Quote:
Originally Posted by FlDebra  [SIZE="1"]
Some references really need to be read before accepting as evidence of anything. For example, you wrote, "Books also mention white Yorkshire Terriers, here's one link: A manual of toy dogs: how to breed ... - Google Books
It says:
"The white yorkshires, a new variety some folk have tried to push is, I think, in no way especially desireable -- the Maltese can do all that is necessary in that line; while the attempt to make "silver" Yorkshires popular, too, simply means that bad-coloured dogs without any tan (paleness of tan is the stumbling-block in many a Yorkshire's career), are classed by themselves and offered prizes." So, what is this author actually saying? Sounds to me like he is saying in some of the yorkshires the tan is appearing so pale as to almost be white. It is not really a reference of substance as it does not refer to any particular dog or breeder. It does not mention the markings in any detail other than to explain the paleness of the tan. I do not think this refers to the Parti-s as being discussed. But it is taken out of context and difficult to tell exactly what the author meant. It is also only ONE book not plural as you state. Do you have another book?. |
I try not to guess what a writer means, since your guess or my guess may be wrong. I only post what is written and let the reader decide for themselves. But if you can interject your interpretation, I should also be allowed to state my interpretation as well?
I read it as the author is talking about a group trying to promote "white" colored yorkshire terriers (the color of a maltese) AND in addition, people trying to make "silver" yorkshire terriers popular too. White and silver are two different colors but your guess is as good as mine.
You can see more links on my website and I believe there may be some additional links on the Colorful Yorkie website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlDebra [SIZE="1"]
Another conflicting reference: You also quote a letter from Loryn saying "Wildweir told AKC that they had more Partis than Gloria but they got "rid" of them. " yet Joan Gordon herself, wrote to Breezewood that in ALL the YEARS she and her sister bred yorkies they only ever had on puppy with white on it and they gave the information for its dam and sire -- all of which were spayed/neutered. After typing this I see Breezewood has already addressed this discrepancy. |
I can only present to you, what was written to us. Jeanie K and I asked Loryn for some background on the what happened or was said during the parti investigation. This was one of Loryn's reply letters, I copied and pasted exactly what Loryn wrote. Why would AKC make up this statement and tell this to Loryn during the investigation? Why would Florence Males have said basically the same thing to Teri about AKC asking Joan if she's had parti's showing up in litters and her saying she had her own parti?
Actually Joan said in all the years she had only produced
one tri color dog, she did not say "In all the years she and her sister bred yorkies they
only ever had one puppy with white on it" as you've indicated (unless I missed something).
Joan went on to spay the sire and dam of the tri colored dog but did she also spay all the siblings, parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles and cousins of the parent dogs, since approximately 50% of these relatives were also carrying the parti gene?
Joan says in one of her books "Puppies incorrectly colored or marked should not be sold as rare, they should not be registered as Yorkshire terriers, but should simply be found a loving home If one cannot bring oneself to having them put down." It seems as though she didn't follow her own advise when she registered Triplicate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlDebra [SIZE="1"]
Several references are listed late in this thread as discussion with a breeder who said she spoke with another breeder who said they saw something. That is pushing "heresay evidence" to the extreme which really cannot be counted as documentary evidence of anything. A good reference is one directly from the breeder involved as Breezewood posted a quote directly from a letter she received from Joan Gordon. |
Another good reference would be a letter directly from the breeder involved in the parti investigation, where the agent investigating her dog, is keeping her updated and informed on what is being said and done during the investigation of her dog - that's not heresay, since it was about her and her dog and was coming directly from Loryn herself. The only heresay would be coming from Florence Males to Terri S., where Terri corresponded to Jan about what was said by Florence.
I've said before, I don't like to assume or speculate what something means; I like to present information that can be backed up with books or documents. If you don't like what I've presented, that's your choice but please don't ask for links and information and then shoot the messenger because you don't like what's been posted. It's obvious that no one knows the true history of how the breed began, even the most notable kennel clubs disagree on the dogs used in the makeup. One thing that is known, is that the dogs who began this breed, who had no pedigrees and who's heritage cannot be traced, started this breed and for anyone to think that there was never a dog who passed on genes other than blue and tan to the origional Yorkshire terriers, is not being realistic.