Tracing back on pedigrees few other suspected lines.
OZMILLION, CLARKWYN. JU-GENE‘S, DEEBEES, SHADOW MOUNTAIN,

Isnt that all that the Yorkshire Terrier has is DNA for parentage? Do they have other tests to prove that they are indeed Yorkies? Their historical facts aren't so cut and dry on the yorkie.
Do they have proof that there isn't partis.
Do the pedigrees lie?

Yes, that horse has already left the barn. I was saying what 'could' have been done but they chose to go the DQ route.

I personally don't think the AKC has the final say in what a breed club will recognize as one of their own. They have a vested interest in registrations (revenue) and have been shown in the past to not be beyond reproach. I don't know what went on between the AKC and YTCA at that time, but I'm sure there were discussions. The results are pretty clear, though.

Again why would Joan Gordon of Wildweir Kennels write this in her book in 1976 if it were not true,
"It is not unusual to find small white marks on one or more toes or a fine white line in the lower fore jaw. These will not be visible as an adult. A large amount of white marks on the chest, paws, jaws, or skull, places a yorkie into a tri-color classification and it is very wise to guard against this possibility. Yorkshire terrier puppies can be born of colors that automatically deprive them of the necessary qualities to become the proper colors of the breed. They can be born all black: all tan: tan with black points; tri-color: black, white, and tan; all blue; bluish grey with tan points; and so remain or change to another shade of their newly born colors. These mismarked Yorkie puppies are not the result of the mis-alliances or throwbacks but are rather the net product of incorrectly inherited genes which have failed to activate the pigment glandular system to providing what they require to be in accord with the yorkshire terrier standard. Puppies incorrectly colored or marked should not be sold as rare, they should not be registered Yorkshire Terriers but should simply be found a loving home If one cannot bring oneself to having them put down."

And yes I know she says they should not be registered and PUT DOWN.
But what it does say is that there were and are Parti colored yorkies.

I'll refer back to what I said earlier:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Even if Parti fanciers could prove that Paris are indeed pure bred Yorkies, that shouldn't be assumed to be a great leap forward into the ring.

Take the flop eared Yorkie, for example. No one would deny that they are pure Yorkies, but no one would put them in the ring, either. Funny thing is, there WERE flop eared Yorkies in the ring at one time. A great many early Yorkies had their ears cropped and were not naturally pricked. With the outlawing of ear cropping, those dogs instantly had no place in the ring, due to the breed standard.

So there is a history of dogs once allowed in the ring to no longer be. I'm certain those dogs owners had more of a case than Parti breeders but they had to yield for the betterment of the breed."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point being....so what if it's a Yorkie? It still has no place in the ring, just as the other off-standard variations don't.

I do hope we have learned a few things in 34 yrs...there is never a need to destroy a healthy, non-standard color puppy...

Acknowledgment of existence is a far cry from recognition for breed conformation. Gordon did say that they should not be registered as Yorkshire Terriers. What her personal opinion was is not clear but those words are very telling. I don't see how you can take every scrap of mention to legitimize your desire for recognition in the ring. Off colors, like other deviations from the standard, do not belong in the ring, which is used to confirm breed worthiness as per the breed standard.

One would hope so but sadly not the case.
When a parti showed up in a show line a while back the breeder told the person to destroy the pup.
Luckly the person didn't listen.

Ok, so I am not a breeder or a show person but I have been following this thread with interest.

Forgive my ignorance once again, but why can't they just make a whole new breed for the Parti? Does it have to be a Yorkshire Terrier or why can't you make a whole new terrier called the Parti Terrier or something? Wouldn't that be better than being the backward cousin to the yorkie that no one wants to recognize?

People would still want them; they are still beautiful and unusual, and you could then get in the show ring and do your thing?

I'm sure it's not that simple but from an outsider looking in ~ it seems that there must be some way to solve the problem. :idontknow

You do not know anything about pedigrees or the history of yorkies. If you did, you would know more about Finstal.

What's the difference between one pedigree that goes back to Finstal with mixed breeds in it or another? It's gone on for years. How many people have AKC papers for yorkies that don't look like yorkies?

Thank you for posting that. I had the same question, but was afraid to ask it.

I most certainly know about pedigrees. What more should I know about Finstal.
His pedigree on one side goes back to Streamglen Shaun. Whats so hard about that?

Because the Parti color is not a breed , It is just a color of Yorkshire Terrier. It is already AKC registered as a breed. Color Does not make a new breed. AKC will not allow you to make a new breed when they are already registered as one.

Dont be afraid to ask questions, I would be glad to answer any that I can.

[quote=Mardelin;3212773]I think it will happen in time. Eventually someone without enough clout will push for them to be included. Maybe not in my life time, but in time.

But would it be so bad if they were in a seperate category?

I cannot see how it would have any affect on the traditional yhorkies in any way. they would not need to change the standard, they would not be in the ring together.

Seriously, why would it be a bad thing?