[Elle]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

I don't remember anyone that you refer to, but it doesn't matter. The implication by the poster that I was replying to was that parti's are showing up because unscrupulous Parti breeders are sneaking their dogs in to new, traditional, lines. And what I'm saying is that the genes are there in those lines because traditional colored breeders chose to hide the fact, with the blessing of the YTCA and AKC, that they had the parti gene in their lines.

The fact is, the Yorkshire Terrier, as we know it today was bred from several different breeds of dogs, some of which had different coat colors. One of those may or may not have been the Maltese:

British dogs, their points, selection, and show preparation, by William D. Drury, pg 582 published 1903, L. Upcott Gill, London, and Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (no ISBN) Quote: "I think the Yorkshire gets the softness and length of coat due to Maltese blood".


That being the case, it is only logical that some of those early ancestors continued to carry the gene for the white coloring. That would be carried on through their progeny, but only expressed when bred with another dog who also carried the gene.

Nope, this is not what the implication was about. Nor is this what my posts were referring to.

I strongly disagree with the relevance that you are making and don't see any logic in this white dog to our standard whatsoever. Many feel it is a mixed breed of dog that is being bred with our blue and tan dogs. I support this logic.