Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama (Post 3369683)

I did leave that out I'm sorry when I said Parti carrier then bred to Standard I meant to add Standard, a standard with 'no history' of carrying the recessive gene in the line.

...but then again my oh my...

...that's a genetics debate too...those whom carry the gene and have had it presented in their linage and those whom carry the gene and it has and always will remain dormant-which do you label as a carrier? Technically speaking all humans carry the recessive gene to have a tail-it is simply blocked by more dominant genes-yet on super rare occasions babies around the world are born with a slight abnormal protrusion similar to an appendage (a "tail"). No, I am not speaking of the similar occurrence of chromosomal anomaly that result in extra appendages- I am talking specifically about the "tail" gene and it presence.

Ye a HUGE debate in genetic science itself is whom to and to not label a "carrier"....but for this purpose I should have added that-sorry!;)

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3371188)

Originally Posted by dinkyweil (Post 3369733)

I've looked at the pictures and tried to figure out what I can from the thread, but I guess I just need "Yorkie colors for Dummies."

Dinky is black and turning brownish more and more, and he has splash of white on his chest. So as far as I can figure out some say would say he is a Parti? some would say he is not a Parti? some would even argue that he is not a Yorkie? some would say sure he is Yorkie, he just has a white area on his chest?


I'm just curious. My feelings won't be hurt. I love him just the way he is.

and also...He has been neutered. No Dinky DNA on the loose! :)

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3371193)

Again -- not a valid comparison. As the owner of this dog explains, it started out normally colored as a yorkie -- black & tan. Over time, it faded out and lost color -- probably a hormonal imbalance. But since it started out with normal color -- NOT A PARTI. :confused:

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3371191)

Say what? I have no idea how a vestigial tail in humans could possibly equate to a parti-carrier label on a yorkshire terrier. How about sticking to valid references that might contribute to the substance of this thread? Everyone is free to post any thought that pops into their head, but so much better if we list valid references that people can really use to make some sense of the subject at hand. There is no substantiative value to off-the-wall genetics anomalies that happen with such rarity as to be void of comparison. Not to mention a completely different genetic concept is the culprit.

All humans have tails (it is not the act of a recessive gene) during a part of their embryonic development. Most are absorbed by the immune system and only the coccyx (tailbone) remains. But VERY, VERY few (23 since 1884 --over a hundred years) may have a vestigial tail which is not fully absorbed prior to birth. Not the same as white color occuring spontaneously or otherwise. No matter if you are speaking to the tailbone, the tail in embrionic development or the congenital birth defect of a tail structure..... it still is not a valid comparison. When a child is born with this tail structure it is because the normal inactivation has not occured. The white color showing up is due to the recessive gene in both dam and sire joining in the same pup. Not the same genetic action at all. References say this residual tail is NOT familial -- instead "the inheritance of the tail structure is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans." In other words everyone inherits the tail -- some inactivation mechanism just do not work quite right -- but again -- happens so very seldom! There is no such "inactivation mechanism" to thwart the "white" in all yorkies. It just does not compare at all.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3371185)

[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?.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3371185)

[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.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3371185)

[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.

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3369698)

Say what? I have no idea how a vestigial tail in humans could possibly equate to a parti-carrier label on a yorkshire terrier. How about sticking to valid references that might contribute to the substance of this thread? Everyone is free to post any thought that pops into their head, but so much better if we list valid references that people can really use to make some sense of the subject at hand. There is no substantiative value to off-the-wall genetics anomalies that happen with such rarity as to be void of comparison. Not to mention a completely different genetic concept is the culprit.

All humans have tails (it is not the act of a recessive gene) during a part of their embryonic development. Most are absorbed by the immune system and only the coccyx (tailbone) remains. But VERY, VERY few (23 since 1884 --over a hundred years) may have a vestigial tail which is not fully absorbed prior to birth. Not the same as white color occuring spontaneously or otherwise. No matter if you are speaking to the tailbone, the tail in embrionic development or the congenital birth defect of a tail structure..... it still is not a valid comparison. When a child is born with this tail structure it is because the normal inactivation has not occured. The white color showing up is due to the recessive gene in both dam and sire joining in the same pup. Not the same genetic action at all. References say this residual tail is NOT familial -- instead "the inheritance of the tail structure is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans." In other words everyone inherits the tail -- some inactivation mechanism just do not work quite right -- but again -- happens so very seldom! There is no such "inactivation mechanism" to thwart the "white" in all yorkies. It just does not compare at all.

