What Pstinard said...please attach a copy of the results.

Great post Nancy1999 and Yorkiemom1...as usual.

Considering that dogs have between 19,000 and 20,000 genes, and it only would only take a mutation in one or two of them to make a Yorkie not look like a Yorkie, there is nothing foolish at all about these test results and the MARS test in general--the foolishness lies in not knowing the limitations of the test and what the results do or do not mean.

Consider that there are disreputable breeders who are trying to create "new" and "exciting" colors in Yorkies by mating them with other breeds to get the color from the other breed, and then mating them back to Yorkies to transfer the color to a dog that "looks" like a Yorkie, but may actually be 25% some other breed. People will "ooh" and "aah" over that dog and swear up and down that it's a Yorkie because the size is right, the muzzle shape is right, the ears are right, the hair texture and length is right. But a MARS test will reveal that the dog is 25% some other breed, and there would have been no other way of finding that out if it weren't for DNA testing.

The point is, Minnie might be an off type due to one or two genes, and there are probably a lot of dogs that look more like a Yorkie than Minnie does, but are not purebred Yorkies, and that is not the fault of MARS, Inc. MARS is VERY customer-friendly, and if Jen has any questions about the results of Minnie's test and wants to email them a photo of Minnie to get an explanation of how Minnie could test as a Yorkie but look so different, I'm sure they would be happy to work with her further.

Just because Minnie does not look like what we believe a yorkie should look like, it is the fault of this company and test? People who blame the company that have no idea what the test is and clearly do not know that there are many many yorkies who do not fit our mold of what we think the breed looks like. Don't blame Mars...blame the greedy breeders....the ones who have NO idea what they are doing or don't care and put money first on their list. Reputable breeding does not make money for the breeders.....disreputable does.

:yeahthat:

As an addendum to my last post, I'd like to add that Minnie is indeed an off type, and far from the breed standard for Yorkshire Terriers (even if it is due to only one or two genes), and it would wise for Minnie's breeder to stop breeding Minnie's parents. But Minnie is special and beautiful in her own way, and the fact that she tests as a purebred Yorkie even though she doesn't look like one and has generated so much comment and interest makes her even more special and unique.

Did they say that Minnie was in that 10% mismatched category?

I, after all this from the OP and the breeder etc., would still like to see the results attached here. Not that I doubt, especially now that a geneticist has actually explained in more detail combined with the knowledge of what unethical, puppymills, and those breeders making money off the backs of "designer" breeds...are doing...I'd still like to see the results and the numbers, more so actually.

Pstinard, have you seen the results for yourself? Wondering if your sharing knowledge (thankful that you are) based on your studies or from the actual results that you have viewed?

Thanks for pointing those valuable things out. And I agree with you wholeheartedly. But really what good is a test if it tells us something is something it doesn't look like. I myself as a hobby breeder and have been involed with breed creation, would have never sold Minnie as a fullbred Yorkie. If anything I would have kept her for six months, had her spayed and placed in a pet home. To be honest with you any breeder that is willing to sell a puppy that is so off center from the rest, well lets just say that it comes back to bite you in your a$$ets. :rolleyes:

This is really interesting... a lot of "food for though" . I love biology and used to love the gentic studies (way back in the day lol) so I think I understand most, but not all that could have happened.

We live in an amazing time that we have all this information... it is just so cool.

One the pup is born it is a little life, and I am glad she will have the care and love she is due.

Great informational thread, how bout some tags folks.

Hi Lynzy, I haven't seen Minnie's results for myself. I've read widely, though, and I looked at the sample results for purebred dogs that are posted on the Wisdom Panel website, so I know what to look for. I would LOVE to see Minnie's results, especially, the part where they compare her sample to other Purebred Yorkies in their database--that way we can see whether she falls in the middle of other Yorkies, or whether she is on the fringe, where something fishy is more likely to be going on. To me, the 90% accuracy means that Minnie is at least 90% Yorkie (and probably more). Truly, that's the best that any DNA genetic testing can offer right now. And the fact that Minnie's vet took the DNA sample means that it is less likely to be contaminated or degraded, and the accuracy is likely to be greater. If you look at MARS Inc.'s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/DoggieDNA), they invite people to submit photos of their dogs along with the testing results for the public to view, so they have nothing to hide. They also get a number of people with questions about the results, and they answer every single post with a comment of how to contact them so they can answer their questions.

Thanks joyziegirl, and I get your point. Minnie definitely doesn't look like a purebred Yorkie, and she shouldn't have been sold as one, especially with the breeder saying that her coat would grow in later--that alone was deceptive. I am confident of Minnie's results (that she carries 90% or more Yorkie genes), and to me this shows that it only takes one or two bad genes to completely throw a wrench into a breeder's program. And I also think that the tests prove that Minnie is not a Chorkie or some other mixed breed, she is just a poorly bred Yorkie. And I'm not saying that to be mean to Minnie, because as I said, she is unique and special.

This thread would be perfect if Jen could post Minnie's results. I will PM her and ask if she can do it, or if I can help her do it.

I like many here, was very surprised at the test results. But I do have some questions floating around in my head. Exactly who are the Yorkies that make up their (Mars) comparative database? Registered Yorkies with what registry?

Did they (Mars) cross reference or somehow obtain the DNA results from AKC that does have DNA information on purebred Yorkies?

As a breeder, of a Rare Breed that is relatively new, I would expect to get some very small % of non BRT if I was to do a Wisdom Panel test - but then again, I doubt very much if they have many BRT's in their database.

I do agree with some other posters here, that the breeder should refrain from mating that particular pair again.

