"Parti Yorkies" What's your opinion

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiegirl2

Jennie,

Is that what's on your AKC Pedigree papers ??

My AKC pedigree shows

Nikko's Mickey Spillane
TM83117303 (01-94) BL & TN

Mickey's son
Nikko's Great Expectations
TN63381401 (10-98) BLK & TN PRTI

Mickey 's daughter
Nikko's Golden Charm II was registered as a BLK & TN WH MRKS

Nope. That information came straight from the horses mouth. At that time they did not have a color number for the parti colored yorkies. they we registered under their parents color.

As for the son and daughter, they might not have been parti colored. Maybe they were carriers.

[yorkiegirl2]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

Nope. That information came straight from the horses mouth. At that time they did not have a color number for the parti colored yorkies. they we registered under their parents color.

As for the son and daughter, they might not have been parti colored. Maybe they were carriers.

Oh.. OK
Thanks ...
I got it now.
I thought he was registered as a Parti.
Makes since…
That when he was born, the color code was not recognized at that time.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

I apologize for having to reply to this post - I thought long and hard before hitting the submit button ...

but I don't think it will take a rocket scientist to figure out who you are referring to since you've only owned 1 parti female, so we'll nip this in the bud right here.

There are 2 sides to every story and sometimes, no matter how hard you try to please someone, they are just too difficult to work or reason with. You can't force someone to do something they choose not to do and you can't reason with an unreasonable person.

Up until now Deb, I've never said a negative thing about you to another breeder or yorkie fancier (other than someone who alerted me of problems that they had with you). Unfortunately, I have recentally learned that you've bashed my name and reputation privately, in talking to some colorful yorkie breeders, and now you are publicly trying to intimidate me by posting, everything but my name and address, in a post that is implying that I'm a "disreputable breeder."

Please answer a few questions ...

Why did you not send the pup back for a full refund (including your deposit) if you felt there was something wrong with her after she arrived? You could have returned her for a full refund, even if she had a hangnail.

Why did you not tell me of the problem, until 8 days after she left me?

Why would you not return her for an exchange puppy?

Why, when you told me you loved her and couldn't part with her but were afraid to breed her, and I offered to refund a portion of your money if you decided to spay her in the next 2 year - Why did you decline that offer?

Why, as the reputable breeder that you say your are; a breeder who's saying there is a problem with this dog, why did you advertise her for sale on your website and on puppyfind for $1000.00 more than you paid for her, just 2 months ago?
If it wasn't for another breeder, who had a similar experience with you, giving me the heads up that something like this might happen, months prior to the pup moving to KY, I would not have believed it could happen. It all makes me wonder what's really going on here?

So if you are going to bash my reputation privately among our fellow breeders and now on this not so private forum, please answer the questions above, many are questions that I had asked you before but never got a reasonable or logical answer to.

Wow!!!! Deb were you planning to tell prospective buyers of her condition??? Who would pay $1000 more for a dog with tremors? And what remedies were your prepared to offer to the new buyer if the tremors returned?

Something does not seem right here. My contract states the dog cannot be resold to anyone without my permission, that the dog has to be returned to me.

[Cerise]

Back to the discussion about the Parti's and the Biewers.

Not trying to sound scarastic: Wouldn't all you experts think that the piebald/recessed, or whatever you want to label it gene, has to do with the fact that the Yorkshire Terrier has the Maltese in it's bloodline? According to the research that I've done, it is stated that the Maltese was used in the breeding of the Yorkshire Terrier many, many, many years ago for the perfecting of the hair/coat. This would be the reason for the white in the hair color (genetically)

Just as humans when you mix races they show up at first and eventually fade after the years of mixing the same simular background of a people, or mixing of one race constantly to remove the trace of another, BUT later on through history genetics can always POP back up and give you a surprise gift from your ancestors.

I can't believe no one ever mentions this in these discussions about the reason behind this genetic trait.

I love the Yorkshire Terrier and Parti-Yorkshire Terrier, and really, really the Biewer Yorkshire Terrier be it; a la Pom Pon, or not. But the truth is they are all beautiful when bred for the best in health, temperament, appearance and love for the breed, all in one little bundle of joy.

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Cerise

Back to the discussion about the Parti's and the Biewers.

Not trying to sound scarastic: Wouldn't all you experts think that the piebald/recessed, or whatever you want to label it gene, has to do with the fact that the Yorkshire Terrier has the Maltese in it's bloodline? According to the research that I've done, it is stated that the Maltese was used in the breeding of the Yorkshire Terrier many, many, many years ago for the perfecting of the hair/coat. This would be the reason for the white in the hair color (genetically)

Just as humans when you mix races they show up at first and eventually fade after the years of mixing the same simular background of a people, or mixing of one race constantly to remove the trace of another, BUT later on through history genetics can always POP back up and give you a surprise gift from your ancestors.