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3371205)

Anywho I had also attempted to ask Pine if she had a link to her comments about the AKC letter or where I can view it myself...? Where can the rest of us view what you are talking about below? Am I missing seeing a link somewhere...anyone?Yes, I see it is a link to YT forum response but I only see one post not a thread and well bits and pieces of quotes not a full correspondence...was this just a first hand correspondence then?

"Triplicate and Nikko's Rolls Royce Ashley do have a common link in their pedigrees. And according to the AKC letter written to Loryn in 2000, where it sates "After conduction research into the breed history and receiving information and photographs of the dogs contained in your dogs pedigree, it was determined that this color can be produced in otherwise normal litters of Yorkshire Terriers," so I'm guessing that AKC, while researching the pedigrees and talking to breeders, found other dogs related to the Nikko's line, who had produced parti?"

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 3371470)

I'm at the office now and don't have access to my files at home but I believe Breezeaway also has this same letter, posted on their Parti Yorkshire Terrier club's, parti history page.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 3370026)

Here are a few links that challenge some of the views posted in this thread and a few new points, to make us all wonder ...

The YTCA's website calls Parti yorkies "Designer dogs" Yorkshire Terrier Club of America (Awards)

A portion of the YTCA's website article (also posted in post #1 of this thread in Gale Thompson's " Parti-Color Yorkshire Terriers" article) states:

A brief history of the development of the Yorkshire Terrier will show that the dog was developed in the 1800’s. In England, the Waterside Terrier was often crossed with the old English terrier, a silky coated black and tan or blue and tan terrier weighing around five pounds. When crafters from Scotland came into England, they brought several “Scotch“terriers, among them the Paisley and the Clydesdale. The Paisley was a small silky coated dog in various shades of blue. The Clydesdale was a blue and tan dog with the exact color pattern as the Yorkie of today. All of these original breeds were grizzle, tan, blue, blue and tan, or black and tan. No white dog or dogs with white markings were involved in the process of developing the breed. The first Yorkshire Terriers were entered at shows as Broken Haired Scotch and Yorkshire Terriers. In the early days, dog classes were often divided by size, under five pounds and over five pounds; however, there was never a class for colors other than the blue and tan we see today.

The article states that No white dog or dogs with white markings were involved in the process of developing the breed ... BUT

The Otter hound was used in the makeup of the Waterside terrier - Waterside terriers were used in the make up of the Yorkie according to the YTCA's Yorkie history page. Color's of the Otter hounds were not only grizzle or blue and tan in color but also piebald, chocolate and tan colored. Otterhound Colors

The YTCA article goes on to state that "The first Yorkshire Terriers were entered at shows as Broken Haired Scotch and Yorkshire Terriers. In the early days, dog classes were often divided by size, under five pounds and over five pounds; however, there was never a class for colors other than the blue and tan we see today" ... below is a link to the "Kennel Club Calendar and Stud book - 1874" showing classes for different colored scotch terriers, white, blue or fawn.

Kennel Club calendar & stud book - Google Books

Scotch terriers or broken haired scotch terriers were used in the make up of the yorkie; there are many early writings of blue, tan or white colored scotch terriers:

British rural sports: comprising ... - Google Books

There are additional links on my website, that direct you to other books mentioning off colored yorkies in early history or other colors of the dogs who were used in the makeup of the yorkshire terrier breed, including white skye terriers : Links - Pine Haven Yorkies

Books also mention white Yorkshire Terriers, here's one link:
A manual of toy dogs: how to breed ... - Google Books

Some of the first prize winning yorkshire terriers were blue and tan born Yorkies.
The American book of the dog: The ... - Google Books

Unlike the YTCA and AKC who feel the Maltese was never used in the foundation stock, the Kennel Club (UK) feels that the Yorkie was a result of crosses between dogs like the black and tan terrier, the maltese and the skye terrier. The Kennel Club

Numerous, numerous, numerous early writings also state that the maltese were used in the make up of the yorkshire terrier and that the Maltese were used to enhance the texture and length of the yorkies coat.

I have a newspaper article written in the 1960's, where a large number of members from the Skye Terrier Club of America, quit the club due to a dispute with AKC while trying to get a DQ rule for the Parti Colored coats showing up in the Skye breed (skyes being one of the dogs used in the early make up of this breed according to the UK kennel club).

Parti and other off colors have appeared in well known old time breeders and in well known show breeders lines, in addition to Nikkos, parti also has been seen in the Wildweir and Parquin kennel.

I appreciate the letter that Breezewood has posted from Joan Gordon but here is a letter from Loryn Bogren of Crownridge Yorkies, written several years ago, where she gave some insight to what she was told by AKC during the late 1990's after the Parti investigation began, as a result of her (Loryn) trying to get her parti colored Nikkos dogs registered.

