We do not participate in UKC. I've heard some things that sound favorable about this arena but IMO AKC events are the best place to suit our needs. I don't know anything about UKC.

Does it really matter who the bitch was? It takes two to tango in the parti world...so to speak. The recessive gene has to come from both parents for it to be expressed in one of the puppies. Meaning...the sire has to be a carrier as well.

Maltese breeder? If you say so. However, I have no idea if she owns or breeds Maltese. LOL But...just so you know..the bitch in question was sired by CH Durrer's Mighty Obsession.

If there were no such thing of any tri colors being born into yorkies why did Joan find it neccesary to write about it and include it in her book ? Why would she state that they can be born of all these other colors if it wasnt so?
From her book Page 205
"A large amount of white marks on the chest, paws, jaws or skull place a yorkie into a tri-color classification and it is very wise to guard against this possibility."
"It is not unusual to find small white marks on one or more toes or a fine white line in the lower fore jaw. These will not be visible as an adult. A large amount of white marks on the chest, paws, jaws, or skull, places a yorkie into a tri-color classification and it is very wise to guard against this possibility. Yorkshire terrier puppies can be born of colors that automatically deprive them of the necessary qualities to become the proper colors of the breed. They can be born all black: all tan: tan with black points; tri-color: black, white, and tan; all blue; bluish grey with tan points; and so remain or change to another shade of their newly born colors. These mismarked Yorkie puppies are not the result of the mis-alliances or throwbacks but are rather the net product of incorrectly inherited genes which have failed to activate the pigment glandular system to providing what they require to be in accord with the yorkshire terrier standard. Puppies incorrectly colored or marked should not be sold as rare, they should not be registered Yorkshire Terriers but should simply be found a loving home If one cannot bring oneself to having them put down."
The fact of the matter is that other colors of yorkies are born from traditional color yorkies.
Nikkos line is one line that Crownridge and Summit promoted and bred for tri's
Wildweir had a tri color puppy born from traditional yorkies, No Nikkos in their line.
Same thing for Kokopelli, Hylan, Durrer and the Biewer line of yorkies. No Nikko's in their lines
The Facts are that the Tricolored Yorkshire Terrier is AKC registered. Is it allowed to show in AKC ? No, but that certainly does not stop us from enjoying and sharing our beautiful tri color Yorkshire Terriers with people all over the world.

[B]These mismarked Yorkie puppies are not the result of the mis-alliances or throwbacks but are rather the net product of incorrectly inherited genes which have failed to activate the pigment glandular system to providing what they require to be in accord with the yorkshire terrier standard. Puppies incorrectly colored or marked should not be sold as rare, they should not be registered Yorkshire Terriers but should simply be found a loving home If one cannot bring oneself to having them put down."

If you are going to take part of what Joan Gordon says, take all of it.

I don't know who posted that YTCA breeders would not admit to having a parti yorkie but if they admit to having born blue puppies why would they not admit to a parti color one? I admit it, I had two born blue puppies about 25 years ago. Spayed and neutered the entire litter of 4 pups and the sire and dam. Never another one.

Partial Quote
That is one person's opinion. You may want to check out Joan Gordon's history of the Yorkshire Terrier online to see a differing one.

There have been many who've said the Yorkie may have been bred to the Maltese for structure, but there was no need to do so for coat. The Paisley/ Clydesdale terrier had the silky coat and was blue and tan, to boot, so is a much more likely candidate. In many ways, the Yorkshire could be considered an improved Clydesdale.

If you look into Joan Gordon's book, you'll see from photos that the early 20th century Yorkshire champions really didn't resemble the Maltese in structure so that, too, discounts the theory of the book you cited. These are the dogs the author would have been seeing in making his reference.

W don't do that because they are yorkies. You can't just change the name and start another breed. som e of the biewer people have tried that. it didn't work too well for them.