I can't believe no one ever mentions this in these discussions about the reason behind this genetic trait.

I love the Yorkshire Terrier and Parti-Yorkshire Terrier, and really, really the Biewer Yorkshire Terrier be it; a la Pom Pon, or not. But the truth is they are all beautiful when bred for the best in health, temperament, appearance and love for the breed, all in one little bundle of joy.

I don't think your research said for sure Maltese was bred into the Yorkie...It said it was thought or maybe etc. I talked to a Yorkie breeder years ago that told me the Maltese was referred to in a newspaper article once and that rumor continues to this day. Also if you follow this thread in regards to the pedigree's going back to the Streamglen kennel for both the Parti's and the Biewers this kennel did not breed Maltese but Shih Tzu's. For some reason Yorkie breeders who have been against the Parti's/Biewers have always said it probably was a Maltese and I certainly do not see a Shih Tzu face in any of these dogs.

The other argument for the pie-bald recessive gene is that over 20 breeds recognized by the AKC and their parent clubs has the exact same coloring (pie-bald recessive) and they don't say a Maltese got in their lines (Great Dane etc, Border Collie, Dalmation, Australian Shepard, Spinone, Irish Setter, to name a few).

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Cerise

Back to the discussion about the Parti's and the Biewers.

Not trying to sound scarastic: Wouldn't all you experts think that the piebald/recessed, or whatever you want to label it gene, has to do with the fact that the Yorkshire Terrier has the Maltese in it's bloodline? According to the research that I've done, it is stated that the Maltese was used in the breeding of the Yorkshire Terrier many, many, many years ago for the perfecting of the hair/coat. This would be the reason for the white in the hair color (genetically)

Just as humans when you mix races they show up at first and eventually fade after the years of mixing the same simular background of a people, or mixing of one race constantly to remove the trace of another, BUT later on through history genetics can always POP back up and give you a surprise gift from your ancestors.

I can't believe no one ever mentions this in these discussions about the reason behind this genetic trait.

I love the Yorkshire Terrier and Parti-Yorkshire Terrier, and really, really the Biewer Yorkshire Terrier be it; a la Pom Pon, or not. But the truth is they are all beautiful when bred for the best in health, temperament, appearance and love for the breed, all in one little bundle of joy.

Oh this has been brought up in many of these discussions. They were both shown in the broken haired scotch and yorkshire terrier category. So it is very possible that they were bred together. However, according to the genetics experts, what causes the white with black splots is a spotting gene, and the Maltese is pure white. I do not know if the Maltese has spotted skin like the parti or not.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

I don't think your research said for sure Maltese was bred into the Yorkie...It said it was thought or maybe etc. I talked to a Yorkie breeder years ago that told me the Maltese was referred to in a newspaper article once and that rumor continues to this day. Also if you follow this thread in regards to the pedigree's going back to the Streamglen kennel for both the Parti's and the Biewers this kennel did not breed Maltese but Shih Tzu's. For some reason Yorkie breeders who have been against the Parti's/Biewers have always said it probably was a Maltese and I certainly do not see a Shih Tzu face in any of these dogs.

The other argument for the pie-bald recessive gene is that over 20 breeds recognized by the AKC and their parent clubs has the exact same coloring (pie-bald recessive) and they don't say a Maltese got in their lines (Great Dane etc, Border Collie, Dalmation, Australian Shepard, Spinone, Irish Setter, to name a few).

I agree.


I fear that this is a question that will never be answered.

Among the many breeds that were used to make up the yorkie , are spotted dogs, see Parti - Pine Haven Yorkies So it is only reasonable to assume that the spoted coloring comes from those breeds.

[Cerise]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

I don't think your research said for sure Maltese was bred into the Yorkie...It said it was thought or maybe etc. I talked to a Yorkie breeder years ago that told me the Maltese was referred to in a newspaper article once and that rumor continues to this day. Also if you follow this thread in regards to the pedigree's going back to the Streamglen kennel for both the Parti's and the Biewers this kennel did not breed Maltese but Shih Tzu's. For some reason Yorkie breeders who have been against the Parti's/Biewers have always said it probably was a Maltese and I certainly do not see a Shih Tzu face in any of these dogs.

The other argument for the pie-bald recessive gene is that over 20 breeds recognized by the AKC and their parent clubs has the exact same coloring (pie-bald recessive) and they don't say a Maltese got in their lines (Great Dane etc, Border Collie, Dalmation, Australian Shepard, Spinone, Irish Setter, to name a few).