"Let me know how it goes with your "off-color" club. I will help you any way I can. AKC went back as far as they could with the living dogs. They DNA'd about 42 litters. They also talked to a lot of the "old" breeders and they told them they had always been in the lines but were disposed of. Wildweir told AKC that they had more Partis than Gloria but they got "rid" of them. They didn't know the Parti color was a recessive gene and was really not gone, just not evident to the eyes. I still have their letter to me stating that the Parti color was a naturally occurring color and that they could not exclude them from the breed. Ours are NOT mixed. They are true purebred Yorkies.
Let me know what is going on. Hope you are all well and happy.
Loryn"

Written standards are a wonderful guide for trying to achieve that "perfect" goal but standards should not be taken so literally that it discriminates or casts aside healthy dogs, solely because of their nonstandard coat color due to recessive genes - these being the same non standard colors that have been documented in many early books about the breed and also surprisingly seen in the litter boxes of some of our old time and present day breeders. 125+ years ago when this breed began, coat color genetics was not understood like they are now (and believe me, there is still a lot to learn). There were also many old wives tales and untruths that led people to choose or not choose certain colors. White coats in some equine and canine breeds was thought to be inferior and weak, thus unwanted. Other than the blue born yorkies, golden, parti and chocolate colors are no more prone to health problems than the traditional steel blue and tan yorkie are - in other words, their color has not affected their health.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 3371651)

Here is a photo copy of the letter.

Attachment 334221

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3371469)

LOL! I wasn't talking about In utero! I was talking about recessive genes...if you look at the cause effect of the genetics that cause a vestigial tail then ye it's an off the wall reference but the residual continual growth of it instead of the "reabsobtion" you'd see the similar correlation in example...both are the result of a recessive genes...well gene gene polymorphism-an abnormal structuralism of the genes (which is recessive)...you could stretch it to compare both to an anomaly. I'm sorry you didn't understand that.

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3369696)

1. I've seen that too and thus I saw Parti's and Biewers as different types of Yorkies...from what I have heard directly from many Parti breeders enthusiasts etc. that's the basic idea, anything goes-Parti simply means naturally occurring fault, partially colored in some or any way-yes, even if the color difference from the standard is just the appearance of some white.

**Sayign that isn't very selective-well that seems so open in determining "selective" did you mean in breeding standards period, or just the color result and basing that as selective? If you meant just in the resulting coloration-well I think many (I don't dare say most as I can't speak for them) Part breeders celebrate whatever coloration occurs so they do not exercise "selectiveness" there., thus I assume Biewers were created directly from Partis-they were the result (I though they were crossed out to another breed) of selective Parti breeding-apparently I was wrong there-?-unless you talk to some Biewer breeders whom swear they were crossed out...making them 'not Yorkie' so confusing. ...

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3371469)

LOL! I wasn't talking about In utero! I was talking about recessive genes...if you look at the cause effect of the genetics that cause a vestigial tail then ye it's an off the wall reference but the residual continual growth of it instead of the "reabsobtion" you'd see the similar correlation in example...both are the result of a recessive genes...well gene gene polymorphism-an abnormal structuralism of the genes (which is recessive)...you could stretch it to compare both to an anomaly. I'm sorry you didn't understand that.

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama (Post 3371294)

Thanks for taking that one on. I just decided to ignore the tail part of her quote and reply to the "what makes them a carrier" part.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3372054)

I will try to answer what I think your question may be...your wording is VERY confusing. My post said, "For Parti's it seems that "anything goes" as long as the dog has white on it. That does not seem like very selective. " I think that is simply stated but I will go into more detail. The Yorkshire Terrier standard requires VERY SPECIFIC guidelines as to the COLOR and placement of that COLOR on the dog. Breeders strive FIRST for health, then structure and the next priority would probably be COLOR. It takes such meticulous attention to detail looking for the right shades of dark steel blue and tan. You look for dogs that do not fade to silver, you look for dogs that do not stay pure black. You look for dogs whose tan, is rich but not red. You make sure the hairs are NOT entermingled. So many considerations and reasons to disqualify a dog from your breeding program if they are not showing as a prime example of the color and placement you want. Now enter the "parti" folks who just want to make sure white shows up somewhere on the dog. Who cares how much of which color? Who cares where the colors show up? Who cares if there are 2 or 3 colors? As I said, that does not seem very selective in ANY sense of the word. Breeding a purebred dog is not supposed to be an "anything goes" project -- it is supposed to be challenging and require meticulous attention & care. My opinion, but one shared by more than a few, I'm sure. :)

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3372443)

Your statement is too broad and is your opinion. Which is what you did not want here.
Some of us parti breeders strive for color placement just as much some traditional breeders. Not everyone strives for the color on the traditional yorkies as show breeders do. There are alot more yorkies born that do not have the proper color for show and those breeders don't care what color they breed or come out as long as they can sell them.
Stop lumping Parti breeders separately than any other dog breeder.
It is not just with some parti breeders placing any ol' dog with another ol' dog, Alot more traditional breeders are doing that.