You don't know what the YTCA or the AKC will do in the future. All it will take is for some very influencial, person with money to take a fancy to the parti and things will change.

I'm not a breeder, nor do I ever intend to be one, but I have had three Yorkies and three Maltese. Their temperaments are quite different. The Maltese is very gentle and laid-back.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) was that when the various terrier breeds were mixed in the 1800's and the Yorkie breed was developed, one thing that was highly prized (maybe more than any other trait) was the dog's ratting ability. If that were what I was trying to achieve by breeding, it would never occur to me to throw a Maltese into the mix to influence some other trait (coat texture, etc), for fear of eliminating the ratting instincts in the offspring. I would stick with dogs that have that bold, terrier, ratting attitude.

The understanding that I have, from what I have read, is that there was not just one person working on developing the yorkshire terrier, or broken haired terrier, as it was called at the time. So it is entirely possible that some of the lines had maltese bred into the mix, and others did not.

At this point, it really doesn't matter. it is what it is, no matter how many times it gets discussed.

There will always be those who do not believe. So be it. Believe or don't believe, it isn't going to chnge the facts.

The YTCA and the AKC will do what it will do. None of us has a crystal ball. We do not know what they will do.

Things change, life goes on. YTCA members come and go.

The partis will be developed into a beautiful show worthy dog, of that yhou can besure. There are many breeders working on this, so it will happen. And they will be noticed.

I posted it all, TYVM. We were not discussing what should be done with them. We were discussing the part about you saying they are mixed breeds. I think her book plainly states that tri's can be born from traditional yorkies. She doesn't say they are mixed breeds.

They were highly prized as ratters until they started showing them and they became the fashionable pet of the ladies of aristocracy and of wealthy families.

De,
You really just need to consider the source :rolleyes: and move on. these people just show up out of the blue to spew their nonsense without having read the zillion other threads on this same topic. Ask yourself, Why. What is their agenda?

If they wanted to learn, they would be researching, not just coming on here to argue the same old subject that has been argued fa zillion times before.

The maltese was shown in the same group as all of those other dogs, they were all considered to be broken haired scottish terriers. So it is very possible that it was in the mix. But it is something that can be neither proven or disproven. At this pouint it really doesn't matter. the gene is there. When, where, or how it got there no one will ever know.

I agree with that. One breeder may have been doing this and another doing that. It was pretty much like the Wild West in those days until standards were firmly in place. The Maltese certainly was around and was being shown in the broken haired Scotch terrier class, along with the Yorkshire and others. If I'm remembering right, there was a very early Yorkshire breeder that also bred Maltese. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but anything's possible from that time. No matter the possible mixes that may have occurred, the standard has always been that of a blue and tan dog. Who knows what the future will bring.

That is true of the Maltese's ancestors, but by the time the Yorkie breed was being developed the Maltese had already been a lap dog for several hundred years. From: About the Maltese Breed -- Maltese History and Origin


"Descended from a Spitz-like dog which was bred for hunting rodents in the marsh and wooded areas,"

but that was the Maltese's ancestors, and not the Maltese itself. In later times (and still a very long time ago):

"As civilization rose in Europe, references are seen to the tiny, white dog. An indirect reference by Aristotle about the Maltese clearly indicates its co-existence along with other varieties of dogs indigenous to Southern Europe. Aristotle refers to the small dogs as "Canis Melitae . . . of the tiny sort, being perfectly proportioned, not withstanding its very small rise." During these times, the Maltese was a favorite lap dog of fashionable men and women about town, being carried wherever their masters went. Roman women carried them in the sleeves of their garments, and took them to bed with them. "

They've been a lap dog for a long time. Not what I would want to introduce into breeding if I prized ratting instinct.

Can a Maltese hunt? Absolutely. Mine have all been wonderful at pointing, flushing, and retrieving, but they had / have absolutely NO kill in them. Maybe you can find a ratter among them here and there, but I would classify that dog as having an improper temperament for a Maltese.

