louis finochio wrote:To Sam: You are putting the cart before the horse.
No, Louis, I'm not. I'm asking you a point blank question based on your theory and you still won't answer it.
louis finochio wrote:When you make a union of stallion and mare you will have to find which colors are dominate and recessive. After a few crops of stallions runners you will find which colors are producing those superior runners.
So you are saying to completely ignore the 'dominate' colour of the mare.
Again, following your theory, if you have a stallion who's demonstrated his 'superior' progeny are grey and a mare who's demonstrated that her 'superior' progeny are bay -- Are you going to sell the bay foal because it's not grey like the stallion's 'superior' progeny, or keep the bay foal because it's the same colour as the mare's superior progeny?
By the way... That's actually a trick question since GREY isn't a colour. It's a modifier. That grey foal may very well BE bay -- a greying bay.
louis finochio wrote:Even Tessio could not tell you what colors would be dominate and recessive before the mating took place.
That's called backpedaling.
You originally stated that you look at all of a stallion's progeny and will see which colour is dominate in his 'superior' foals.
Now you are saying this only applies to the exact cross (mare to stallion, not just an overview of a stallion's progeny)? Then it's a waste of time since you would need MULTIPLE full siblings of various colour to make any kind of guess and that's ALL this 'theory' is; a GUESS based on the appearance of a correlative pattern.
Again, you are seeing something that IS NOT THERE. If it works for you, fine, but any rational scientist would be laughing at you if you tried to explain this theory to them.