Yorkshire Terrier and the Parti/Tricolor

[concretegurl]

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...es-please.html

[FlDebra]

[quote=concretegurl;3369698]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

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!

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.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...es-please.html

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.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by dinkyweil

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!

I saw from another post your dog must have been born FEB 2010, making him a little less than a year old. How large a patch of white is left on his chest? Has it been getting smaller as he ages?

You say he is getting browner? What part? Is it the black that is getting brown, or are you saying the lighter color on him is looking brown? Another poster asked about pedigree and that would be quite helpful. Was he sold as a parti?

Some standard yorkies are born with a small white splash on their chest. It normally will all turn into the standard color as the dog matures, usually by a year old. So, it may be that your dog will have no white on it as a mature adult.

I am not at all sure what to comment on the brownish you refer to as I don't know where on your dog it is. I only saw the small avatar picture. Do you have a better picture of your dog so that you can show what you mean about the different colors?

[concretegurl]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

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.

Again? Ye okay, it was in response to Pine's links where it goes into about white Yorkies, thought it was interesting her links and then this thread going on at the same time..for some reason only the link posted though...and yes I know they ar not Partis...yes strange they change color...but then again that's kind of the nature of Yorkie coats until maturity...I wouldn't venture to debate the reasoning for them turning white,not on this thread at least, although hormones may be a very valid reasoning.

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?"

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

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.

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.

[Woogie Man]

Maybe this only adds to the confusion or maybe it helps to put things in context. When it comes to the partis and their origins, one must consider that there were crosses being made early on and that dogs from those crosses most likely made it into the KC stud books as Yorkshire Terriers.

Though many breeders certainly knew what they were looking for in their breeds early on and many breeds are much older than the dog show era, there were no 'pedigrees' as we know them today, nor official breed standards until they were drawn up by breed clubs as they were formed in the late 1800's. The 'broken haired scotch terrier' class encompassed many different dogs, including the Yorkshire and the Maltese. This mingling of different dogs into one class would have been a ripe situation for cross-breeding dogs.The first organized dog show was held in 1859. The Kennel Club had its founding in 1873. The first volume of the stud book covered 1859-1873. The first Yorkshire Terrier was entered in the stud book in 1874 and the first YT breed club started in 1898. Huddersfield Ben was born in 1865 and died in 1871. This is the backdrop for for our dogs becoming what they are today.

As things became more organized, it's easy to see how some of the crosses could have made it into the stud books and their influence may carry on today. There, however, has never been a written standard for the Yorkshire Terrier that included any color other than blue and tan.

Another similar example is with the Maltese. At one time, there were colors other than white. In the early 1900's, Maltese were crossed with poodles in America and both breeds are still affected by traits from the other. I find this 'interesting' and not completely unrelated to the parti discussion.

Here are some links.......

Yorkshire Terriers

History of the Kennel Club - The Kennel Club

The Maltese Breed History

[Pinehaven]

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.

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.

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.

[concretegurl]

[quote=FlDebra;3371191]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

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.

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.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

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?"

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.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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.

Here is a photo copy of the letter.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

Here is a photo copy of the letter.

Attachment 334221

Thanks Jeanie!

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

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.

Actually, you are missing the whole definition of what a recessive gene is. It has nothing to do with the relative strength of a gene and whether or not it is "turned on" (expressed) or "turned off" (supressed) by other genes. Recessive and Dominant refers to whether it is expressed in the homozygous or heterozygous configuration. A gene that is expressed in the heterozygous configuration (inherited from one side, but not the other, Aa or the homozygous AA) is said to be dominant. One that can only be exhibited in the homozygous (inherited from both sides, aa) is recessive.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, the presence and resorption of a vestigial tail does not pertain.

[Sweet Apple]

I'm thinking, w/the amount of responses to this thread, it's a "hot topic", and right at worthy of making an appearance on The View lol...