Sir Charles Mare2

[Pan Zareta]

Lucy, this mare, the 5th dam of Fanny Boston (~185x, Boston Jr. - Mare by Grey Eagle) is the founder of one of the 'designated[s]for research purposes' - a50. Can you change the db to reflect that fact?

Chris credits this Sir Charles mare only w/ the Randolph mare & a filly by Buck Elk, so the Sir Richard mare shown in her produce here may be w/ the wrong Sir Charles mare - I keep getting referred to Vol. vi for the damline on Dora by Suwanee & I can't pick it up in anything earlier that I have here.

Thanks, as always

[Pan Zareta]

the Sir Richard mare shown in her produce here may be w/ the wrong Sir Charles mare - I keep getting referred to Vol. vi for the damline on Dora by Suwanee & I can't pick it up in anything earlier that I have here.

Per what Chris has online, Dora was o/o a mare by Sir Richard Tonson - Lewis Harris mare, FF a41(another one that's not in the db here). vii:756 shows 2d dam of Mollie Seabrook as by Sir Richard, no subs corrections in ASB errata or any other printed source that I have, but in confidence w/ Chris' work & resources I'd like to go ahead & change if it's allright w/ you.

[Lucy]

Per what Chris has online, Dora was o/o a mare by Sir Richard Tonson - Lewis Harris mare, FF a41(another one that's not in the db here). vii:756 shows 2d dam of Mollie Seabrook as by Sir Richard, no subs corrections in ASB errata or any other printed source that I have, but in confidence w/ Chris' work & resources I'd like to go ahead & change if it's allright w/ you.

I concur - I know all too well that the DB is fraught with errors, at least we can be confident that anything Chris has up is backed by solid research. Go ahead and change it (give a yell if you find anybody that's locked).

I don't have the ability to set a family number....that may be a Miles thing, but I can ask around and see if anyone else knows how to do it.


One or the other of us needs to get our mitts on vol. VI.

[Pan Zareta]

I concur - I know all too well that the DB is fraught with errors, at least we can be confident that anything Chris has up is backed by solid research. Go ahead and change it (give a yell if you find anybody that's locked).

Mares named "American Family Forty One"[Forty Two, and Fifty] have been added, and mares that tf to them have been added/edited to bring those lines consistent w/ Chris' research.

The revisions to the tf of Dora16 left one Sir Richard Mare in the db - she's showing as Sir Richard Mare2 - if I delete & re-add will it bring her back w/out the '2', or will it go to '3' w/out revisions only you can make?

I also edited Dora's sire to show Sewanee 1845 by *Ainderby who is more plausible by date and pedigree than Suwanee 1870 by Exchequer, or Sewanee 1872 by Lamar. It also conforms to the spelling consistently shown for her sire (but I wouldn't have made the change based on spelling alone).

Pompadour3 by Valiant2 is locked and needs to be edited so dam is shown as American Family Forty Eight (dam of Calista2). Pompadour3's dam is currently showing as Jenny Cameron, a pedigree which is not w/o foundation, but was believed by Harrison to be in error. Chris further notes that by dates Pompadour3 could not have had a filly out of Speculator (Speculator Mare4 here) & suggests a missing cross of Mark Anthony. Putting Pompadour3 in correct tf is an important correction b/c hers is by far the most prolific (and still extant) of the lines from the 18th cent. Byrd mares. Chris has some educated correlations of those mares w/ mares in the GSB. It's by no means certain that they were all of the same family, but pending further study she has them as American Family 50.

I may be in the minority, but for an open-edit db I think the overall error rate in the pq db is pretty low. And I prefer its interface to any of the many pedigree programs I've used.

I don't have the ability to set a family number....that may be a Miles thing, but I can ask around and see if anyone else knows how to do it.

As long as the correct (to the best of our knowledge) names are shown in tf the label can wait, at least imho.

One or the other of us needs to get our mitts on vol. VI.

Definitely. 'Liberating' one (or more) from the dusty warehouse of some gov't. agency is an appealing idea. My Vol. x is stamped "discarded by the U.S.D.A. library. While the cover is worn and the page edges are yellowed, but they're untorn, the binding is tight and inside it's pristine, apparently opened seldom if at all.

[Lucy]

The revisions to the tf of Dora16 left one Sir Richard Mare in the db - she's showing as Sir Richard Mare2 - if I delete & re-add will it bring her back w/out the '2'

Yes. Even if you didn't delete her...the next Sir Richard Mare added would be the first entry, no matter what. The DB autumatically places it in the first available 'slot'.

Pompadour3 by Valiant2 is locked and needs to be edited so dam is shown as American Family Forty Eight (dam of Calista2). Pompadour3's dam is currently showing as Jenny Cameron, a pedigree which is not w/o foundation, but was believed by Harrison to be in error.

Done....but as the DB now requires a birth year, we'll need to come up with an approximate one (couldn't find one at Chris's site). How does c1760 sound? I used that for now, but can change it easily.

BTW, the family number is in for 'american family forty eight'. I have no idea who put it there, but I'm not complaining.

I may be in the minority, but for an open-edit db I think the overall error rate in the pq db is pretty low. And I prefer its interface to any of the many pedigree programs I've used.

I know, I know.....but I have to spend 90% of my time here focusing on the errors, that does rather skew one's perception.

My Vol. x is stamped "discarded by the U.S.D.A. library. While the cover is worn and the page edges are yellowed, but they're untorn, the binding is tight and inside it's pristine, apparently opened seldom if at all.

Lucky. I have some like that, condition wise - and recently got a great deal on both books of vol. XXIII, simply because one of them had a tiny amount of moisture damage.

Wonder what the story on the USDA library book was.....I imagine that they jettisoned their studbook collection after the government stopped breeding horses. That was in the late 40's, so that book of yours must have gotten around!

[Pan Zareta]

Done....but as the DB now requires a birth year, we'll need to come up with an approximate one (couldn't find one at Chris's site). How does c1760 sound? I used that for now, but can change it easily.

BTW, the family number is in for 'american family forty eight'. I have no idea who put it there, but I'm not complaining.

If I can find anything in Harrison to improve on 1760 I'll let you know. Family a48 was already there b/c Byrd's Calista was already in the db.

Wonder what the story on the USDA library book was.....I imagine that they jettisoned their studbook collection after the government stopped breeding horses. That was in the late 40's, so that book of yours must have gotten around!

Having worked a few years prior to my 'broodmare' career for a governmental library (albeit state, not federal) I tend to think it was quite a while after the Remount program ended before the USDA could jettison their ASB's. The paperwork alone, persuant to the discard, probably took at least 25 years.