Is this statement correct?

Tairaterces · Postby **Tairaterces** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:35 am

MW - Sidney's Candy is not Twirling Candy's sibling. Sibling means brother or sister. Twirling Candy and Sidney's Candy are from different dams, and thus are not related.

Terrapin Flyer · Postby **Terrapin Flyer** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:55 am

You are correct sir

Tairaterces · Postby **Tairaterces** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:34 pm

So having the same sire doesn't count as to them being related?

Bast · Postby **Bast** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:49 pm

Tairaterces wrote:So having the same sire doesn't count as to them being related?

This is a matter of the way terminology is used.

A stallion may have many progeny, a mare will have only a few.

So, while genetically offspring of the same stallion are related, emphasis is placed upon relationships coming through the dams since it will be less common. Horses out of the same mare but with different sires are half-siblings. Horses with the same sire are NOT spoken of in the same way.

Would you rather have a Bold Ruler out of Somethingroyal or a Bold Ruler out of a more ordinary mare? That's the difference, and why the terminology is used this way.

xfactor fan · Postby **xfactor fan** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:22 pm

From the genetic standpoint, the way TB breeders use the terms is nonsense.

Horses by the same sire have half of that sire's chromosomes.

Horses out of the same mare have half that mare's chromosomes + her mtDNA.

Deciding to call only the mare's produce siblings, doesn't change the fact that a stallion's get are also half siblings.

Brings up another question:

Do folks in the TB industry believe that horses by the same sire out of unrelated mares are less related than horses out of the same mare by different sires?

freshman · Postby **freshman** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:45 pm

It's a colloquialism specific to the TB industry. Has nothing do with genetics, the literal definition of the terms, how they are used, or what they mean in any other place or time.

oleos93 · Postby **oleos93** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:30 pm

I for one go by genetics.....I have 2 yearlings and one 4 day old filly....ALL by the same sire ALL from different dames...ALL ARE SIBLINGS and have the same DNA on at least one side. I have two children from two different marriages....both fathers are ass holes equally so should I say my kids are not related?

Sorry it drives me nuts about this.....what would happen if a great sire all of a sudden produced a two headed foal from a dame he has been bred to many times......who is to blame then?

freshman · Postby **freshman** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:02 pm

OF COURSE they are just as related! What part of the idea that the TB industry uses the term sibling, etc, as to mean something different than the rest of the world is lost of on so many people?!

aethervox · Postby **aethervox** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:02 am

The following is just my two cents:

I think the reason the terminology is used in TB racing is that most people know the names of the better stallions, who have literally hundreds of foals in their lifetime. The mares are not as well known by name, and they have a lot fewer foals than the stallions.

The way I've heard the term used is to connect a horse to 'famous' horses, i.e. a shorthand way of telling another person not only the bloodlines, but the quality of the horse you're talking about.

For example, if you say to someone that a mare, The Bride, is by Bold Ruler, that makes her one of over 300 horses listed in the PQ database. If you say she's full (a full sibling) to Secretariat and Syrian Sea, or half to Sir Gaylord, it immediately puts her in context as one of 18 foals by Somethingroyal, with pretty good bloodlines, to boot.

Or, for a more modern example, if you tell someone about a filly named Eblouissante, you may get blank looks until you say she's by Bernardini (who has over 160 foals listed in the PQ database) and half to Zenyatta (same dam).

So while it's not scientifically correct, it does serve a purpose.