it came to nothing and the last known Lexington descendant, named Conquering Elk, seems to have vanished into anonymity.

Speaking of broodmares, in order for Uncle Mo to come up with all those classic contenders, someone did one hell of a job assembling a crack band of broodmares for him. Half the credit for the horse must always go to the mare.

Cheers!

Allison

Hi Allison,
I see no reason why simple standardization of sire lines isn't a good thing. Rommy Faversham collaborated with a number of pedigree guru's of his time. Notably the great Leon Rasmussen of DRF Bloodlines and the Rasmussen Factor who was, in fact, Faversham's mentor. Dr. Roman's collaborated with author's Faversham, Frank Mitchell and Dave Dink in their book "Racehorse Breeding Theories" and I have great respect for all of these men. Lexington was once a great influence in racing, but his line died out too soon with Faversham alluding to the fact he produced better mares then he did sires to carry on his line. But I agree, Lexington was a great influence none the less. Yet when you speak of Lexington you can't ignore his superior sire line, King Herod. Your quote from Faversham was from his article about the fall of the Lexington Sire Line written in 2006. His entire quote is below:

"As pedigree scholars continue to debate the ultimate value of the Thoroughbred’s Y chromosome and its abiding trace in direct male line, one thing is clear. Sire lines provide simple standardized pathways in the navigation of equine ancestries. No pathway, not even the male lines of Phalaris, has ever manifested as potent an influence on the American racehorse as the tail-male line of Lexington. As such, its rise and fall seems worthy of contemplation."

Gertrude Stein...are you talking about A rose is a Rose is a Rose Gertrude? I don't seem to remember her as a breeding expert. In any case I prefer and will continue to find my sire line information from Roman's research. Which in the header (below) Romans explains a bit about how he distinguished between the sire lines along with other points he expressed. Of particular note to this discussion, Romans mentions the Nasrullah sire line and the Bold Ruler sire line and where he made the distinction as to when the Nasrullah sire line stops and Bold Ruler sire line begins:

The following table lists the Dosage figures, sire, broodmare sire, sire lines and bloodline crosses for winners of the Kentucky Derby since 1940. Since the table was initially constructed in the early 1980's, the figures are those of the horse at the time. Therefore, some of the numbers in the table are different from the current numbers calculated using subsequent chef-de-race additions. The current figures for all of the Derby winners can be found in the Triple Crown pedigree section. Sire lines represent a major branch point in the direct male line. For example, the Nasrullah line includes all Derby winners not tracing back to Nasrullah through Bold Ruler. Similarly, the Sickle line includes all Derby winners not tracing back to Sickle through Raise a Native or Native Dancer. Other relationships of the same kind include Hyperion-Gainsborough and Northern Dancer-Nearctic. Bloodlines refer to Phalaris (P) or non-Phalaris (NP).
http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/clas ... dosage.htm

Another noted breeding expert John P. Sparkman, wrote a recent article about current sires, (apples and apples if I may) and where Uncle Mo fits with 5 of America's leading Sires. He is strictly focused on his single first crop results so the article is still in flux...though at the time it was written, Nyquist was still active. Let's hope he recovers, with no ill affects, in time for Saratoga? TJ
http://www.drf.com/news/sparkman-how-good-uncle-mo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Apples And Oranges
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 1:47 pm 
Offline
Breeder's Cup Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
Posts: 2061
Location: west TX boonies
What "standardization" of "sire lines" we have cannot be defined by anything heritable only from male to male.

At the molecular level (y chromosome) there are only two "sire lines" in the TB, Whalebone's very dominant tribe and everyone else, with precious little difference between the two. But that's recently acquired knowledge, not how we're used to defining "sire line".

"Sire lines" contract by default, especially in an environment where far fewer males than females are present. Forty or so TB foundation era sires' lines have long since contracted into extinction. The three that persist have not done so diffusely, rather through 'bottlenecks".

Traditionally, we've defined "sire lines" at those bottlenecks, sires so successful that the natural tendency toward contraction is reversed for a generation or two. Many authorities believed that variants in male-to-male inheritance were relevant to the genetic component of these re-expansions and that the extinction in topline of a historic sire represented a loss of functionally significant genetic diversity. So far, science offers no basis for either belief. I think we're going to have to wrap our minds around the fact that the distinction between standard "sire lines" is in spite of, not because of, what's inherited strictly male-to-male.

Herod's nearing extinction in topline but will remain the most frequent fixture of TB back pedigree. Lexington's gone from the TB in topline but is now a ubiquitous pedigree fixture thanks in large part to grandsons and great-grandsons of Phalaris. What might the breed be like now had Sibola and Americus not been accepted into the GSB prior to the Jersey Act?
A tad slower would be my first guess. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group