Here's a few more early opinions:

Toy dogs: the history, points and standards of English toy spaniels, Japanese spaniels, pomeranians, toy terriers, pugs, pekinese, griffon bruxellois, maltese and Italian greyhounds, with instructive chapters on breeding, rearing, feeding, training and showing ; and valuable information and treatment in sickness by Lillian C. Raymond-Mallock, 1907
Http://books.google.com/books?id=Mzg...errier&f=false

The American book of the dog: The origin, development, special characteristics, utility, breeding, training, points of judging, diseases, and kennel management of all breeds of dogs by George O. Shields, 1891
Http://books.google.com/books?id=14J...errier&f=false

American farming and stock raising: with useful facts for the household, devoted to farming in all its departments, Volume 3 by Charles Louis Flint, 1892
Http://books.google.com/books?id=tk7...errier&f=false

The dogs of the British Islands: being a series of articles on the points of their various breeds, and the treatment of the diseases to which they are subject by John Henry Walsh, 1882
The dogs of the British Islands ... - Google Books

The illustrated book of the dog by Shaw, Vero Kemball, 1881
Http://www.archive.org/stream/illust...e/154/mode/2up

In addition, the KC club says that the Maltese were probably used too. So how did we go from the early writers saying the Maltese was used in the makeup of the breed, to the present day thinking that the Maltese were not used?

The YTCA says the Clydesdale or Paisley were used for the length and texture of the coat but how readily available were those dogs to the average breeder? Possibly the Maltese was an easier dog to obtain in order to improve the length of coat.

OMG another person who thinks money can buy anything but that won't work, just like the stimulus package. That hasn't worked either.

Here's another very good early book.

The Terriers. A History And Description Of The Modern Dogs Of Great Britain And Ireland | by Rawdon B. Lee

What's good about this book is that it's available to read online in its entirety. It doesn't really address this issue but is a good read.

It's open to speculation just who used what dogs in their program at that time. I don't think there's was only one formula used by everyone, but the breed standard brought about an identifiable dog from it all.

If I read the pedigree right, the tail lines are pretty iffy and not all from show lines.

So can anyone answer where did the Clydesdale / Paisley terrier soft coat come from and who was in his background to give him the soft coat ?
All of the scotch terriers were (hard) broken haired.
The Skye breeders were up in arms about Clydesdale / Paisley because they stated the dog was not a Skye because it had a soft coat.

""After the decision against the eligibility of the silky-coated dog to compete in the Skye terrier classes, the breed rapidly declined. A few, however, held to the breed out of pure love and admiration for it, but they were few. The Paisley fanciers appear never to have lost sight of the dog, and it was not only by keeping and breeding them that they again brought the silky-coated beauties into popularity, but by instituting classes for them at the annual dog shows held at Paisley on New Year's Day. A fresh interest was thus begun in the breed, which has never been allowed to flag. . . . Breeders of hard-coated dogs, more especially if the coat be long, know how difficult it is to keep up the hard coat, on account of the washing, combing, etc, required to keep the dog in show trim, and also from the idle and indoor life exhibition dogs lead. A pup now and again will be found in a litter with a soft coat, although not quite silky in texture. These a good breeder, as a matter of course, would reject; but how many do really reject them, if they are good in other points? They perhaps do not breed from them, but they do not hesitate to sell them, and thus increase the difficulty by giving good pedigrees to such dogs. In Skye terriers the length of coat is one of the principal points; one therefore can easily understand how a pup with an extra long coat would be prized, even should the coat be a little soft. This, then, was how the Paisley terrier originated. The silky-coated dogs, from their great beauty, took the eye, and were greatly prized as pets; and as the demand increased, which it very quickly did when they began to win prizes, they were bred in large numbers, and the points now attained were only arrived at by careful selection and scientific breeding. Some dark rumours are afloat about the crosses that were resorted to to gain the points desired, but if such a thing ever took place it has never been made public. It is hinted that the Dandie had something to do with the manufacture of this breed, and we have heard it asserted that the Paisley terrier was the result of a Dandie-Skye cross, but we have seen no evidence to support this statement. We are of opinion that no cross was required, and that in the case of the best strains none took place."