Then it make sense to me that there is another breed in these bloodlines that makes the genetic possiblity, as well. Most breeds where made from mixing one to another, and inbred in the creation of a new breed, with the perfecting of the breed over time. Understanding genetics isn't hard. Genetical showing of the mixing of breeds (and races) eventually always come forward to remind us in the present. Accepting the reasons behind them may be different for some. I'm not concerned with 20 other breeds. If so I may start quoting the old sayings like "all dogs go back to the wolf" and I can't see the wolf in the pictures on this site LOL! Neither the Yorkie, nor the other breeds you listed, are old enough to wash out recessed genes. I'm only interested in the Yorkshire Terrier and it's kin, which is the Parti and Biewers. And my research came from a Yorkie breed book, not an article.

To me it is interesting how there are so many views on this subject. The only point I'm trying to make is that there is more to it than what is dicussed over and over again. About, the fact that the Parti gene or Biewer showed up one day in recent litters. I believe they showed up a long, long time before that, but were killed off at birth because of breeders trying to perfect the breed. They had no need for an "oops" in their reputations they were trying to build. Thank goodness for the sensible breeders of the now oops desired Parti's and Biewers for not killing off a beautiful dog.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

I don't think your research said for sure Maltese was bred into the Yorkie...It said it was thought or maybe etc. I talked to a Yorkie breeder years ago that told me the Maltese was referred to in a newspaper article once and that rumor continues to this day. Also if you follow this thread in regards to the pedigree's going back to the Streamglen kennel for both the Parti's and the Biewers this kennel did not breed Maltese but Shih Tzu's. For some reason Yorkie breeders who have been against the Parti's/Biewers have always said it probably was a Maltese and I certainly do not see a Shih Tzu face in any of these dogs.

The other argument for the pie-bald recessive gene is that over 20 breeds recognized by the AKC and their parent clubs has the exact same coloring (pie-bald recessive) and they don't say a Maltese got in their lines (Great Dane etc, Border Collie, Dalmation, Shepard, Spinone, Irish Setter, to name a few).

I had corresponded with a Dr. Phillip Sponenberg few years ago, he's an animal geneticist at Virginia Tech. I asked him his thoughts on where the yorkie breed got their parti gene, specifically asking if the Maltese could have brought it in? He said it's very possible, since a Maltese is basically one big spot - they are the extreme example of the piebald spotting gene. He went on to say that the yorkie parti gene could have come in from any of the early ancestors that carried recessive spotting genes, not just the Maltese.

Some of the early Maltese in the US, were piebald with dark ears/heads. If I recall correctly, I believe in the early 1900's there were classes for white maltese and a separate class for spotted - I'll have to double check on that though.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Cerise

Then it make sense to me that there is another breed in these bloodlines that makes the genetic possiblity, as well. Most breeds where made from mixing one to another, and inbred in the creation of a new breed, with the perfecting of the breed over time. Understanding genetics isn't hard. Genetical showing of the mixing of breeds (and races) eventually always come forward to remind us in the present. Accepting the reasons behind them may be different for some. I'm not concerned with 20 other breeds. If so I may start quoting the old sayings like "all dogs go back to the wolf" and I can't see the wolf in the pictures on this site LOL! Neither the Yorkie, nor the other breeds you listed, are old enough to wash out recessed genes. I'm only interested in the Yorkshire Terrier and it's kin, which is the Parti and Biewers. And my research came from a Yorkie breed book, not an article.

To me it is interesting how there are so many views on this subject. The only point I'm trying to make is that there is more to it than what is dicussed over and over again. About, the fact that the Parti gene or Biewer showed up one day in recent litters. I believe they showed up a long, long time before that, but were killed off at birth because of breeders trying to perfect the breed. They had no need for an "oops" in their reputations they were trying to build. Thank goodness for the sensible breeders of the now oops desired Parti's and Biewers for not killing off a beautiful dog.

We hope they were just given away to good homes that would keep their little secret, but I fear that many met their demise.

Show breeders were the ones most likely to in-breed to try to replicate their champion show dogs. In doing so they mated champion sires back to their own daughters, to whom they had passed the parti gene. And SURPRISE.

Not wanting anyopne to find out that their champion show dog produced an off colored off spring, they kept their secret hidden. How ever they did not get rid of the carrier siblings, and continued to breed the offending champion.

At that time, showing dogs was for the wealthy, and it was a very close knit group of people, and producing champion dogs outweighed the unethical practice of breeding dogs who produced flawed off spring.

[livingdustmops]

Well here you go ladies...this reading will answer all your comments..... I have a lot more links because of my involvement with the Biewers and the pie-bald recessive gene. Here are just a few articles I have saved. The second article from London is the newest and even talks about the Biewers.