I also think that the breeder given a pup that seemed so far off the breed standard would have DNA'd the parents to make sure that pup was from those parents. If the answer was yes, then well and good, and at least a comment from the breeder to the buyer about how far off standard this puppy was.

It is quite sad to see so many Yorkies that look so far off standard.

What is important is that Minnie is in a good home.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
PLEASE DO!!!!

And it would be more perfect if we knew who the breeder was & what she's going to do about further breeding.

Those are all fantastic questions!!! MARS has a FAQ page that answers some, but not all of these questions: http://www.wisdompanel.com/why_test_your_dog/faqs/. They do accept DNA samples of purebred dogs to add to their DNA database, so I emailed them for their information packet on how to do this, and I am going to submit a DNA sample from my Bella :love::littleang. I also asked them how many Yorkies are in their database, and are they all AKC registered. I will let you know what I hear back from them.

Wheres my thumb woman? I said it first????:p

Pardon me for mentioning this, but...and I know I am not a geneticist nor a breeder of the Yorkshire Terrier...but it is my understanding that recessives only express when a homozygous gene pair exists. Otherwise, when a heterozygous pair exists, the recessive gene remains visibly 'invisible' unless it or a modifier can create a 'blended' outcome.

So, if short hair is dominant, and long hair is recessive in the Yorkshire Terrier, then wouldn't all Yorkshire Terriers with long hair be, by default, homozygous for that recessive gene pair?

If so, how exactly, without a mutation or modifier, or non-Yorkshire Terrier in the immediate parental mix, could two (2) homozygous recessive long-haired dogs produce a dominate homo-or-heterozygous short-haired dog?

Side note, I just looked at pics again...Minnie really is a doll, but I still don't see Yorkie, I'd really like to see results. I know of 2 black labs that had a white curly puppy but even that pup grew to look like a white curly black lab, if you know what I mean...this pup doesn't look like its growing up to look like a throwback Yorkie...I'm having a real difficult time with this one, really want to see those results....Wonder where Baboon is? hmmmmm

She was last here at 12:15 today. Guess she is still trying to post some pics for us of her breeding pair.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Sorry lynzy! I was not reading every thread....just kind of skimming thru to get kind of caught up...been a rough last 7 days around here.....in addition to the events with the fire and Memorial and funerals and emotional melt downs, my beautiful Skylar, who was not due to whelp until TOMORROW, delivered her litter prematurely, day 56, last Monday.....around the clock tube feedings every hour to every 2 hours....but, with the Support and Strength and Grace of God, we have made it thru on ALL fronts.....Jimmy is doing well with getting a grasp on the loss of his dear friend Robert.....just gone from THIS "visual present" but not from "the Other Side", where the Angels are ever present....and the precious little preemie babies, that started off at 1 - 1.5 oz at birth, have thankfully turned the corner and are doing great....I think they have survived this challenge, PTL! Onward and upward!

Don't worry, Judy, you are not the only one who doesn't read every post nor do others. I frequently see the same idea posted more than once and have done it myself and others have posted ideas I've mentioned. Don't feel bad.

I'm so glad your Jimmy is coming to terms with his friend's death and I imagine it must be so hard for him. Sounds like you've been through a lot with new babies! Hang in there!

Thanks for the link. I looked at it, and could not help looking up my breed BRT. First no National Club should have supported that narrative or that picture. Some facts are relatively correct, but YES the BRT has a standard appearance as is supported by the many breed standards throughout Russia, America, and Canada.

That standard appearance does not include a sway back with a roached sacrum and a low set tail. And if they had asked the National Clubs or any country for input, this dog can do many things and does. Service, drafting, bomb detection, police work (in at least one USA state), dock jumping, herding, water rescue to name just a few arenas they are in. They can be trained for search and rescue, but their size is an eliminating factor for many organizations that do search and rescue.

Their topline is very important and MUST BE straight. For a whole lot of very valid working dog reasons. And BTW so should the YT's topline be straight.

Now if it is indeed true that the Mars organization is using an "adhoc" database to compare new DNA samples with; that just boggles my mind.

There is an old saying; Garbage in, Garbage out....... So if the database is sourced from suspect sources, how can they realistically improve on their analysis?

So maybe their science might be the best out there, but judging soley upon what they reported as the BRT, it is very incomplete and in-accurate to say the least. That makes me question, their methodology, their commitment to accuracy, and any and all results they might come up with.

Hey you guys, im back for now. So whats goin on, im a bit confused.:p

I was curious about the Mars stuff quite some time ago. I have been there before, but didn't stomp around in their website all that much on prior occasions...mostly I looked at what tests were offered, what the reports looked like, what tests were for what, and what, in general, to expect to discover. It seemed pretty cool, all things considered.

This time, I looked up the Yorkshire Terrier and was surprised to see that included in "related breeds" to the Yorkie, along with Maltese, Havanese, and others I do not understand, was a "Greyhound" breed. Very curious...and I did not see any elaboration as to why they consider the breeds "related" either...but I suppose we are expected to trust the testing...?

Surely u know I was kidding? Judy very glad things r turning around and the grace of God was once again at work...I wish and pray for only good things...

I did but Judy sounded kinda serious I thought maybe she was having a bad time today. Sounded kind of down.

Good question! Either the breeder lied about the appearance or identity of Minnie's parents (i. e. one of them was a heterozygous short-haired Yorkie), or Minnie underwent a spontaneous mutation early in her development and acquired the dominant gene in that way (in which case she would be heterozygous). A third possibility is that Minnie's parents carry an unknown recessive gene for short hair that hasn't been widely published on. I searched the literature and didn't come across anything, but that doesn't mean that such a gene doesn't exist. That's why I encourage Minnie's breeder to stop breeding her parents.