From this link... The Terriers. A History And Description Of The Modern Dogs Of Great Britain And Ireland | by Rawdon B. Lee

....and here's a little something I posted earlier that is is reference to the Yorkshire (from the same book copyright 1894).

"There are some other rough-haired toy terriers, which are, however, of little account, because they have never been bred to any particular type. Occasionally wee things very like what a miniature Skye terrier would be are seen; and, again, some smart little dogs with cut ears, evidently a cross between a Yorkshire terrier and some other variety of small dog, are not at all uncommon, and were quite numerous before the dog show era commenced. Since then the general public will not look at anything other than what is considered to be of blue blood. At one of the early London shows separate classes were provided for Scotch terriers under 71b. weight and white in colour, fawns with the same limit, and blues likewise, each of the three attracting a fair entry, most of which were, however, what we should now call "cross-bred" broken-haired toy terriers."

How do you know it won't work? Do you have a crystal ball.

The only thing in life that NEVER changes, is that "things change". The next generation of YTCA members might like the parti. In a few years, the partis will have improved greatly, because we now have breeders who are not breeding partis for money. They are breeding to improve the parti.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy just about anything else.

The American book of the dog. The origin, development, special characteristics, utility, breeding, training, points of judging, diseases, and kennel management of all breeds of dogs

The above book says the paisley terrier probably inherited its soft, silky coat from a maltese cross (pg. 439).

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

...and the book I linked says this:

"Some dark rumours are afloat about the crosses that were resorted to to gain the points desired, but if such a thing ever took place it has never been made public. It is hinted that the Dandie had something to do with the manufacture of this breed, and we have heard it asserted that the Paisley terrier was the result of a Dandie-Skye cross, but we have seen no evidence to support this statement. We are of opinion that no cross was required, and that in the case of the best strains none took place."

The book I quoted from is from 1894. I don't remember but the one you cite is old, too. You can see that, even in that era, there was disagreement or differing opinions, at least. This from those who were around at the time.

It goes to show that, not only is the Yorkshire's history murky, but also that of some of the dogs that went into its makeup. I feel that all we have to really rely on is the standard. Otherwise, anyone can pick and choose their preferred history and proceed from there. Had that been done since the beginning, there would be no Yorkshire Terrier today.

So who had the sire and who had the bitch? If it takes a recessive gene, how do you know this to be a fact? Are you saying that the owners/breeders of these dogs confirmed this? How do you confirm the gene? How do you determine if you will breed it?

I enjoyed it.

I see where Raymond's Mom asked if the parti people were doing any testing of their dogs and pups but never saw an answer. Anyone doing bile acid tests, x-rays for LeggsPerthe, luxating patellas, complete blood and chemistry profiles etc?

The white gene is recessive. In order for it to be expressed it has to be present in both the dam and the sire.

Using Punnett squares, you will see the following:

Two traditional colored yorkies without the parti gene will produce only traditional colored yorkies (4:4).

A traditional colored yorkie bred to a traditional colored parti carrier will have all traditional colored pups, but have a 50% chance of passing the gene on to each off spring (2:4 are traditional without the gene, 2:4 will carry it.)

A traditional colored yorkie without the parti gene bred to a full parti will produce tradtional colored pups that all carry the parti gene (4:4).

Two traditional colored pups with parti genes will have a 1:4 chance of producing a pup without the gene, 2:4 of producing a traditional colored pup with the gene and a 1:4 chance of producing a parti colored yorkie.

Breeding two full parti's will result in only parti's (4:4)

On the other hand I would love to see all the ytca members health testing records for their dogs. I know for a fact there are some ytca members who do no health testing!