All dogs start with the breeder and you cannot lump them all together just because of the color.

Some of us Parti breeders are just as selective, careful, meticulous, health conscious and reputable as are some traditional color yorkie breeders ,as are some Biewer breeders.
Some of us Parti breeders care very deeply and passionately about what we do.
We will continue to strive for the best, to show to the world how Magnificent, Beautiful and Healthy that the Parti Colored Yorkshire Terrier Is.

In my opinion, since you gave yours. It does seem that the YTCA cares more about the color of the yorkie than anything else, including health. If that were not true, then people wouldn't be doing so much enhancing(coloring) for the show, now would they and the dog would have to have stringent health tests before ever entering the ring to guard against passing on any health related genetic issues.
But they don't, they mostly just have to be the "right color" to be a Champion. IMO Health should always come first.......

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom (Post 3372591)

The Breed Standard cares about "color". Prior to April of 1966 when the standard itself was last revised there was a scale of points included in the standard and that's how the dogs were judged. Out of 100 points coat color, texture, structure accounted for a full 50. It was a coat breed. The YTCA of today is also stressing health, temperament and structure. But judges will always recognize the correct steel blue coat. That IS the essence of the yorkshire terrier and is what sets it apart from other breeds. It's the trademark of this breed.

Are there any parti color yorkies listed on the Yorkshire Terrier CHIC page? Have any completed the two tests required for a CHIC number which are OFA Patellar Luxation and the CERF eye exam? Many claim to be breeding for health and now there is a way to start proving that the dogs that you're breeding from are sound. There are also optional tests that can be included on your dogs CHIC page. Talk of health is easy. Every one does it! CHIC offers us a way to start actually improving the health and soundness of this breed.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3372626)

There are 54 yorkies certified Chic. That's not very many is it?

Originally Posted by shodanusmc (Post 3372631)

Can anyone ansert a simple question that many people want to know? Why are Parti;s bred, and why do they cost so much? Can they be shown in AKC Conformation? Why not just buy a Standard Yorkie, unless you want a designer dog?

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom (Post 3372645)

I will answer and my view point is from one who is not in favor of the parti color movement.
How they ever showed up in the breed is a question that can never be answered. But the fact is that they're here and people are breeding them because they want to be first, to try to develop something new. There are white german shepherds, parti color poodles, white boxers and schnauzers, etc. and all are put in the category of mismarks and are not desired in the breed. That's how most feel about parti colored yorkies. They cost so much because there truly is a "sucker born every minute". They cannot be shown in AKC conformation shows. The parti color yorkie and off color yorkie is a DQ in this breed.

Originally Posted by shodanusmc (Post 3372648)

Thank you. Same as the Cane Corso that i have. White, except for a small patch is a disqualification. Unless the standard is white, why breed for it? I agree about the sucker a minute. Why anyone would pay $6,000 for one that can't be shown is unbelievable, unless they show in ARBA.

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom (Post 3372645)

I will answer and my view point is from one who is not in favor of the parti color movement. How they ever showed up in the breed is a question that can never be answered.

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom (Post 3372645)

But the fact is that they're here and people are breeding them because they want to be first, to try to develop something new.

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom (Post 3372645)

There are white german shepherds, parti color poodles, white boxers and schnauzers, etc. and all are put in the category of mismarks and are not desired in the breed. That's how most feel about parti colored yorkies.

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom (Post 3372645)

They cost so much because there truly is a "sucker born every minute". They cannot be shown in AKC conformation shows. The parti color yorkie and off color yorkie is a DQ in this breed.

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 3372715)

It my humble opinion, the question of their origin has been answered many times. Genetics.



This is making a gigantic generalization. I don't think anyone can ASSUME, simply bc of their own feelings, how an individual feels or why they are doing ANYthing. I think it's presumptive to think one can see into other people's hearts, and make claims as to why they choose to breed, walk down the street, be kind, be mean - whatever.



I'm not sure where you're getting the statistic of how the 'majority' feel. :rolleyes:



Okey dokey :eek:. Well, from this "sucker born every minute", I can assure you that I make my decisions very thoughtfully AND so did my breeder.

My GORGEOUS parti girl, Pfeiffer, wishes you only the best - she has room in her heart for everyone, even those who disapprove of her ;).