Practical Genetics
WHAT IS A RECESSIVE TRAIT? A recessive trait is a trait for which two copies of the gene must be present for the trait to be seen. This means that is takes two to tango & BOTH parents HAD TO HAVE the gene in question. This is VERY important to understand clearly, as complex dominance and polygenetic traits must be treated (somewhat) as one treats recessive traits to rid a bloodline of a problem or mimimize the effects of a trait. BOTH parents are PROVEN (obligate) CARRIERS if they EVER produce ONE SINGLE PUP EVER with a recessive trait. This means yellow (fawn,sable, red ) or blue/brown dogs out of black animals, yellow eyes from brown eyed animals, missing teeth, cataracts and hernias (in some breeds these are simple recessives), etc. There are many, many traits on this list. So don't point fingers & hide pups with recessive traits. Contact the stud owner, mark the pedigrees properly & help make progress in your breed (and your bloodline). Mark both parents as obligate carriers, mark all "normal" offspring as 66.66% likely to also be carriers & look for common relatives of the parents who likely brought the trait down to the current generation. Don't condemn--it takes two carriers to mate to find out you got a trait--consider this an opportunity to learn more about your bloodline.You don't have to toss all the dogs on the reject pile either necessarily. If the trait is acceptable (for all it is undesirable) & liveable for the dogs, then just letting it go may be an option. If the trait is serious, then how you treat it may depend on how widespread it is in your breed. If it is rare, then best to cull these animals who are carriers from the gene pool. If it is common, then such a drastic approach may not be reasonable & you will have to use carefully marked pedigrees and/or test breedings to control the expression of the gene. After all, remember, it is not the GENE that causes the problem, but the expression of that gene.

MITF and White Spotting in Dogs: A Population Study -- Schmutz et al. 100 (1): S66 -- Journal of Heredity

Pg 6 Table 2 Note under Yorkshire Terrier “Biewer”.

Genetics Of Coat Color In Dogs May Help Explain Human Stress And Weight

Scientists Identify Genetic Basis For The Black Sheep Of The Family

Wolf In Dog's Clothing? Black Wolves May Be First 'Genetically Modified' Predators

Life As A Dog Means Faster Mutations

Linkage and Segregation Analysis of Black and Brindle Coat Color in Domestic Dogs

Selective sweep mapping of genes with large phenotypic effects

[PenelopePup]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

How would this be fair to those of us who truly love and want only the best for the parti yorkie?
At least 50% (probably many more then that) of the AKC traditional colored yorkies that are being bred today fall short (in some way or another) of the standard set forth by the YTCA. Just one look on Puppyfind will prove this fact. Why should my love of...and desire to better the parti yorkie...be determined by the amount of breeders who are not now, nor never will be breeding any color yorkie to a standard?

Many breed clubs have allowed variety classes for dogs that did not meet the standard set for the breed. The beagle has one for size. Both standards for the breed are identical except for height! Just two inches of height earned one of the sizes it's own variety class to be shown seprate from the other size. Imagine that?
So why can't those of us...who truly love the parti for it's color (and not how many pups we can produce to sell)...keep the dream that one day it will be granted show status with it's own color variety class? The American cocker spaniel has THREE color varieties and they are not shown in the same ring until group.

That is my hopes and dreams for the American Parti Yorkie.

But as BJH already stated so eloquently...the variety will need a lot of serious breeders who are more in love with the color (more so then money it can make) and start breeding the parti yorkie to a standard comparable to the show yorkie of today before that can ever happen. And right now...sadly...I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Very well said! Were not the Biewers a parti yorkie in Germany? They are imported, so does that make them any better or any different than the parti yorkies here? If the Biewers took the best of thier stock and bred that to the best normal colored yorkie and developed the Biewer, does that not still make them a colored yorkie? I'm confused on this one.

[Breezeaway]

in Joan Gordon and Janet Bennets book from 1979 They write" It is not unusual to find small white marks on one or more toes or a fine white line in the lwer forejaw. 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 as Yorkshire terriers, but should simply be found a loving home IF ONE CANNOT bring oneself to having them put down."

[PenelopePup]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

Well not exactly the term parti-color is used in the AKC "Complete Dog Book" as an official description of a dog, meaning varigated in patches of 2 or more colors, the word "teacup' is not.

Actually I believe the word parti (in poodles anyway) is derived from the word partial, as in partially colored dog, or parti colored.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

in Joan Gordon and Janet Bennets book from 1979 They write" It is not unusual to find small white marks on one or more toes or a fine white line in the lwer forejaw. 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 as Yorkshire terriers, but should simply be found a loving home IF ONE CANNOT bring oneself to having them put down."

Very interesting!! I was never one to believe the stories that breeders in the distant past could be so brutal as to drop an otherwise healthy puppy into a bucket of water shortly after birth...just because it was an "off" color.

Which led me to think. In today's world...would a vet actually euthanize a completely healthy puppy...just because a breeder (who wanted to keep an off color pup a secret) instructed him to do so?